UNLOCK YOUR HIP FLEXORS

Friday, October 31, 2008

News To Obama: The OECD Says The United States Has The Most Progressive Tax System!

October 29, 2008

News To Obama: The OECD Says The United States Has The Most Progressive Tax System

by Scott A. Hodge

Barack Obama's admission that his policies would "spread the wealth around" has ignited a nationwide discussion of how progressive the tax system should be and how it should be used to redistribute income among Americans. Obama has been very successful in bolstering the conventional wisdom that the U.S. tax system does not place a significant enough burden on wealthier households and places too much of a burden on the "middle class."

But a new study on inequality by researchers at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris reveals that when it comes to household taxes (income taxes and employee social security contributions) the U.S. "has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10% of the population." As Column 1 in the table below shows, the U.S. tax system is far more progressive—meaning pro-poor—than similar systems in countries most Americans identify with high taxes, such as France and Sweden.

Even after accounting for the fact that the top 10 percent of households in the U.S. have one of the highest shares of market income among OECD nations, our tax system is second only to Ireland in terms of its progressivity for households.

The table also shows that the U.S. collects more household tax revenue from the top 10 percent of households than any other country and extracts the most from that income group relative to their share of the nation's income.


Of course, these measures do not include the litany of other taxes households pay in each country, such as Value Added Taxes, corporate income taxes and excise taxes, but they do give a good indication that our system places a heavier tax burden on high-income households than other industrialized countries.

The study also shows that while most countries rely more on cash transfers than taxes to redistribute income, the U.S. stands out as "achieving greater redistribution through the tax system than through cash transfers."[1]

Overall, the study finds that income transfer systems (social insurance, welfare) are "significantly more efficient than tax systems at reducing inequality, as well as more effective..."

Obama has started an important debate for America, but it is too bad he did so with less than one week before the presidential election.

Table 4.5. Alternative measures of progressivity of taxes in selected OECD countries, mid-2000s

See CHARTS

Source: Computations based on OECD income distribution questionnaire.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/422013187855

Slippery slope: TAX HIKE IF YOU MAKE MORE THAN $120,000!

Ah the slippery slope of socialist liars. First Obama says everybody under $250,000 gets a tax cut. Then he lowered it to $200,000. Then Joe Biden lowered it to $150,000. Here’s a great McCain ad covering that chicanery. Then Bill Richardson announces that taxes will go up on everybody making $120,000 or more.
LISTEN AND LEARN!

If Obama wins, I won't have to work anymore!!!

Obama's been buyin' votes...now you know his secret!

See it to believe it

MIT: Global Warming theory contradicts scientific data

Boston (MA) - Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

Read the whole thing!

Historic...and catastrophic

From Thomas Sowell:
Some elections are routine, some are important and some are historic. If Senator John McCain wins this election, it will probably go down in history as routine. But if Senator Barack Obama wins, it is more likely to be historic-- and catastrophic.
Find out why here

EXCLUSIVE: Ali Abunimah is Likely Source of Secreted Obama/Khalidi/Ayers Tape

**** UPDATE: Can Ali Abunimah be bought off for $175,000? Depends on what he's getting from greater Arabia, Islamia, and Obama. ****

There has been much discussion throughout the Net about a secreted video showing Barack Obama at a dinner with terrorists Bill Ayers and wife Bernadine Dohrn, and the anti-Semitic Arafat advisor, Rashid Khalidi.

The Los Angeles Times has a copy of the tape, but won't release it because they said the source--whom I believe is Arab American Action Network (AAAN) founder and anti-Israel Palestinian activist Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada--required it not be released as a condition of sharing it. That's because it likely shows Obama applauding an anti-Semitic, anti-Israel poem that was read at the dinner.

Read the whole thing!

Why does Obama continue to hide his records?

Why wont Obama release birth certificate? Lawsuits pile up alleging Obama is not eligible to run for President

This post provides a good summary of the issues surrounding Obama's kenyan birth lawsuits. The post was made in response to news that a PA legislator shocked to discover Obama had not produced a birth certificate is proposing legislation to mandate all future candidates for President produce a birth certificate.

Obama could put this to rest by unsealing EVERYTHING
posted by Morgaan Sinclair source PolitickPa

Read the list here!

Thursday, October 30, 2008

AP: What Obama DIDN'T tell you

Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are—beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Frodo in a World of Boromirs

One mark of a great metaphor is that it functions on several levels. In this respect J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings can be, and has been, interpreted to mean any number of things by its central metaphor of “One Ring to rule them all.” The battle over the Master-ring some have read as an allegory of the battle between the Allied and Axis powers in World War II. Christians may find in it a mirror of the battle between Satan and God; socialists (and communists), a reenactment of the class war between capitalists and the working masses; environmentalists, a saga about the clash between industrialization and nature. Still others take it simply as a rousing tale so fine in the telling that these other possible layers of meaning become moot, or at least secondary.

Perhaps all of these views are valid; perhaps none are. That is the measure of how deeply and carefully Tolkien wrought his magic.

For me the Dark Lord’s terrible ring holds another meaning, one that might serve as a warning for any age, but particularly, I fear, for our own. I see in it the lure of political power, specifically the ultimate power of the modern nation-state. And I must admit, even in trying to discuss this concept with most of those nearest and dearest to me, I feel like Frodo in a world of Boromirs.

Loved "The Lord of the Rings?" Read the whole thing!

Media: A major newspaper suppresses damning video of Barack Obama partying with pro-terrorism radicals. Meanwhile, Obama punishes news outlets that do their jobs. Fairness Doctrine anyone?

Axis of Bias

Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter

TO OBAMA: From a constitutional lawyer with FOUR degrees from Harvard:

America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”

Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?

Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.

In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.

The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:

regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.
This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.

True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).

Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face.

To be sure, no one has yet voted for Obama in the general election. But does that mean that no one in any group smaller than the general pool of America’s voters in its entirety has suffered specific harm from Obama’s participation in the electoral process to date? Or will suffer such harm from his continuing participation? What about the Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton as their party’s nominee, but were saddled with Obama because other Democrats voted for him even though they could not legally have done so if his lack of eligibility for “the Office of President” had been judicially determined before the Democratic primaries or convention? What about the States that have registered Obama as a legitimate candidate for President, but will have been deceived, perhaps even defrauded, if he is proven not to be “a natural born Citizen”? And as far as the general election is concerned, what about the voters among erstwhile Republicans and Independents who do not want John McCain as President, and therefore will vote for Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter) as “the lesser of two evils,” but who later on may have their votes effectively thrown out, and may have to suffer McCain’s being declared the winner of the election, if Obama’s ineligibility is established? Or what about those voters who made monetary contributions to Obama’s campaign, but may at length discover that their funds went, not only to an ineligible candidate, but to one who knew he was ineligible?

