The U.S. Constitution has apparently been suspended in parts of America in an effort to protect its borders from everything from illegal immigration to terrorists.  Rightful to protect its border, except that the border has been seemingly redefined to include a 100 mile wide strip that goes around the entire “external boundary” of the entire United States.

“The extraordinary authority that the U.S. government possesses at its borders is spilling into regular American streets, affecting large populations of its citizens. Nearly two-thirds of the entire population of the country now lives within 100 miles of the U.S. land and coastal borders, an area that has been designated by the government as a “Constitution Free Zone”.  http://www.naturalnews.com/024734.html  and posted similarly at  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/22/163652/37/734/638977

Could all liberties are put aside if you are rightly or wrongly id’s as having done something wrong?  Would there will be no guarantee of The Bill of Rights protection, no referring to case law and no lawyers to argue on your behalf? 

The ACLU lays claim that “Border Patrol agents are not remaining confined to a border security purpose.”  http://www.aclu.org/privacy/37293res20081022.html and it’s blog http://blog.aclu.org/?s=constitution+free+zone says that “U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is allowed to exercise extraordinary authority that would not normally be permitted under the Constitution.

(ATS) traveler risk assessment program, identity and tracking systems such as electronic (RFID) passports, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI),  Secure Border Initiative Network (SBINet) or “virtual border fence” and unmanned aerial vehicles (aka “drone aircraft”) all monitor movement.   

The Department of Homeland Security is in itself, necessary.  Agents of the FBI, CIA, NSA must cooperate to protect the homeland, but using the word ‘homeland’ outside of a historical discussion of Germany has allowed law enforcement authorities access to broad powers and is just a creepy reminder of Gestapo tactics.  To assume an abuse of power is fear mongering, but fair minded caution must be exercised.  The Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and FISA-Protect America Act were enacted post 9-11 for good reason and have been tweaked numerous times to keep America Safe with as little intrusion as possible.

It becomes paramount that we question how secure the technology is in foreign countries and in our own country.  http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9930.shtml  The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America author James Bamford writes about how spying on American citizens has been outsourced to companies closely linked to Israel’s intelligence services. “With unrivaled access to sources and documents, Bamford details how the agency has conducted domestic surveillance without court approval, and he frames it in the context of the NSA’s ongoing hunt for information about today’s elusive enemies. http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Factory-Ultra-Secret-Eavesdropping-America/dp/0385521324

The Department of Homeland Security “claims that data gathered for law enforcement purposes will be “in compliance with privacy and civil liberties laws and policies of the United States,” the GAO found that “by broadly sharing information with non-federal users, who are not bound by the Privacy Act, personal information could be at risk of being used in ways not specified when it was originally collected.” Considering that some 70% of U.S. intelligence assets are employees of private security and defense contractors, NAO is a civil liberties disaster waiting to happen.” http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUR20081109&articleId=10864

The far side would have us believe that we have a ruling oligarchy that professes an agenda of militarism, corporatism, and socialism that encroaches itself upon citizens at the expense of the general population with more domestic control and intimidation.  Maybe the far isn’t so far off? Obama has proposed a mandatory civilian force http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2318 with equal funding to the military which is already on active duty on our soil http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/, Charles Rangle has a Draft Bill just lying in wait http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/11/19/152217/04  , “The Bailout” has the government owning banks and Obama’s policies in waiting have been compared to Marxism. http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/are-bailouts-marxist/

For now, we will wait to see what decisions Obama makes to shield our country from danger and protect her citizens.  “Let’s be clear here and shed whatever illusions one may have about the outcome of last Tuesday’s election. Despite the overwhelming rejection of the Bush administration and their surrogates by the American people, the incoming Obama administration will pay lip-service to civil liberties and the rule of law. This however, will amount to no more than a better public relations campaign, image management and product roll-out. America rebranded.” wrote Tom Burghardt  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUR20081109&articleId=10864  His blog can be found at http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/

For now though our Bill of Rights are safe.  In an all too plausible court case, The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision narrowly ”ruled to uphold the Bill of Rights, the very tenets upon which American society is based. “After carefully considering the relevance of the 10 inviolable rights that comprise the ideological foundation on which our nation is built, the court finds that these basic freedoms remain important for the time being, and should not be overturned,” read the majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who cast the tie-breaking vote. “Until such time as it can be definitively proven that citizens no longer require the protections provided by the Bill of Rights, it shall remain the principal legal guidance for the United States of America.” The Supreme Court’s latest decision comes on the heels of last month’s 6-3 ruling to abolish the pursuit of happiness from the three inalienable rights guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence. http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_upholds_bill?utm_source=onion_rss_daily   Kudos to Justice Anthony Kennedy for saving The Bill of Rights and shame, shame, shame on those Justices who sought not to protect the Bill of Rights and who did solemnly swear to uphold those rights. From Wiki-  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#Federal_judicial_oaths

For readers are not familiar with The Onion, the Supreme Court Ruling is a satire and did not occur.  No Court has had issue with the Constitution Free Zone, yet.  When standing behind, beside or in front of the ACLU, keep in mind it may not stand up to protect all of The Bill of Rights either, “ACLU doesn’t mean all of the original 10 amendments because its policy No. 47 says, “Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected,” thereby ignoring the Second Amendment.”  http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/09/06/aclu-very-selective-in-upholding-bill-of-rights/

Defending our borders, The U.S. Constitution and our privacy laws is a balancing act that will require Obama’s political vision be clear and forthright through out his entire Presidency.   Good luck with that theory of  a President being forthright though. Obama himself has barred the public from seeing his birth certificate, college transcripts, medical background, etc., so I’d say Obama’s privacy has been protected pretty dang well here in America.