These obvious harms pale into insignificance, however, compared to the national disaster of having an outright usurper purportedly “elected” as “President.” In this situation, it is downright idiocy to claim, as did the judge in Berg v. Obama, that a “generalized” injury somehow constitutes no judicially cognizable injury at all. Self-evidently, to claim that a “generalized” grievance negates “the existence of an injury in fact” is patently illogical—for if everyone in any group can complain of the same harm of which any one of them can complain, then the existence of some harm cannot be denied; and the more people who can complain of that harm, the greater the aggregate or cumulative seriousness of the injury. The whole may not be greater than the sum of its parts; but it is at least equal to that sum! Moreover, for a judge to rule that no injury redressable in a court of law exists, precisely because everyone in America will be subjected to an individual posing as “the President” but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is not) the President, sets America on the course of judicially assisted political suicide. If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”

Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in Berg v. Obama that,

[i]f, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like [Berg]. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that [Berg] attempts to bring * * * .
Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no constitutional “Case[ ]” because he has no “standing,” and that he has no “standing” because he has no “injury in fact,” only a “generalized” “grievance.” This purports to be a finding of constitutional law: namely, that constitutionally no “Case[ ]” exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally grant “standing” to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals have no “standing”? If “standing” is a constitutional conception, and the courts deny that “standing” exists in a situation such as this, and the courts have the final say as to what the Constitution means—then Congress lacks any power to contradict them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution includes within “the judicial Power.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-180 (1803).

In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action”—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for “the Office of President” must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That “Case[ ]” is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a “Case[ ]” in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted.

What are some of those consequences?

First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:

[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”

Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”

Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.

Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”

Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.

Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.

The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.

Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.

Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

Was Obama there?

I may have never found proof that Obama was at Kennedy Airport on September 26, 1981, when Weather Underground terrorists blinded an innocent man, but did I uncover evidence to suggest he could have been there. In fact, all the facts point in the direction that he could very likely have gone to the protest, because protesting against apartheid was by his own admission his field of interest at the time. And he was in New York on that day. But primarily because very little is known about that period in Obama's life, we may never find out the real story.
Read the whole report!

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

L.A. Times Suppresses Damaging Obama Videotape

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:51 PM

By: Jim Meyers Article

The Los Angeles Times is refusing to release a videotape showing Barack Obama attending an event in Chicago honoring a Palestinian activist who formerly served as a spokesman for Yasser Arafat.

The 2003 event was a farewell party for Rashid Khalidi, who was leaving the University of Chicago to take a position at Columbia University in New York.

Obama, then an Illinois state senator, lavished praise on Khalidi at the party, which was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network. So did unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, according to Andrew C. McCarthy, contributing editor at National Review, who disclosed Khalidi’s link to “master terrorist” Arafat.

Back in April, Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times wrote about the party and disclosed: “The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.”

But as the Boston Herald noted about the videotape, “The Los Angeles Times refuses to release it.”

Read the whole thing!

Now it's $150,000!

Talk about shifty...Obama changes his tune depending on what day it is, and now his running mate states that anyone making over $150,000 (not $250,000 or $200,000!) will get tax hikes...YIKES!

Working hard to get ahead? Why bother, if Obama gets elected!

Good-bye America-- Hello Tinpot Dictatorship

Helen Jones-Kelley, a maximum Barack Obama donor, approved illegal checks into Joe the Plumber's records after he confronted Obama.

Read the whole sorry thing!

French President Sarkozy: Obama's stance on Iran "utterly immature!"

Obama wants you to think our allies adore him...but they don't.

Read the whole thing

The Democratic Party: Then and Now



'One man with courage makes a majority.'

- Andrew Jackson



The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.'

- Franklin D. Roosevelt



'The buck stops here.'

- Harry S. Truman



'Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.'

- John F. Kennedy




And for today's Democrats...




'It depends what your definition of 'IS' is?''

- Bill Clinton



'That Obama - I would like to cut his NUTS off.'

- Jesse Jackson



'Those rumors are false .... I believe in the sanctity of marriage.'

- John Edwards



'I invented the Internet'

- Al Gore



'The next person that tells me I'm not religious, I'm going to shove my rosary beads up their ***.'

- Joe Biden



'America is--is no longer, uh, what it--it, uh, could be, uh what it was once was...uh, and I say to myself, 'uh, I don't want that future, uh, uh for my children.' ''

- Barack Obama



'I have campaigned in all 57 states.

- Barack Obama



'You don't need God anymore, you have us democrats.'

- Nancy Pelosi (said back in 2006)



'Bill is the greatest husband and father I know. No one is more faithful, true, and honest than he.'

- Hillary Clinton (said back in 1998)

Monday, October 27, 2008

Biden Bans Another TV Station After Tough Interview

Someone pinch me... Is this the US or some tinpot dictatorship?
Read it...so you'll be prepared for the dictatorship that's coming if Obama is elected...and don't forget, the Democrats are already talking about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine which will kill talk radio.

Obama: Constitution flawed--we must redistribute the wealth

... and we must redistribute it to African-Americans.

Listen and learn

Sunday, October 26, 2008

What do Barack Obama, Tony Rezko and "The Godfather" all have in common?

FIND OUT HERE!

Barbarians at the gates...of the White House

As the stomach turns...

Watch it here

Where are all of Obama's records? (Everyone else has had to produce them!)

Medical...college...university...ORIGINAL birth certificate...

Apparently that "new level of honesty and transparency" he swore he'd bring to the White House won't include all these missing documents!

Find out here!

Terrorists say they'll get better deals if Obama elected

JERUSALEM – Hamas is postponing major policy decisions until after next month's U.S. presidential elections, believing the terror group will get better deals in the Palestinian arena if Sen. Barack Obama is elected to office, a senior Palestinian official charged.

"Hamas is not serious in PA dialogue with Fatah. They are postponing dialogue until new American elections, hoping that Obama wins," said Azzam al-Ahmad, the Palestinian parliament head for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization.

Read the whole thing!