Looks like we’ve completely lost our minds when it comes to “free speech” vs offending anyone! We don’t have the right to not be offended…..but we do have the right to free speech in the 1st amendment or at least we’re supposed to have it.

Condemning Islamic terrorism banned on Marine training base

Father of USS Cole victim ordered to remove critical bumper stickers

Posted: November 13, 2008
10:30 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A lawsuit has been filed against two officers at North Carolina’s Camp Lejeune Marine base for banning a civilian worker – a 25-year Marine whose son was a victim of the U.S.S. Cole attack – from publicly condemning Islamic terrorists.

One of the ‘offensive’ bumper stickers

The lawsuit was filed by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Jesse Nieto after base officials first ordered him to remove bumper stickers from his private vehicle then banned the vehicle from all federal installations nationwide.

In a statement e-mailed to WND, base spokesman Nat Fahy said the action against Nieto was pursued based on “third party complaints regarding the offensive nature of Mr. Nieto’s stickers.”

“After refusing his supervisor’s informal request to remove the stickers, Mr. Nieto was issued two separate motor vehicle citations. After being afforded an opportunity to argue his position in front of the base magistrate, the magistrate told him to remove the stickers from his car. While he did remove several offensive stickers off during this period, he refused to remove all of the offending stickers. Because he remained in violation of the base order, Mr. Nieto’s DoD registration decal was ultimately removed from his vehicle.”

According to the lawsuit, Lt. Col. James Hessen, the base traffic court officer, ruled that the decals on Nieto’s vehicle were “offensive,” and when asked to explain, said, “‘It’s just what I think,’ or words to that effect,” the complaint states.

Lawyers for the Thomas More Law Center said Nieto served in the Marines for 25 years, including two combat tours in Vietnam. His youngest son, Marc, and 16 of Marc’s shipmates were killed Oct. 12, 2000, by Islamic terrorists who bombed the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen.

Nieto has worked as a civilian employee at Camp Lejeune since 1994. It was about 2001 when he started displaying various decals and bumper stickers on his vehicle “expressing anti-terrorist sentiments,” such as “Remember the Cole, 12 Oct 2000,” “Islam = Terrorism,” and “We Died, They Rejoiced,”

On July 31, he was ticketed on base by two military police officers for displaying “offensive material.”

Another “offensive” bumper stickers

The ticket was issued even though other automobile-mounted slogans such as a Confederate flag with, “If This Offends You … You Need a History Lesson,” a “Darwin fish” mocking Christianity, sexually explicit symbols such as silhouettes of nude women, one with “Your Child May be an Honor Student But Your Driving Sucks,” and several versions of a cartoon character (similar to Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes) urinating on various symbols were allowed, the lawsuit said.

In August, after Nieto refused to remove the “offending” decals, the base magistrate issued a written order that required him to take his vehicle off the base “until all decals were removed” and banning his vehicle from all federal installations nationwide.

The order, the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina said, now prevents Nieto from visiting Arlington National Cemetery, where his son is buried.

The case alleges the military is violating Nieto’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech and equal protection of the law.

“The banning of these decals is political correctness run amok in the military,” said Richard Thompson, president of the law center. “Our troops are being killed by Islamic terrorists, 9/11 was caused by Islamic terrorists, these terrorists want to destroy America, the Islamic countries persecute Christians and now the military is victimizing a father whose son was killed by Islamic terrorists while serving our nation.”

Thompson said the next move on the part of the Marines might be to “eliminate the Marine’s Hymn since the phrase ‘to the shores of Tripoli’ celebrates the Marine victory over Islamic forces in the Barbary Coast War and the Battle of Derne.”

The lawsuit alleges viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, equal protection violations of the Fifth Amendment and claims there are no objective standards for guiding bumper sticker banishments.

Also named as a defendant is Col. Richard Flatau Jr., the base commander.

The case also alleges that Nieto was threatened with dismissal from his job for having the decals and not only cannot drive to work or visit his son’s grave in Arlington, he also cannot use his vehicle to visit the U.S.S. Cole Memorial in Norfolk, Va.

“During public addresses, the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces, President George W. Bush, has used the terms ‘Islamic terrorists,’ ‘Islamic extremism,’ and ‘Islamic militants,’ noting that the Islamic terrorists responsible for killing Americans on September 11, 2001, are the ’same murderers … responsible for bombing the U.S.S. Cole,’” the lawsuit said.

“The Commander-in-Chief has indicated that the United States will give no quarter to these terrorists, stating that ‘we must pursue them wherever they are’ and we ‘[w]ill not let up until our enemies are defeated and our people are secure,” the lawsuit said.

“Consequently, it is unreasonable to conclude that the words, terms, or political viewpoint expressed by the Commander-in-Chief or those expressed by Plaintiff are prohibited on federal installations in the United States, including military bases such as Camp Lejeune.”