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Kenyans Warn Americans About Obama Victory

I'm not a bit surprised about this. After all, Obama used taxpayer money to fly to Kenya to support his cousin Raila Odinga when he ran for President in the 2007 election there. Odinga signed a pledge to institute Sharia Law (you know...where a man can legally kill his wife and/or children if he thinks they disobeyed him)...and his followers burned a churchful of Christian women and children.

Read it here

Dems announce they will cut military spending by 25%

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) of Fannie-gate fame, announced yesterday that he wants a 25% cut in military spending. He also echoed Barack Obama and wants to slash defense projects...Democratic Leaders also have already proposed nationalizing 401K plans.
Yeah, let's cut the military spending! That'll really make is safer in an unsafe world. Gosh, why didn't John McCain think of that?

Read about it here

Friday, October 24, 2008

The Great Leftist Con Game: How the New Left is Hijacking the U.S. in Plain Sight and How to Fix It

By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards

Posted 10/17/08

Imagine no possessions…
Except for the five apartments at the Dakota Yoko bought me when I was on a one year bender in LA with Harry Nilson and raising Sean for 7 years...
It's easy if you try…
No Hell below us…above us only sky
By John Lennon (if he had been writing truthfully and not believing his own "working class hero" press garbage)

THE PROBLEM

With the collapse of the brash, tacky and over-the-top anti-war movement of the 1960's, the radicals went back to work…very quietly. Using Saul Alinsky as their mentor and Alinsky's Rules for Radicals as their playbook the attack has been stealthy and brilliant. It has been a slow, methodical and clever infestation of the media, academia and our largest urban areas - New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Detroit, etc. It has been going on since the 1970's.

In 2006 two important books were published about the LA lifestyle in Laurel Canyon in the 1960's and 70's: Laurel Canyon by Michael Walker and Hotel California by Barney Hoskyns.

We know the artists, the songs, and the behind-the-scenes players. The songs were the soundtrack for that period. The Troubadour, The Byrds, Buffalo Springfield, The Eagles, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, Joni Mitchell, Linda Rondstadt, James Taylor, Carol King, Randy Newman, Jackson Browne, Mama Cass, Frank Zappa, David Geffen, Lenny Waronker and Elliot Roberts. They were a veritable cornucopia of navel-gazing, self-obsessed hippie narcissists.

What did they all have in common? They started off poor, hungry, and with a drive to make it. They all did. They got rich singing and publishing songs of peace, anti-war angst, inner meaning, loneliness, love won and lost, and what have you.

When these proto-capitalist/hippies got their piece of the pie the scene switched from funky-divey Laurel Canyon to trendy Bel Air, but the message stayed the same... a thinly veiled leftist charge that, at it's heart, made everyone who profited hypocrites of the highest order. While the public message was peace, love, sharing and understanding, behind the curtain it was all about the money and as cutthroat as any Big Oil boardroom.

Legendary producer and musician Jimmy Webb said it best in Hotel California:

"I was instinctively drawn to people like Joni, because I knew she was a real artist. But I wasn't welcomed with open arms. You had to prove that you were a dyed-in-the -wool left-winger and that you'd been to the barricades. I'd achieved fame and fortune with very outspoken middle-of-the-roaders like Glen Campbell, who'd had John Wayne on his television show. So I came into this world of exquisite artists that I really wanted to be on intimate terms with, having to explain that I, too, used drugs and was really very hip."

So it goes with leftists…present the struggling revolutionary to the public while cleaning up on the side. It's been going on since the Bolshevik Revolution.

From the folks who brought you the 1968 riots, the disastrous Chicago Democratic National Convention of 1968 and the Chicago 7 trial, enter the Radicals from Chicago.

What does the Laurel Canyon crowd have in common with the Radicals from Chicago?

Let's meet the players:

• Terrorist and jihadist enabler Barack Obama
• Weather Underground terrorist/bomber turned "respected" college professor and education "reformer" William Ayres
• Liberation Theology and Trinity Church preaching, America-hating and Jew-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright
• Nation of Islam leading America-hating and Jew-hating Louis Farrakhan

All of these guys started out as "community organizer" and religious "icon" street activists on the Southside of Chicago. They were peddling the message of hope and change to the poor community. But most importantly they were preaching "The Man done you wrong and it's time for some payback". And the victim and grievance business was good.

Liberals, in their endless and shameless class warfare game, are very fond of the following shibboleth: "you can't balance the budget on the backs of the poor by giving tax breaks to the rich." But if there was ever a group of leftist con men who balanced their own budgets on the backs of the very poor people they were professing to help it was The Four Horseman of the Barackopolis.

The Four Horseman did get paid….big time. While the communities they worked in are still (I'm shocked….SHOCKED!) urban shit holes, Ayres, Wright, Farrakhan and Obama all live within a few blocks of each other in toney Hyde Park, a few miles and a million economic miles away from the folks they have been preying on for the last 40 years. Obama, when questioned about this rogue's gallery, routinely says 'so and so is not an advisor and not a member of my campaign,' and the "in-the-tank-press" just nods their collective noggins in agreement. But these leftist scumbags from Obama's past keep crawling out from under the rocks.

Like the Laurel Canyon crowd that conned the white middle class into buying the vinyl and the CD's with the peace message, the Four Horseman conned the black community promising some payback and a better life. But, amazingly, the poor are still poor. In fact, while the Four Horseman of the Barackopolis are living large in Hyde Park, the murder rate in South Chicago has gone through the roof. The education "reforms" pushed by Ayres and the Chicago Annenburg Challenge (CAC), administered by Obama, were a failure, and any "organizing" Obama did obviously was an amazing "success"….NOT. Obama's efforts were more about Obama's career and street cred than actually improving conditions on the ground.

But these four con artists got rich in the process. Now they want to do to the rest of us what they did to Chicago.

In his autobiography Radical Son, ex-60's radical-turned-conservative, David Horowitz tells the story of working at the influential left wing rag Ramparts in the 1960's with Todd Gitlin (now a professor of journalism at Columbia University) and Robert Scheer (recently fired from the LA Times in 2007) . A small side note here: Scheer and ex-LA Times editor Michael Kinsley were both fired but they were continually showing up in the Sunday Editorial section until, due to a loss of circulation and advertising revenue, the paper drastically cut sections out of the publication, notably the Opinion and Book section. But I digress. Horowitz and Scheer parted ways at Ramparts. Horowitz later ran into Scheer in Los Angeles. Scheer was all decked out in establishment clothing. Horowitz questioned the new look and Scheer said "I'm working at the LA Times….I'm going to bore from within."