The lawyer handling the case is Robert Muise, who also has been defending Marine Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, the highest-ranking officer accused in the Rep. John Murtha-instigated prosecution of soldiers for a firefight with terrorists in Haditha, Iraq.

Read @ Worldnet Daily

]]>

by Sarah Falcon

Comments from the blogosphere:

wildrumpus 1 point

The victory of Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election has shown us signs of improving race relations in this country. Sadly this isn’t the case some areas of the south where the election of the United States first black president have increased already high racial tensions.

In North Carolina State University, four students spray-painted threatening and racist graffiti aimed at the president elect.

Baylor University students reported a rope tied in the shape of a noose was spotted in a tree on campus, and Obama campaign signs were burned in a fire pit. Verbal altercations also arose.

“Given Mississippi’s long history of race relations and the struggle we have had as a people, I’m not surprised,” said Jackson State political science professor Leslie Burl McLemore.

“I think these incidents reflect the long history of race relations in Mississippi and in the American South,” he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi has released a statement saying:

[...] we want to remind Mississippians that student speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution. A complete prohibition of political speech violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and will not be tolerated. This election should serve as an opportunity to educate students and encourage tolerance. Speech regarding the President-elect and this historic election should not serve as an antagonist or be used to suppress the political voice of students or teachers.

We encourage students and parents to contact us if they are subjected to or witness any form of restrictions on speech, discipline or sanctions in response to protected speech activities or any questionable conduct by school administrators, teachers or district employees as a result of students or others discussing political views at school or school-related functions.

For more information check out The Clarion Ledger, Jackson Free Press, and also the NCAC’s stance on hate speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against Fall Brook High School for violating free speech rights by getting rid of its journalism class and removing the faculty advisor to the school’s newspaper after disputes over two articles. The first article was about the school board’s refusal to close Fall Brook High School during the wildfires last year and a editorial that questioned the school’s abstinence-only sex education.

The ALCU asked that the journalism class be restored and that the instructor, Dave Evans, be given back his role as adviser. The school district’s attorney claims that the story about the wildfires was inaccurate and the author of the sex-ed article was the faculty advisor not a student.

For more info you can check the arcticles at SFGate, SignOnSanDiego, and the ALCU .

As you read this you might want to remember what the founding fathers fought for to get us our rights and then remember the 1st  amendment as you read this article and view this video:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Supreme Court has expanded the meaning of the right to assembly. Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939), for instance, refers to the right to assemble for the “communication of views on national questions” and for “disseminating information.”

VIDEONETDAILY

McCain T-shirt gets man cuffed, stuffed

‘Don’t tell him no more, lock him up,’ police say

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A man wearing a McCain-Palin T-shirt during a Philadelphia celebration on election night was arrested, cuffed and stuffed into a police cruiser, and supporters said it was for no more than wearing the endorsement of the GOP nominees for president and vice-president.

Although the man protested that he didn’t want to cause any trouble, officers manhandled him and arrested him, the video posted on YouTube shows.

(I might add, I personally and I know Steve agrees that we don’t think Obama is the antichrist or that we have entered the tribulation period as the video says in the corner…..but his 1st  amendment rights are being violated in this video.)

The video can be seen here:

Philadelphia Police Sgt. Ray Evers told WND the man, whose name was not released, was arrested for disorderly conduct and public drunkenness.

“He was causing large crowds to form around him,” Evers said, adding that he also “was not listening to police commands.”

“He was asked several times to leave the area,” the sergeant said. “He refused several commands from police to leave the area.”

The tape opens explaining that the man was wearing a McCain T-shirt at a street celebration in honor of president-elect Barack Obama’s election victory.

The audio says police told the man to leave the area and he declined. At that point, the video picks up.

Officers are holding the man’s chest as he says, “I’m not trying to cause any trouble.”

The officers then shove the man as the Obama crowd jeers.

“You know what. Don’t tell him no more. Don’t tell him no more. Just lock him up,” an officer states.

While the man is standing off to the side of the celebration, two officers grab him and shake him up, twist his arm behind his back and cuff him.

The crown circles the man, chanting, “Oh-Bah-Mah! Oh-Bah-Mah!”

“This man was arrested for going into a crowd of Obama supporters post-election wearing a John McCain-Sarah Palin T-shirt,” the audio explains. “The officers asked him to leave, he refused … then he was assaulted by officers. Now he’s being put into a patrol car.

“This is what we can expect, no freedom of speech,” the narrator adds.

WND has reported on law enforcement crackdowns on opponents of Obama, including a Kansas case in which a man wrote to a woman he met at his church about his opposition and within 15 minutes found police on his doorstep.

WND also reported when prosecutors in Missouri announced plans to crack down on any campaign ads they viewed as wrong about Obama. The prosecutors claimed someone had to set the record straight and they were going to do it.

Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt responded by characterizing the public officials’ formation of Obama “truth squads” as nothing short of “police state tactics.”

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign,” said Blunt. “What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.”

A crackdown on free speech has been forecast by some for the upcoming Obama administration, fueled by Democrats stated desire to re-adopt the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” that would effectively restrict or eliminate opinion on the broadcast airwaves from radio talk icons like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

And a hypothetical letter from a “Christian from 2012″ released by evangelical leader James Dobson’s political activist group Focus on the Family Action warns of an attack on public free speech.

The letter, called “Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America,” “looks back” on how “the Bible can no longer be freely preached over radio or television stations when the subject matter includes such ‘offensive’ doctrines as criticizing homosexual behavior. The Supreme Court agreed that these could be kept off the air as prohibited ‘hate speech’ that is likely to incite violence and discrimination.”

Click here to read the complete letter.

Read article at worldnet Daily here:

Barack Obama has not even hired his entire staff, much less been sworn in and already, we are seeing negative articles about him and the people he is choosing to fill his staff positions. How I feel about Obama is not a big secret. I am no fan of the man and I really question how he will lead our country in the next four years. I have serious reservations about what his policies will be towards abortion, 1st Amendment rights, 2nd Amendment rights, and taxes, not necessarily in that order. I will be among the first to question him as he begins his work as President and we begin to see how his Presidency begins to take shape. However, let’s do be fair to the man and remember one thing. He is going to be the 44th President of the United States, like it or not. You and I may not have voted for him, as did the majority of our country, but there is no question, he won this election. As Kevin Tracy puts it, let’s at least give him the benefit of the doubt. The office of the President deserves our respect and until he proves us different, so does Barack Obama.

That’s my take!

Larry

click here for the full sized version

What knows no bounds? Sarah Palin’s stupidity.

Sarah Palin Duped by Prank Call

If Barack Obama was stupid enough to fall for this (which is almost inconceivable), the right wing would be blasting him for his naivete and using it as proof of his inexperience.

UPDATE: Do you really need more proof of this woman’s stupidity? She’s frighteningly confused about First Amendment rights and what they entail. Story here.

The larger question may be ‘What 1st Amendment?’. Bill Benson has researched the 16th Amendment in great detail and Jeff Dickstein has been brilliantly defending Bill’s right to speak.

16th Amendment Attacked In The 7th Circuit

Posted October 31st, 2008 by Kevin@HarperRealtyAttorney Jeff Dickstein rips into US Appeals Panel re
Benson’s 1st Amendment Right to denounce 16th Amendment

U.S. v. William Benson, 08-1312 and 08-1586 (7th Circuit)
Report of Oral Arguments

On Tuesday, Oct. 28th, 2008, oral arguments were held in the 7th Cir. Court of Appeals for the appeal of U.S. v. Benson.

The District Court issued an injunction, enjoining Bill Benson from selling his “Reliance Defense” package, but denied the government the list of people who purchased the package from Bill. A complete explanation of the case and why it is so important, can be read at http://jeffdickstein.com . Bill appealed, and the government filed a cross appeal. ….continue…

Question:  How stupid is Sarah Palin?
Answer:  We do not have the technology to measure it.  It may even be infinite.

Sarah has expressed the concern that media criticism of her hateful, disingenuous (or more frighteningly perhaps heartfelt), silly and distorted appeals to racism, hatred and fear amounts to an attack on her rights under the first amendment.

From HuffPo:

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama’s associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate’s free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

“If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,” Palin told host Chris Plante, “then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”

Glen Greenwald writes in Salon:

If anything, Palin has this exactly backwards, since one thing that the First Amendment does actually guarantee is a free press. Thus, when the press criticizes a political candidate and a Governor such as Palin, that is a classic example of First Amendment rights being exercised, not abridged.

This isn’t only about profound ignorance regarding our basic liberties, though it is obviously that. Palin here is also giving voice here to the standard right-wing grievance instinct: that it’s inherently unfair when they’re criticized. And now, apparently, it’s even unconstitutional.

Sarah Palin, day after day and sentence after sentence, demonstrates a frightening degree of ignorance and a shockingly stubborn ability to both parade that ignorance and cling to it despite the facts.
She’s been bluffing her way along with nothing more than a wink and a wave, waiting for the chance to wow us in the talent portion of the program.
I’m taking bets she loses the governorship of Alaska first opportunity and moves her family to some religious, snake-handling backwater in a southern / fly-over state for a run at Congress.
There’s a back half to the wager, as well: Following the Congressional election (which she narrowly loses to some guy named Cletus), and with sales in the Arctic Cat franchise plummeting, she opens a roadside tourist trap where kids can have their photos taken with Sarah for a small donation (which also gains admission to the tent revival meeting out back there where Palin there will also lay on hands and drive out yer witches and demons also for another small donation there also).

Less than 100 hours to the end of having that blithering plastic Caribou Barbie insult to reason on my television.  Good thing…my patience is about down to its last fuckin’ nerve.

The very last person in the world we’d think would be crying about censorship after having TRIED to ban several innocuous books from a library is now crying us all a river…

Once again, Ms. Sarah Palin plays that victim card:

What is it with Neo-Republicans and victimology, anyway? I had always thought that this was a liberal phenomenon? Even Joe the Plumber called his mom in tears….

Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by “attacks” from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.

[Snip!]

“If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,” Palin told host Chris Plante, “then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”

Hat Tip: Cadillac Light

The future of America is that should Palin become POTUS, our free speech WILL be taken away because this wussy can’t take any form of criticism whatsoever, and every time she screws up, she conveniently blames the “evil liberal media” so that she doesn’t have to look inward and own up to her own shortcomings.