In that one statement Scheer crystallized the New Left's strategy… an ongoing effort since the 1970's to undermine the media, academia and the cities and become part of the process by joining the establishment they railed against as young 60's radicals.

The media, academia and the cities have one thing in common...they are all run by liberals and socialists. And the socialists and liberals have managed to ruin all three institutions without a peep or a challenge coming from the American people. Now, unlike the liberals and social activists who don't hold real jobs, us regular folks can be partially forgiven because we are actually busy earning a living and raising kids. We have lives. But our 'mandatory sleep period' has ended…it's time for the folks to walk and chew gum…time for a little multi-tasking.

Let's examine these three institutions one by one.

Academia

Our Universities have devolved into little more than socialist propaganda mills where diversity, multiculturalism and politically correct campus speech codes are the order of the day. There are all manner of radical student groups on campus supporting women's rights, black rights, Hispanic rights, gay rights, Muslim rights, terrorist's rights, affirmative action, smoking bans and global warming. Pick an aggrieved group and there is a student group supporting it.

There are endless "soft studies" departments including women's studies, black studies, Hispanic studies, Arab studies, Middle Eastern Studies, Pacific Islander studies, peace studies, ethnic studies. These fake programs prepare the students for nothing more than a career in academia (or a career in the overthrow of the United States) so the same useless, politically correct fluff can be recycled. We liken it to kids in Pakistan sitting in a madrassa reciting the Koran, which prepares them to be a dysfunctional adult living in a dysfunctional society.

In truth, these idiotic college programs are little more than ethnic and grievance platforms for aging 1960's barely-functional beard-scratching radicals to sound off about Bush, the war on terror, women earning 70 cents for every dollar a man earns, endless white suppression of minorities, and how "white man's greed runs a world in need." David Horowitz has written extensively about these frauds in his book The Professors-The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. Of late, the anti-American rants and screeds have spilled over to the science, math and history programs. These professors were probably feeling a little left out. The work of America-hating historian Howard Zinn, especially A People's History of the United States, is required reading for all budding radicals and the unfortunate captive audiences just trying to get a degree.

The situation on campus is so dysfunctional that, on graduation day, students are demanding separate but equal graduation ceremonies based on race and/or religion. There just wasn't enough time for the "professors" to explain Brown vs. Board of Education 1954 to all of these busy 'Che' wannabes.

Here are just a handful of the most notorious professors wasting our time and money at the college level:

Angela Davis

Let's have a look at our girl's resume:

• Tenured Communist professor at the University of California's Santa Cruz campus
• Former member of the Black Panther Party
• Recipient of the Lenin "Peace Prize" from the police state of East Germany in 1979
• Provided an arsenal of weapons to Black Panthers who used them to kill a Marin Country judge in a failed attempt to free Davis' imprisoned lover, Black Panther murderer George Jackson
• Sacred cow of the New Left and frequent guest speaker at anti-war rallies
• Earns, at taxpayer expense, a six-figure salary. This income is supplemented by speaking fees ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 per appearance on college campuses.
• Leader of a movement to free all minority criminals claiming that they are political prisoners of the oppressive white system.
• Notable quote: "The only path of liberation for black people is that which leads toward complete and radical overthrow of the capitalist class."
• Davis has also taught at UCLA and the State University of New York at Stony Brook, also at taxpayer expense.
What a classy gal…just don't bring her home to meet the parents unless they have voted or are voting for Obama.

William Ayres

• Founding member of the Weather Underground along with Terrorist wife Bernardine Dorhn.
• During the 1960's he bombed the Pentagon and The U.S. Capital in protesting the Vietnam War.
• His case was dismissed on a technicality.
• Recast himself as a respected University professor in Chicago where he has worked on education "reforms"
• Set up the Chicago Annenburg Challenge (CAC) to pump $150,000,000 dollars into schools. Most of the money went to Ayes' pet radical school programs. These failed projects were little more than left wing madrassas that taught Afro-Centric anti-American propaganda.
• Ayres hired Barack Obama to administer the Chicago Annenburg Challenge (CAC) money.
• Concerning the bombings of the 1960's Ayres said: "I feel we didn't do enough".
• Describes himself as an avowed leftist and "small c" communist.
• Held a fundraiser at his home for Obama that helped launch Obama's political career.
Ayres is real gem…he should be in jail for the bombings but the Feds blew the case. "Guilty as sin, free as a bird" says Ayres.

Rashid Khalidi

• The Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University.
• Presides over a $300,000 annual grant from the federal government.
• Former operative and publicity guy for the PLO.
• Supporter of "legitimate Palestinian resistance" (terrorism) that results in the deaths of Israeli civilians.
• Rejects the two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
• Facilitated the visit by Iranian strongman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Columbia University in 2007.
• Traded his kefiyah for a suit and tie so he wouldn't look like a scary terrorist when he became a "respected professor".

I wanna party with that guy…

The Obama connection: before joining the leftist cabal at Columbia Rashid Khalidi was a professor at the University of Chicago, where he served as Director of both the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and the Center for International Studies (so what else is new?). While at Chicago U. Khalidi held a fundraiser for Obama. What is it about Obama's terrorist connections and fundraisers?

Todd Gitlin

The route to journalistic respect and reward runs through Todd Gitlin's class at the "prestigious" Columbia School of Journalism. Of course only the choir refers to Columbia's journalism school as prestigious…we prefer the Columbia School of the Big Lie for Propagandists in Training.

Gitlin used to waste paper and ink at the left wing rag 'Ramparts' along with Robert Scheer and David Horowitz before gaining "respectability" in the 'Moscow on the Hudson' think tank.

Ward Churchill

Ward Churchill is the disgraced and fired University of Colorado Ethnic Studies "professor" who called the 3000 people killed at the Trade center "little Eichmanns."

Surprisingly that remark did not get him fired. It was found that he was pretending to be Native American and had plagiarized a few of his writings. That's what really pissed off the powers that be at the University of Colorado. It took over a year for the university to dump this jerk.

To listen to a few of his incoherent rantings on YouTube it becomes obvious that this man is truly insane…and he was earning over $100,000 per year on the taxpayer dime.