Wouldn’t you think that someone running for a potential presidency would sorta kinda know what our 1st amendment entails? This is truly depressing. It is people like Sarah Palin that make the rest of the world think the worst of us. I mean, I knew what the 1st amendment meant as an adolescent.

The inanity continues….

“It’s sort of perplexing to me, because I’m a practical person and plainspoken also, but just cutting to the chase and calling things like I see them, just like most Americans. But this has not left a bitter taste in my mouth, the bitter shots taken by the mainstream media and by some of the elitism there in Washington,” Palin said.

*sighs* Sweatpea? Calling you out on your blatant lies, hypocrisies, ignorance, and stupidity is not elitist. (And psst… if you’re not a Washington Elitist, your wardrobe shouldn’t be more expensive than my house!) In fact, it mirrors your very own qualities. The media is practical, plain-spoken, cutting to the chase, and calling things as THEY see them just like most Americans. You DO realize that the 1st Amendment protects dissent, right?

The 1st Amendment, Ms. Sarah… shall we spell it out for you? Do you have a pen and a piece of paper handy?

The 1st Amendment addresses what the government cannot do:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If Ms. Palin doesn’t know about the 1st Amendment, it makes me wonder what else she doesn’t know. *GASPS* It is truly frightening that people even imagine her in the oval office.

Clearly the position of VP is not meant for the squeamish thin-skinned variety of Sarah Palin. She’s too weak. She boasts ad nauseam about the “straight-talker” that she is, yet she cannot handle straight talk back. And she’s not even a “straight talker” anyway as we keep seeing her time after time skirting and dancing around simple questions asked. She is a coward. She is a weak woman who is bringing all women down to the 19th century. She wants to be coddled, and women aren’t coddled any more. Women fought long and hard to get where they are. Modern women are tough and can handle what men can tolerate in any career possible. Palin proves to be a weak link and not the true strong feminine woman that her minions are fooled into thinking she is.

So, it’s not just Palin being weak, ignorant, and mildly retarded herself, but she’s also a hypocrite.

Look.

All the other candidates are taking their criticisms very well. NO exceptions should be made for her because she’s female. She is no princess - although seemingly spoiled rotten (but that’s beside the point). As much as I dislike Bush, he took criticism very well and even had a self-deprecating sense of humor. He didn’t take even himself seriously at times and could actually laugh at himself along with the First TRUE Lady, Laura Bush. If ya can’t take the heat, get outa the kitchen. And Bush stayed in the kitchen because he could handle it. I mean, damn! Look how mature McCain is being about endorsing Barack Obama! Whoa!

And there we have little Palin running to mommy…. playin’ the blame game… sobbing… I guess this is why a coalition has been set up to pray for Sarah?

Psst. When something doesn’t go your way, instead of looking inward at the bad choices that you’ve made and owning up to them, take the easy way out: Blame the Dems and the media. The Neo-Conservative Republicans have mastered this like no other.

To hear up close and personal what Palin’s sympathy cries sound like, watch this video. 

Returning back to Palin’s hypocrisy…. Let me remind my readers again that the same advice she gave Ms. Hillary Clinton, she cannot take herself.

I am embarrassed for Sarah Palin. Does anyone else feel the same?

1. “One activist I know thinks that the Repubs will contest the electors in Ohio and elsewhere to prevent Obama from obtaining the required number. In that case, per Article II of the Constitution, VP Dick Cheney can step in and assume the presidency.”

This scary scenario makes sense based on the past 8 years. Anyone who thinks they (Cheney/Bush faction of Repub party) will cede power without a battle, is engaged in wishful thinking at very least.  Imagine America in the hands of an extreme war hawk imperialist oil man whose heart is already seriously unhealthy.
How long can he endure?”

http://www.911blogger.com/node/18337

2.  “It appears someone at the CIA ordered the withholding (of Oswald/Mihdhar intel) with the assassination and plane hijackings in mind. Perhaps that person (or persons) lied to subordinates about the real reasons for the withholding. It appears that person (or persons) had the necessary power to ensure that al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar were placed on the Flight 77 manifest (if indeed the intent was to make the CIA look complicit). One would think we are talking about a very high level of CIA power required to frame the institutional CIA in such a blatant manner. I’m not sure why subordinates would tolerate a criminal superior jerking them around in order to facilitate heinous crimes. And then go along with a torture program. And an invasion of Afghanistan. And allow politicians to get a bunch of soldiers killed in Iraq based on a false conflation of Bin Laden and Hussein. Why are we still speculating about 9/11 when CIA officials know the answers but refuse to tell the public? Why should the public assume good faith from the CIA? I saw people jumping out of a 110 story office tower. Somebody at the CIA should have the courage to explain exactly why those people suffered such horrific deaths. To have the CIA Director speak of faulty cable trafficking/watchlisting procedures as an explanation for such tragedy is grotesque. I guess it’s no surprise that the same man would champion the use of torture while refusing to call it torture.”

http://www.911blogger.com/node/18336

3.  “Yet the electoral process is rigged, in this country: the system permits only two political parties. All others must overcome enormous obstacles to achieve ballot status. This give the War Party maximum elbow room to manipulate the political process behind the scenes, and allows them to exercise their dictatorship in a “democratic” fashion. The two-party monopoly gives the War Party a strategic advantage: it merely has to split itself in two, amoeba-like, so that both officially-recognized “major” parties” simply become the “right” and “left” wings of a single party – the War Party.”

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13698

4.  Good:

“CIA officers could face trial in Britain over torture allegations”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cia-officers-could-face-trial-in-britain-over-torture-allegations-980384.html

5.  Is Palin the stupidest woman in the country?  What a f**king moron:

“Somehow, in Sarah Palin’s brain, it’s a threat to the First Amendment when newspapers criticize her negative attacks on Barack Obama.  This is actually so dumb that it hurts:

In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by “attacks” from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama’s associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate’s free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

“If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,” Palin told host Chris Plante, “then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”

Maureen Dowd recently made an equally stupid comment when she complained that her First Amendment rights were being violated by the McCain campaign’s refusal to allow her on their campaign plane.

The First Amendment is actually not that complicated.  It can be read from start to finish in about 10 seconds.  It bars the Government from abridging free speech rights.  It doesn’t have anything to do with whether you’re free to say things without being criticized, or whether you can comment on blogs without being edited, or whether people can bar you from their private planes because they don’t like what you’ve said.

If anything, Palin has this exactly backwards, since one thing that the First Amendment does actually guarantee is a free press.  Thus, when the press criticizes a political candidate and a Governor such as Palin, that is a classic example of First Amendment rights being exercised, not abridged.

This isn’t only about profound ignorance regarding our basic liberties, though it is obviously that.  Palin here is also giving voice to the standard right-wing grievance instinct:  that it’s inherently unfair when they’re criticized.  And now, apparently, it’s even unconstitutional.

According to Palin, what the Founders intended with the First Amendment was that political candidates for the most powerful offices in the country and Governors of states would be free to say whatever they want without being criticized in the newspapers.  In the Palin worldview, the First Amendment was meant to ensure that powerful political officials such as herself would not be “attacked” in the papers.  Is it even possible to imagine more breathaking ignorance from someone holding high office and running for even higher office?

…

And:   isn’t Palin violating the First Amendment right to a free press by criticizing the media and convincing her followers that newspapers are biased and corrupt?”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

6.  “We are about to enter the twilight zone, that strange black hole in political time and space that appears no more than once every four years. It is known as the period of transition, and it starts a week from today, the time when the United States has not one president but two. One will be the president-elect, the other George Bush, in power for 12 more weeks in which he can do pretty much whatever he likes. Not only will he never again have to face voters, he won’t even have to worry about damaging the prospects of his own party and its standard bearer (as if he has not damaged those enough already). From November 5 to January 20, he will exercise the freest, most unaccountable form of power the democratic world has to offer.
…
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21126.htm

7.  Bailout swindle:

“

Leo W. Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, raised these explosive questions in a stinging letter sent to Paulson this week. The union did what any private investor would do. Its finance experts vetted the terms of the bailout investment and calculated the real value of what Treasury bought with the public’s money. In the case of Goldman Sachs, the analysis could conveniently rely on a comparable sale twenty days earlier. Billionaire Warren Buffett invested $5 billion in Goldman Sachs and bought the same types of securities–preferred stock and warrants to purchase common stock in the future. Only Buffett’s preferred shares pay a 10 percent dividend, while the public gets only 5 percent. Dollar for dollar, Buffett “received at least seven and perhaps up to 14 times more warrants than Treasury did and his warrants have more favorable terms,” Gerard pointed out.

“I am sure that someone at Treasury saw the terms of Buffett’s investment,” the union president wrote. “In fact, my suspicion is that you studied it pretty closely and knew exactly what you were doing. The 50-50 deal–50 percent invested and 50 percent as a gift–is quite consistent with the Republican version of spread-the-wealth-around philosophy.”

The Steelworkers’ close analysis was done by Ron W. Bloom, director of the union’s corporate research and a Wall Street veteran himself who worked at Larzard Freres, the investment house. Bloom applied standard valuation techniques to establish the market price Buffett paid per share compared to Treasury’s price. “The analysis is based on the assumption that Warren Buffett is an intelligent third party investor who paid no more for his investment than he had to,” Bloom’s report explained. “It also assumes that Gold Sachs’ job is to protect its existing shareholders so that it extracted from Mr. Buffett the most that it could…. Further, it is assumed that Henry Paulson is likewise an intelligent man and that if he paid any more than Mr. Buffett–if he paid $1 for something for which Mr. Buffett would have paid 50 cents–that the difference is a gift from the taxpayers of the United States to the shareholders of Goldman Sachs.”

The implications are staggering. Leo Gerard told Paulson: “If the result of our analysis is applied to the deals that you made at the other eight institutions–which on average most would view as being less well positioned than Goldman and therefore requiring an even greater rate of return–you paid a$125 billion for securities for which a disinterested party would have paid $62.5 billion. That means you gifted the other $62.5 billion to the shareholders of these nine institutions.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21125.htm

8.  “People who do not vote are not participating for very good reasons. However, in the absence of a loud boycott, their non-participation gets interpreted as ‘conceding’ or ‘apathy’. My point here is that, NO, this is not apathy. In fact it makes perfect logical sense, and it is far more honest than participating in fraudulent elections that only re-produce illusions about America, the ‘world’s greatest democracy’; illusions that only buttress the imperial system.