The aforementioned creatures are an affront to every concept of what a university education is supposed to be. They are stealing from you and me and are perpetrating a fraud on the students and the alumni of these universities. They are grifters and the university is the mark. They know what they are...now you know who they are.

At $15,000-$30,000 per year for tuition Mom and Dad should be concerned if they are getting their money's worth for Junior's education at these elite education propaganda mills and Ivy League mental institutions of higher learning.

A better deal for cash-strapped parents would be to send the little geniuses to a smaller college like California State University at Northridge (CSUN for those in the know). At a much lower tuition rate Junior can thrill to the anti-American rantings of one Rudolfo Acuna, a tenured pro-Reconquista Hispanic Studies professor who teaches that California is really part of Mexico. Ivy League Anti-American Studies at Walmart prices. Who knew?

What happened to actual subjects and universities as centers of advanced learning?

The situation is little better at the high school and junior high school level. The liberal controlled teachers unions have made it impossible to fire incompetent teachers and have blocked all attempts to give parents a choice as to where they send their kids. The teachers unions actively resist school vouchers because their power rests in their control of federal and state dollars. Parents can't choose to send their children to a better school even if they wanted to. So inner city kids are stuck in failing schools.

The diversity celebrating, multicultural-loving, leftist agenda is also on full display. Our kids are being taught that "Heather has two mommies." In San Francisco first graders are bussed to City Hall to attend gay weddings under the guise of a school-sanctioned field trip. Global warming is being force-fed down the throats of our children. And, of course, the teachers engage in the usual Bush-bashing and anti-American brain-washing. And the kids still can't read and write at grade level.

But every two years there is always some silly "save our schools" proposition on the ballot that sink the states further into debt if passed. So more and more taxpayer dollars get thrown into a corrupt dysfunctional school system and the schools never get any better.

At it's most fundamental level socialism is easy…capitalism and self-reliance are difficult. By eliminating the emphasis on real learning, grades and competition, by stressing self-esteem and social promotion, our schools are not preparing students for the real world. By dumbing down the curriculum the schools are churning out barely literate graduates. They pass these little socialist-in-training zombies on to the colleges where remedial reading and math courses mix with the soft studies. Again the emphasis is on socialist indoctrination and the high school message is reinforced. By the time the students graduate they are so indoctrinated into the entitlement mentality they are ill-equipped to deal with the ups and downs of life. This is right out of the Karl Marx/Hugo Chavez/Saul Alinsky/William Ayres approach to using education for social justice and revolution rather than actually having an educational system that works.

The schools and the teacher's unions have a vested interest in keeping this status quo because the Democratic Party runs candidates who reinforce this attitude and mindset. A barely educated population is easily swayed and easily led. The "discussion of the issues," as Democrats so fondly pine away for every campaign, is impossible if the constituency can't read, write or grasp the basic facts of the issues. The economic meltdown of 2008 is a prime example of how the issue is obfuscated and pettifogged by the liberals. How can you have a sane discussion of foreign policy when most folks can't find Iraq or Iran on a map? Socialism is easy.

The liberals may say they want a discussion of the issues but they are just fine keeping the folks in the dark and keeping our schools at their current substandard levels.

The Media

There is a journalistic double standard, one for Republicans where the bar is set impossibly high and one for Democrats where there is no bar at all. That is just fine with us…it reinforces conservatives' integrity. Let's stop whining about it and take advantage of it. Remember, when conservatives break the rules we clean out our own house. When Democrats get caught they get re-elected.

If the liberal media is guilty of anything in their long slide to irrelevance it is the Sin of Omission. When the Iraq War was going badly every IED explosion was front page news in the NY Times. Indeed, two weeks into both wars the word "quagmire" became the defeatist word du jour. Now that both wars have stabilized and the surge has worked all war news is relegated to page A20 of the main section. The liberal press worked overtime to insure defeat on the front page. Now that the news is good the press is working overtime to keep the story quiet so the perception of defeat will remain in the publics' mind. Good news in Iraq and Afghanistan is bad news for liberals.

The press is now an active participant in supporting and rooting for an Obama victory. The NY Times and MSNBC are Obama central. They have spent the last two years covering up rather than covering this fraud and his campaign. There has been absolutely no effort made in exposing the bizarre cast of characters in Obama's past. When the Rev. Wright controversy finally bubbled up they made excuse after excuse for Obama. William Ayres is "just a guy in my neighborhood". The press nodded in lockstep.

But put a person like Sarah Palin or Joe the Plumber into play and, all of a sudden, all of these "investigative" journalists start acting like they are in a fox hunt. "RELEASE THE HOUNDS!! Now we can really do our jobs."

They are crawling under every rock to dig up the dirt. They are mocking the two of them in every media venue. For a party that claims to be for the little guy and the middle class, every time an actual middle class person enters the liberal radar screen and resonates with the public the press and the elites try to degrade that person and develop a severe case of "fill-in-the-blank derangement syndrome."

Just think about this...in the 48 hours after the Republican Convention, and in the 48 hours after the final presidential debate we learned more about the backgrounds of Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber than in the two years the media has been supposedly covering:

• The Obama/Ayers and the Obama/Wright relationships
• Obama and the The Chicago Annenburg Challenge (CAC)
• Obama's relationship with ACORN
• Obama's New York City years
• Obama's Certificate of Live Birth
• Obama's Illinois State Senate Record
• Obama's Transcripts and school history
• Obama's Pakistan trip at a time when American's were forbidden to travel there
• Obama's New Party links

2008 will be known as the year all journalistic standards finally collapsed, the media dropped the pretense of fairness and openly went into the tank for Obama and the liberals…while still claiming their integrity was intact.

The newspapers and the three networks are on life support. Subscriptions and viewership have been on the slide for over a decade and it is just a matter of time before they finally collapse. Like Air America, the failed liberal talk radio network propped up George Soros and MoveOn.org, these media dinosaurs are being artificially kept alive by desperate corporate dollars being pumped into their veins. In the real world, where balance sheets and business sense hold sway, these fake artifices would have disappeared years ago.

The popular culture is riddled with leftist who make anti-American films and record anti-social drivel. It's hard to go to the movies today. There are a plethora of actors and actresses playing tough guys on film. It's hard to buy them in their roles when they publicly come out for "peace at any price" and spit in the face of ordinary Americans with their socialist politics…all the while getting rich at our expense.

The Cities

The blacks who are blindly and blithely voting for Obama are, somehow, expecting Obama to improve their lives when he enters the White House…that they are going to finally get paid. They are still falling for the con. If Bill Clinton represented deferred hope to minorities, Obama is the embodiment of entitled fulfillment.

And in four years, at the end of a failed Obama administration, when they are still sitting in the midst of their own rubble, when they have spent the few entitlement scraps that the Democrats have tossed them, they will still be poor….and very pissed off. No fulfillment here. Fucked over again. How could this happen…he was one of us.

Yes, he was supposed to be your Man…that's what he told you… but he is also the New Left's Ultimate Con Man.

The question is why do voters tolerate this garbage. In Detroit the Democrat mayor recently went to jail on corruption charges. In San Francisco and Los Angeles Mayor Gavin Newsome's and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's support of sanctuary city policies make a mockery of immigration enforcement and have led to a series of killing of U.S. citizens and cops by illegal aliens.

What has Rep. Maxine Waters actually accomplished for the people of Inglewood and South Central Los Angeles. Those areas of the city are gang infested third world dumps. Waters sits on the House Energy Committee and threatens to nationalize the oil industry instead of taking care of business at home. Meanwhile she led the charge to keep Walmart from opening a superstore in her district claiming that the mom-and-pops would go out of business. The 500-700 jobs that Walmart would have created and the cash infusion into the area never materialized and the few mom-and-pops are forever struggling to stay in business with their handful employees.

The city councils of our large cities are nothing more than socialist legislation factories with the mayors rubberstamping everything. Meanwhile taxes continually go up and everything gets worse.

So why do blacks and Hispanics keep voting these clowns back into office if nothing changes? The have fallen for the con and they think that the Democrats are looking out for them.

THE SOLUTION

When Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 he took office with a Democratic majority in both houses. Though he posited himself as a centrist he immediately was pulled to the left by the liberal-controlled Congress. We got questionable cabinet appointees, gays in the military and Hillary care. In 1994 the extreme agenda of the left was repudiated by the country and both houses of Congress flipped for the first time in 40 years.

The left will never be more powerful than it will be on Jan 27, 2009. The same thing will happen as happened in 1992. An even more extreme agenda will be on full display…the liberals will overreach. With the right kind of leadership and a Gingrich-like partisan razor leading the charge we can engineer another takeover in 2010.

Be aware: one of the first things that the liberals will try to do is bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Democrats held sway in Congress for 40 years largely because there was no counterweight to balance the liberal media. Rush Limbaugh and the rise of conservative talk radio altered the equation and the liberals know that. This blatant attack on free speech should be the first rallying point for conservatives on the road back to power.

Academia

Why do we tolerate and pay for these dysfunctional charlatans on our state funded high school and college campuses? Why do we tolerate girly-man University Chancellors and school boards who won't do the right thing and fire the bad apples. Why do they hire them in the first place? We suspect that the concept of vetting does not exist in the leftist psyche and that these high school and university hiring officials are dazzled by a little bit of radical chic.

We can and should demand better of our educational institutions. One way is for the alumni to stop giving money to the colleges and demand better professors and administrators. Another solution is to have conservatives run for the local school boards. Voters should keep defying the entrenched teachers unions and push for school vouchers. More and more parents are pulling their kids out of a failed system and opting for home schooling or setting up alternative schools. Finally the concept of academic tenure needs to be re-evaluated. How many of you have a job for life?

The Media

CBS News, NBC News and ABC News somehow still think they actually matter. Stop watching the network news altogether. Katie Couric has always suffered from poor ratings despite every corporate effort to prop her up. Charlie Gibson and Brian Williams aren't faring much better. Bill O'Reilly actually beats CBS and Couric head to head. The interviews with Sarah Palin were a condescending joke. Enough is enough. Stop doing the interviews with these charlatans.

To be a conservative is about as un-hip as it gets. Be proud of who you are…you are always on the right side of history. Forget doing Letterman, The View, Colbert, Stewart and the insipid morning chat shows. What's the point? Politics is serious business and we, as conservatives, should not debase ourselves by playing the left's game by trying to appear "with it" and in tune with popular culture. They hate us no matter what we do to appease them and laugh behind our backs after we cozy up to them. Reaching across the aisle is a sucker's bet. So let's stop all that nonsense.

New Rules:

No more presidential debates unless there is at least one conservative mediator. The Democrats actually got away with not doing a debate on FOX during the primaries and our weenie Republican candidates said nary a word. But the Democrats all trooped up to the Daily Kos Convention and no one in the Democratic Party batted an eye. Enough is enough.

If we keep up the pressure, if we call these liberal clowns out every day, and at the highest levels of government, and expose and shame them for the socialist scum that they are, the dam will break. They can be made irrelevant and we just may force them out of business.

Conservatives should stop hoping for a miracle return to sanity by these entrenched brain-dead propagandists…instead, they should turn up the heat. Stop doing interviews and shut down communication…they hate us anyway and we will never get a break from them. Our conservative politicians must marginalize the media by openly and publicly ridiculing them on Capitol Hill, State legislatures and in City Councils. Encourage people to cancel their subscriptions to these rags...even the Sunday editions. If you can't live without the coupons get them online. The newspapers are suffocating from a lack of advertising anyway as more and more people get their information from the web.

Enough is enough. Stop supporting Hollywood with your hard-earned money…cancel your newspaper subscriptions…ignore the networks altogether. When they feel enough economic heat they will see the light or go out of business.

There is a reason that, whenever socialists get close to being exposed, they run for cover making every excuse in the book why the conservatives are unfair…or they cry racism. If you know who they are and what their real agenda is you won't vote for them.

The Cities

So…how to take back the cities?

The big cities are the key to turning blue states to red because that is where the population centers are. California would be a red state if not for Los Angeles and San Francisco. New York would be red if not for New York City. Illinois would be red if not for Chicago and Michigan would be a battleground state if not for Detroit.

Blacks and Hispanics finally have to be convinced they are victims of a con game that has been played on them since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society was hijacked by the race hustlers. How can they still be poor after all the money that has been shoveled their way? Because it never was really their money to do with as they pleased. The people who administered the money and set up the phony "economic empowerment zones" (don't you just love leftist newspeak?) in the inner city were the foot soldiers in this half-century con game. The folks never had any control.

There was a time when blacks voted Republican. Conservatives must start running minority candidates who will speak the truth to these victims of the leftist con game. We don't need charismatic con men, just straight talkers. The folks won't believe them at first. Conservative minority candidates will be called sellouts and race traitors by the race hustlers who have a stake in maintaining the status quo. How do we know this? Because it has already happened to Condoleezza Rice, Justice Clarence Thomas, Sec. of State Colin Powell, Maryland Lt Gov. Michael Steele, all Republicans.

Socialists and liberals have been using the race and gender cards for years to stifle free speech and as a pander play to curry votes from their own constituencies. From 2006 to 2008 it reached a new level of sophistication. The most obvious example of this is our economic meltdown of 2008.

The expansion of Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) during the Clinton Administration set the stage for a housing bubble and the financial house of cards that followed. In the name of achieving the American Dream liberals wanted to put people who couldn't qualify for loans into houses they could never afford. This vote buying scheme was a long term strategy.

The Senate and House Banking committees, chaired by Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank respectively, put their own people into loan underwriters Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who then forced banks to make insane sub-prime loans. ACORN, along with Fannie and Freddie, threatened to sue banks who didn't go along with the shakedown. In the real world no loan officer would ever agree to such ridiculous banking practices. But the greed factor was very strong. And the loans were bought up by Fannie and Freddie. The house of cards continued to grow. There many ways to play the race card.

Like malleable kids who join religious cults poor blacks and Hispanics are in a trance…under the sway of the "Dear Leader" and the socialist grievance propaganda that has been fed to them since the 1970's. This simple message must be stressed for every election. It may take 40 years to accomplish this goal, but it can be done if we are to preserve our freedom, our Constitution and save our country.

Blacks and Hispanics need to be "de-programmed." They need to understand the perpetual con that has been foisted on them…that they have been economic and emotional slaves to the Democrats beginning with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. They are now perpetual victims of a racist promise of prosperity without the results.

They must learn the difference between the capitalist message of "equality of opportunity" and self-reliance versus the socialist message of "equality of result" and the endless economic enslavement to the "government-as-daddy", welfare "whatcha gonna do for me" mentality.

In Conclusion

Let's face facts…Republicans are an endangered species. For the country to remain free and capitalist minorities must be brought into the conservative fold. The way not to do it is to say "we are your friends and want to help you too." That is the liberal message.

We win by stressing that "you have been conned" and the only way to fix your problems is for you to change your mindset, and that the only party stressing self-reliance are the Republicans. We are not going to give you free money and free stuff. But we will, as elected conservatives, create the conditions that remove the economic and mental straight-jacket that have kept you beholden to the socialist con artists and the Democrats for half a century.

We win by also running 'first principle' conservative candidates for local and national office who are immune from the Wall Street fat cats and will not sell out the party for personal gain.

We win by not wilting whenever the left plays the race and gender cards. The intellectuals and self-appointed intelligentsia will try to paint us as racist and/or sexist. Ignore them because you know we are not racist or sexist. They have been using this tactic as a club to stifle legitimate debate. If liberals can succeed in branding any criticism of them as racist or sexist they hope to shame you into shutting up. Don't fall for it.

The left wants America to believe they are the mainstream and conservatives are the extremists. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As was mentioned earlier socialism is easy. It requires no effort on the part of the participant other than a willingness to be enslaved. It is an alien concept birthed in the ideological swamps of Europe, perfected by Karl Marx and implemented by Lenin. It kills the human spirit and wrecks everything it touches. It is the antithesis to every aspect of human nature. We win by calling them out every day, going over their heads directly to the American people to expose and shame them for the socialist un-American scum that they are.

Finally we win by being traditional Americans.


Copywrite 2008 The Neville Awards All Rights Reserved

How's Obama Going to Raise $4.3 Trillion?

It seems like there are only 2 possibilities here:

1) Either he will bankrupt the country, or
2) He will not be able to do what he is campaigning to do!

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL OPINION (10/24/08):
The Democrat's tax and spending plans deserve closer examination.

How Obama stole the election from Hillary

Source documents here

RYAN, PHILLIPS, UTRECHT 5. MACKINNON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
’ Nonlawyer Partner
1133 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 293-1177 Facsimile (202) 293-3411
January 23, 2008
Jill Derby, Chair Nevada State Democratic Party 1210 South Valley View Road Suite 114 Las Vegas, NV 89102


Dear Chair Derby:

I write on behalf of Hillary Clinton for President (”the Committee”) in regard to the January 19, 2008 Nevada Democ-ratic Caucus. The Committee is aware of a letter addressed to you today from the Obama for America campaign requesting an inquiry into the conduct of the caucuses. The Committee shares the Obama campaign’s concern that full participation in the democratic process may have been compromised by the substantial number of irregularities occurring at the caucuses, and we fully support a complete inquiry by the Nevada State Democratic Party (the ”Party”) into all caucus improprieties.

This letter is not intended as a response to the Obama campaign’s letter. However, in the interest of a complete record, and in contrast to the alleged minor procedural problems noted by the Obama campaign, the Committee wishes to bring to your attention information we have received evidencing a premeditated and predesigned plan by the Obama campaign to engage in systematic corruption of the Party’s caucus procedures. Compounding this blatant distortion of the caucus rules was an egregious effort by the Obama campaign to manipulate the voter registration process in its own favor, thereby disenfranchising countless voters. Finally, the Committee has received a vast number of reliable reports of voter suppression and intimidation by the Obama campaign or its allies.

The Committee had 30 phone lines on Saturday to receive calls in its Las Vegas offices. These lines rang continuously from early morning until well after the caucuses concluded with reports from people who were victimized and who observed irregularities. The phone lines were so over-whelmed that many callers resorted to calling individual Committee staff cell phones to report that they could not get through. The Committee also received many similar calls at its national headquarters.

The Committee is confident that any investigation into the conduct of the caucuses will be thorough, fair and in the interest of insuring that future Party caucuses will be as open and democratic as possible.

Systematic Corruption of the Party’s Caucus Procedures
The Committee received substantially similar reports of improprieties of such a number as to leave no conclusion but that the Obama campaign and its allies and supporters engaged in a planned effort to subvert the Party’s caucus procedures to its advantage. For example:

þ Preference cards were premarked for Obama.

þ Clinton supporters were denied preference cards on the basis that none were left, while Obama supporters at the same caucus sites were given preference cards.

þ Caucus chairs obviously supporting Obama:
o Deliberately miscounted votes to favor Senator Obama.
o Deliberately counted unregistered persons as Obama votes.
o Deliberately counted young children as Obama votes.
o Refused to accept preference cards from Clinton supporters who were at the caucus site by noon on the ground that the cards were not filled out fast enough.
o Told Clinton supporters to leave prior to electing delegates.

þ Clinton supporters who arrived late were turned away from the caucus, while late Obama supporters were admitted to the caucus.

Manipulation of the Voter Registration Process
Numerous reports received by the Committee demonstrate a concerted effort on the part of the Obama campaign and its supporters to prevent eligible voters supporting a candidate other than Senator Obama from caucusing. The Obama supporters complained of were acting in positions of authority at the caucus sites. Some of these reports are as follows:

þ Obama supporters wrongly informed Clinton supporters that they were not allowed to participate in the caucus if their names were not on the voter rolls. However, Obama supporters whose names did not appear on the voter rolls were permitted to register at the caucus site.

þ Obama supporters falsely informed Clinton supporters that no registration forms were available for them to register to vote at the caucus site.

þ Obama supporters wrongly told Clinton supporters who were attempting to caucus at the wrong precinct that they could not caucus at that site, while simultaneously permitting Obama supporters at the wrong precinct to participate.

þ Obama supporters were allowed to move to the front of the registration and sign-in line.

Voter Suppression and Intimidation

The Committee received a substantial number of disturbing reports from voters that they had been subject to harassment, intimidation or efforts to prevent them from voting. Some of the most egregious of these complaints are described below:

þ Voters at at-large caucus sites were informed that those sites were for Obama supporters only.

þ Clinton supporters at at-large caucus sites were told that their managers would be watching them while they caucused.

þ Workers were informed that their supervisors kept lists of Clinton and Obama supporters, and were told that they could not caucus unless their name was on the list of Obama supporters.

þ Many Clinton supporters were threatened with employment termination or other discipline if they caucused for Senator Clinton.

þ Workers were required to sign a pledge card to support Obama if they wanted time off to participate in the caucus.

þ Workers at one casino were offered a lavish lunch and permitted to attend and register to vote only if they agree to support Obama.

The complaints summarized above represent only a small sample of the complaints received by the Committee. With respect to each of these complaints and many more, the Committee has the names and phone numbers of those reporting these incidents and the specific precinct numbers where the incidents occurred. Upon request the Committee will share these with the Party with appropriate safeguards to protect these individuals from reprisal. On the whole, these reports show a troubling effort by the Obama campaign and its allies and supporters to advance their own campaign at the expense of the right of all Nevada Democrats to participate in the democratic process in a free, fair and open manner.

Senator Clinton and the Committee are wholly committed to ensuring that every eligible voter has his or her vote cast and counted. There is no place in the American electoral process for the types of voter suppression, intimidation and harassment systematically engaged in by the Obama campaign, its allies and supporters.

Sincerely, Lyn Utrecht Counsel Hillary Clinton for President

OBAMA PLANS TAX HIKE TO PAY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS' HEALTH CARE, SOCIAL SECURITY AND COLLEGE EDUCATION

As president, Barack Obama plans to raise taxes to provide a wealth of new benefits for the 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S.

Senator Obama voted "Yes" to allow illegal aliens to participate in Social Security, and against an amendment to "reduce document fraud...and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system."

He co-sponsored a bill to provide social services to illegal aliens, endorsed giving them in-state tuition rates at state and community colleges, and proposed a health plan that will cover their medical needs. He also supports giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens.
Read more here!

Why did Obama travel to Pakistan in 1981 when travel there was banned?

Why did Obama and his roommate visit Pakistan for about three weeks in 1981, at a time when travel to the country was banned and Americans were clearly unwelcome? Why and how did Obama and his roommate travel to a predominantly Muslim city in neighboring India--when travel between the two nations was extremely restricted?

Did Obama enter and leave Pakistan using his US passport or a foreign passport? He was apparently still entitled to a Kenyan passport; and he may have also been entitled to an Indonesian passport.

In that regard, isn't it time a reporter asked Obama if he is now or has ever been a citizen of Indonesia? His Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, registered him for school there under the name Barry Soetoro, listing his religion as "Islam" and his citizenship as "Indonesian."

An inconvenient question as Obamamania spreads across the land: Is the US ready for a dual-citizen Commander-in-Chief? Dual citizenship wouldn't be appropriate for a dual US-UK citizen, much less a dual US-Indonesian citizen. The world's most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia is a hothouse of Muslim separatism and extremism and Islamist terrorism.

...there's more... ==> UPDATED LINK HERE Media Refuse to Probe Obama's Lost New York Years

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Classy Democrats...

UPDATE: OBAMA FOLLOWERS VANDALIZE HOMES IN GAINSEVILLE - Twenty-five residents of a Gainesville neighborhood woke up this morning to discover their homes had been spray-painted with an obscene comment about the 2008 presidential race. Several businesses were hit as well.

SHOOT UP McCAIN SUPPORTER'S HOME!


ROB & MUTILATE McCAIN SUPPORTER! ==>UPDATE: While this story was found to be false, here are several more examples of Democrats attacking Republicans:

.22 Gunshot, paint balls fired at McCain Bus


Prop 8 supporter violently attacked


Indiana GOP offices vandalized


Florida GOP office vandalized


WEAR "SARAH PALIN IS A CUNT" T-SHIRTS!


...but "family values" is something to be ashamed of!


Wednesday, October 22, 2008

How Can a Rezko Story with an Obama Connection Be Ignored by Chicago Media?

I found THIS STORY

by way of THIS STORY

But, I fear that the real story is (a) that the press covered up the many, many things--most of them at least touched on in this blog--that would have disqualified any other candidate (who wasn't black) and (b) the American public has become a nation of "marks" (noun. A person identified as an easy target, or "sucker". A mark is always the short end of a joke or scam, and is never let in on whats going on. A mark is usually being cheated out of money. It's origin is from old English traveling carnivals from the late 1800s to early 1900s, where workers would refer to people paying to see thier made up shows and games a "mark". not from urban gangsters like most people think. Mark is also the origin to the term "smark" or "smart mark" which is a person who know's he/she is being scammed.)

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

Orson Scott Card OpEd piece.

Orson Scott Card is a brilliant writer who has written some of the best SciFi there is. He is also a Democrat. He wrote this opinion piece for a local paper where he lived in North Carolina:

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights? By Orson Scott Card

Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

http://noodledaddy.livejournal.com/27883.html