I come from the so-called Third World, in which boycotting elections is a political tool the masses, and the parties that stand with them, employ with good effect. Imran Khan’s party (Insaf) in Pakistan, for example, boycotted the last elections there, and it was an organized message sent to the establishment that the rulers would not get a stamp of approval from the real opposition. This, far from re-creating ‘apathy’ or ‘conceding’ the elections, actually makes governments nervous. In Iran, for another example, you are required to take your birth certificate with you when you vote, so the authorities can stamp it, so they can see who has not participated, so they can do onto you what they will, should you have to deal with the authorities at some point.

So, boycott is actually a very powerful political tool, because it gives political voice to those who refuse to participate. Simply sitting at home and not announcing that you are boycotting is a different matter. Boycott is a political move, with a long-term vision in mind.

The American people are fed a huge lie every four years that their voices can make a difference. Really? It didn’t make a jot of difference in 2006, when people, out of pure illusion, voted into the Congress a majority of Democrats with the hope that they would bring the war of occupation in Iraq to a speedy end. As George Carlin would have said, people might as well have wished on a rabbit’s foot!

It didn’t make any difference when a huge majority of the American people kept yelling down the jammed Congressional telephone lines, and over-stuffed Congressional email inboxes with, “Don’t give my money away to those scum sucking swine!” The people’s ‘representatives’ stole people’s money anyway and handed it over to the banksters in broad daylight!

So, to repeat, what’s the point of voting for establishment people? Except getting demoralized, such behavior has no other effect.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21123.htm

Trick or Treaters in West Hollywood, CA may be shocked to find an effigy of Sarah Palin part of the seasonal decorations at the home of Chad Michael Morrisette. A likeness of John McCain is displayed in the chimney surrounded by flames. While some say that it is simply a visual prank, others are calling it a hate crime that should be removed. National media and the blogosphere have begun to take note and according to the LA Times, MSNBC television host Keith Olbermann on Monday gave his “worst person in the world” award to Morrisette.  “This is not the spirit of Halloween, sir,” Olbermann said. “It is the spirit of violence.”

The LA Times story goes on to report on local law enforcement’s reaction. “The sheriff made this clear: This is a country that has freedom of speech, and we protect that right even when we think it’s idiotic and stupid and in bad taste,” said Steve Whitmore, spokesman for the Sheriff’s Department. “If it is nonviolent and doesn’t cause any problems, then they have the right to do it.”

Some have questioned whether a double standard is at work for those who argue that this is simply a free speech issue. To emphasize their point, they question the national response had the effigy been of Obama instead of Palin.

The website includes an online poll asking readers to weigh in on whether the display should be removed. As of Oct 29, respondents to the poll voted 82% in favor of removal of the display. What do you think?

As I do with some of my posts, let me preface this with an apology to a couple of people who I consider my friends. They would be Wickle, at A True Believer and Kerry, over at One Mom. I have really hesitated to even put these thoughts down on paper, because I do not want to offend them in any way. That being said, I feel I have to do my part to let people know just how much of a danger Barack Obama is to our country.

As the Republican primaries finished up and it became clear that Mike Huckabee would not be the Republican nominee in 2008, there was a lot discussion about what the Huckabee supporters would do in the general election. Some of them decided to vote third party or not vote at all for President because they simply could not support John McCain. Some of them went the other way, deciding that McCain would be a lot better than Barack Obama. At least one strong Huckabee supporter is actually voting for Obama himself, although I can’t understand how a supporter of Mike Huckabee can swing so far to the left.

I started off thinking I would vote third party for the same reasons some of the rest gave. I didn’t really care for McCain and I wondered at how bad an Obama Presidency could really be. As I began to research his policies more, I came to the realization that he was a much greater danger than McCain, so I decided to vote against Obama and for McCain. It’s not a good position to be in, voting against, rather than for someone, but my fear of what Barack Obama would do to our country is so great, that it has put me in this position.

One of the main arguments that I hear to not vote for McCain is how our country survived Bill Clinton for eight years and Obama would be no worse. I beg to differ with that assumption. Let’s look at some facts, shall we? These are not necessarily in order of importance, but just as they come to mind.

Taxes and Healthcare
Barack Obama has made it a cornerstone of his campaign to proclaim how he will give 95% of Americans a tax cut and how he will provide healthcare to those of us who do not have it. What he fails to explain is how those tax cuts are actually tax credits to Americans who do not pay taxes in the first place. That’s where his plan to spread the wealth comes in. He also fails to explain that small business owners will be forced to provide healthcare for their employees or pay a penalty for not doing so. I was speaking to the man who owns the business where I work and he says he has looked at the figures with his accountant and if Obama’s plan is put into effect, he will probably have to lay off at least three people to be able to meet the healthcare requirements and to pay for the extra 18% tax increase the business will see. Does that sound like it will help the economy to you? It sounds like a plan for disaster to me.

Abortion
I know pro-life voters run the risk of being called one issue voters, but that is not the case. However, supporting life is very important to me and others. Despite John McCain’s support for stem cell research, he is entirely better than Barack Obama. On this issue, there is no comparison. Barack Obama is very much of a supporter of abortion rights, so much so that he has said his first act as President would be to push for passage of the Freedom Of Choice Act. What this legislation would do is to make Roe v. Wade the law of the land and repeal any restrictions on abortion, including late term abortion. This is more than supporting women’s rights, this is supporting the choice to murder an innocent human life, one that has to have someone speak for them. Not only that, but Obama also voted three separate times against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and lied about his reasons for doing so. If a man or woman has so little regard for human life, they have no business in the White House.

You may ask the question, how much effect does the President actually have on this issue? Let’s think back to Mike Huckabee and what he planned to do. It was something we all applauded him for and that was to use the bully pulpit of the President to be able to speak directly to the American people. It is something that Ronald Reagan did with great impact and Mike Huckabee would have been able to do the same thing. If effect, it would have given pro-life causes the greatest spokesperson we could have ever hoped for. In regards to the abortion and pro-life issues, that is exactly the impact Barack Obama will have. If he wins this election, he will have access to that same bully pulpit and will no doubt use it to greatly effect negative change towards pro-life issues. The next President will also likely have the opportunity to appoint at least two justices to the Supreme Court and that will effect a host of issues itself.

2nd Amendment
Barack Obama’s record on the 2nd Amendment speaks for itself. He wants to proclaim how he is for the 2nd Amendment, but his voting record makes him out to be a liar. He has consistently voted for gun control and we all remember his statement about some of us bitter folk clinging to our God and our guns. What makes anyone think he will be any different as President is beyond me.

1st Amendment
Obama has also shown a high disregard for 1st Amendment rights. When he is faced with accusations about his voting record or his past associations, his first response is to threaten litigation against those who would dare question his record and his statements. Media outlets in Ohio and Missouri have been threatened with lawsuits if they didn’t stop running ads from the NRA that questioned his voting record. Instead of simply presenting his case to the American people, he instead resorts to using his money and his host of lawyers to prevent a message different than his own from even being broadcast. It looks like his idea of freedom of speech is freedom for himself and no one else.

I could go on for several more paragraphs about why I believe Barack Obama poses a very real danger to our country. My feelings about this have nothing to do with his name or his supposed Muslim faith. They do have everything to do with his record, his ideals, and his past associations with people of questionable character. We may have survived eight years of Bill Clinton, but I really believe our country may not survive even four years of Barack Obama. The threat he poses is very real and we need to consider it carefully.

That’s my take!

Larry

Obama and the Democrats would rather silence their detractors through oppressive regulation than compete on an even playing field.  

·        When Chicago radio station WGN scheduled journalist Stanley Kurtz to talk about Obama’s ties to Ayers, the Obama campaign recruited 100,000 supporters to act in a cult-like manner and besiege the station with protests.

·        When “Joe the Plumber” questioned Obama about his plan to raise taxes on small businesses, Obama supporters sought to destroy Joe and publicly embarrass him by digging through his tax files, work history and personal life.

·        Obama forces also tried to hush a national organization that ran TV and radio ads attacking the candidate’s position on an issue. In that instance, Obama’s general counsel fired off a letter threatening the licenses of stations that didn’t pull the ad “for the sake of FCC licensing and the public interest.”

·        After seeing a dip in the polls in September, the Obama campaign dispatched prosecutors and law enforcement officials in Missouri to act as so-called “truth squads” to target anyone who runs ads on TV or radio critical of Obama.

Original Article can be found at:

 http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/new-ati-newszogby-poll-shows-independent/story.aspx?guid=%7B93E64604-5E75-46C9-9E47-7F3A532AE143%7D&dist=hppr

This is a very dangerous precedent (and unconstitutional I might add)  to start setting……..arresting journalists !! We have the 1st amendment guarantee of “freedom of the press” especially when it’s on public property as this was. The reporter was just reporting the protests, which is perfectly legal. Arresting journalists is a bad sign of a society closing down.

Cop Chokeholds, Arrests News Photographer at Newark

WCBST
October 27, 2008

After a week of bloody shootings in the city of Newark, family members of the victims killed by gun violence marched in front of churches Sunday to ask the clergy for help.

The march ended, however, when a Newark police officer put a CBS 2 photographer in a choke hold, handcuffed him, and put him in the back of a police car.

What started as a peaceful demonstration by parents whose children were murdered on the streets of Newark turned violent.

“Put your hands behind your back,” the officer said. “He’s going with me. Put your hands behind your back.”

When CBS 2 HD’s reporter on the scene, Christine Sloan, protested and said he couldn’t arrest the cameraman, the officer said, “I can do whatever I want.” (No he can’t…he is bound by the Constitution and his oath to uphold it !)

The camera kept rolling, as the officer put CBS 2 photographer Jim Quodomine in the choke hold and placed him under arrest.

Witnesses took pictures of the incident and told CBS 2 HD what they saw.

“He went to put the camera down,” witness Latrice Smith said. “Before he had the opportunity to [do so], the police officer came and knocked it down.

“[The officer] just started grabbing him, putting handcuffs on him, grabbed him by the neck,” Smith said. “It was out of control for no reason.”

Read the entire aritlce at WCBS TV here: