2nd Amendment - FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
(for Obama and other liberals - who are actively working to seperate us from our weapons and ammunition).
1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
2. Those who trade liberty for security have neither. ~John Adams
3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
6. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
9. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?
15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.
16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
-----------------------------------------------
First Amendment - Freedom of Speech and Assembly.
And our freedom of speech as well...
Reviving the Fairness Doctrine
August 17, 2009
Posted by: Michele Bachmann at 3:11 PM
One of the issues being overshadowed by the administration's massive deficit spending, cap-and-trade energy tax, and government take-over of our health care system is the effort to diminish freedom of speech on the airwaves by reviving the Fairness Doctrine.
In contrast to its name, the Fairness Doctrine would effectively ensure that the liberal viewpoint is promoted on the air to give a "fair and balanced" take on important issues of the day. It's a ridiculous notion, as today we are blessed with a myriad of news outlets and formats: cable news, the internet, and satellite radio, to name a few. If you don't like what you're hearing and find it biased, you can change the station and you will surely find something to your liking. What the Fairness Doctrine is about is the popularity of conservative talk radio.
The Heritage Foundation points out that "in such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard. The result of a reinstituted fairness doctrine would not be fair at all. In practice, much controversial speech heard today would be stifled as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as 'unbalanced' views." The Fairness Doctrine was shelved in the 1980s.
Yet, sadly, the revival of the Fairness Doctrine is a very real possibility – particularly with this Administration.
In fact, Mark Lloyd, a former senior fellow at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress, has been appointed as “Chief Diversity Officer” of the FCC. It's been reported that "Lloyd is a vocal proponent of the Fairness Doctrine and recently wrote that the Doctrine, and other regulatory tools such as localism and diversity mandates, should be employed by the FCC to limit the number of conservative voices on the air and supplant them with liberal voices. He also suggests fining conservative radio stations up to $250 million and giving the proceeds to national public radio."
Now, Mr. Lloyd is in a position to make his ideas into policy. Clearly, while this issue has taken a backseat in the headlines, it remains alive and well.
To learn more about the dangers of the Fairness Doctrine, check out "Don't Touch My Dial," a website and coalition set up by several radio show hosts to counter censorship efforts by the FCC.
http://donttouchmydial.com/
From the above website DON”T TOUCH MY DIAL
ALL ABOUT FREE SPEECH
What is the Fairness Doctrine?
In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission established the fairness doctrine requiring broadcasters to provide fair and balanced public affairs related programming. The doctrine required broadcasters to provide coverage of issues of public importance that is adequate and fairly reflects differing viewpoints. In fulfilling its fairness doctrine obligations, a broadcaster had to provide free time for the presentation of opposing views.
A string of court decisions beginning in 1969 culminated in the FCC's decision to do away with the doctrine. The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1969, ruled that the fairness doctrine did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, but cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. In 1974, the Court concluded in a case that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate." And in 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and limited the breadth of public debate. The emergence of a "multiplicity of voices in the marketplace" by the mid-1980s had rendered the Fairness Doctrine obsolete.
In 1987, the Federal Communications Commission abolished the Fairness Doctrine because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues and violated the First Amendment.
Since 1987, Democrat leaders in Congress have sought on several occasions to pass legislation to re-implement the Fairness Doctrine. Today, Senators Bingaman, Durbin and Kerry and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are among several Democrat lawmakers seeking to codify or enshrine the fairness doctrine into law.
Lawmakers opposed to the doctrine are rallying around a bill, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, sponsored by former syndicated talk show host and U.S. Rep. Mike Pence. Senator John McCain also sponsored such legislation in 2007.
What the Experts Are Saying
"The fairness doctrine, said McCain, "had a chilling affect on free speech, and it is hard to imagine that the American people would support reinstating a policy where the Federal government would be required to police the airwaves to ensure differing viewpoints are offered."
--U.S. Senator John McCain, Broadcasting & Cable, June 29, 2007
"For over 150 years our nation understood that freedom of speech was best achieved by keeping the government out of the business of regulating 'fairness.' Eventually though, a few at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) thought they could do a better job than the system set up by the framers of the Constitution and took fairness-promotion into their own hands…Rather than promote fairness though, the Fairness Doctrine created a chilling effect among broadcasters when it came to reporting controversial topics. In order to avoid the lash of federal bureaucrats, many broadcasters opted for silence. In the name of promoting 'fairness,' the FCC squelched free speech and public debate."
--U.S. Senator John Thune, op-ed, "Reject Orwellian Calls for Broadcast 'Fairness', Real Clear Politics, July 9, 2007
"But I believe -- strongly believe -- that the government should not be in the position of deciding and dictating, 'now here is the other side. "…Having the bureaucrats dictate the content of the airwaves isn't much different from what we are seeing in places like Iran and Russia where they are rolling back freedom of the press."
--U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, "Coleman Moves to End Fairness Doctrine," KARE (NBC) TV 11, October 2007
"Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves. It is dangerous to suggest the government should be in the business of rationing free speech. During my years in radio and television, I developed a great respect for a free and independent press. Since being in Congress, I have been the recipient of praise and criticism from broadcast media, but it has not changed my fundamental belief that a free and independent press must be vigorously defended by those who love liberty and limited government."
-- U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, editorial, "Send the Fairness Doctrine to the Ash Heap of Broadcast History," Human Events, August 16, 2007
"Rather than having the government regulate what people can say, we should let the market decide what people want to hear. That's precisely why the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned, and that's why it ought not to be revived."
--U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), "Fairness Doctrine Hammered 309-115, The Hill, June 28, 2007
"The best way is to let the judgment of the American people decide, and they can decide with their finger," Boehner said. "[People] can turn it off or they can turn it on. They can go to their computer and read it on the Internet."
--U.S. Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), "Fairness Doctrine Hammered 309-115, The Hill, June 28, 2007
"The real practical effect of the Fairness Doctrine was to shut down all controversial programming, because management would not deal with complaints…So when you did listen to talk shows on the radio, they were dull and boring and horrible."
--Rush Limbaugh, #1 talk show host in America, cited in "Why Rush Wins," by Bryon York, National Review online, July 19, 2007
"It's official, the American Left has admitted that it cannot compete on the radio so its looking for a helping hand from the federal government. It's a hand that giveth to the Left and taketh away from the Right… Twenty years after radio king Rush Limbaugh revolutionized the AM band liberals know this painful truth: conservative talk radio remains the most potent media force in politics today…
--Laura Ingraham, syndicated talk show host, guest hosting the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News
"Senator Bingaman also said all media should be regulated 'at a higher level.' Yet surely, he does not want America to end up like the old Soviet Union where all speech was controlled. "Therefore, to be fair, Congress should place into the 'Fairness Doctrine' that the right-halves of every newspaper in the country be preserved for and controlled by conservatives, and overseen only by conservative boards. The same fairness should apply to the news programming of all television stations. Of course, Senator Bingaman said none of that because he does not intend to control the free speech of the like-minded."
--Mark Levin, syndicated talk show host, October 22, 2008LINKS…
Save Radio Free America
http://www.saveradiofreeamerica.com/
Freedom to Listen
http://www.freedomtolisten.org
Unfair Air
http://www.UnFairAir.org
Free Speech Alliance
www.mrc.org/freespeechalliance
Protect Fairness
http://www.protectfairness.com
American Radio Free Speech
www.americanradiofreespeech.com
Accuracy in Media
www.aim.org
Radio Equalizer Blog
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------
Obama's CZAR's
This is just a more recent example of many of the effects of Obama's Czars - which are appointments made by him that completely circumvent our Constitution.
The Pay Czar's Power Grab
Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Pay czar Kenneth Feinberg's official government title is "Special Master for Compensation." You'll be happy to know that he's really getting into the confiscatory spirit of his role. Asked by Reuters whether his powers include reaching back and revoking bonuses awarded to financial industry executives before his office was created earlier this year, Feinberg asserted broad and binding authorities -- including the ability to "claw back" money already paid out.
Regulations governing his office explicitly limit his jurisdiction over contracts signed before Feb. 11, 2009. But the fine print is no obstacle to Obama's czars. "The statute provides these guideposts, but the statute ultimately says I have discretion to decide what it is that these people should make and that my determination will be final," Feinberg claims. "Anything is possible under the law."
Yes, he said "anything." It's not just senior executive officers who fall under Feinberg's purview. "These people" also includes "the next 100 most highly paid employees" of all bank bailout recipients, who must file compensation proposals with their pay overlord by Friday.
But why stop there? The Troubled Asset Relief Program has morphed from a toxic asset buy-up to a capital injection plan and back to a toxic asset buy-up. The money has been doled out to auto supply companies and life insurance companies. Congress wants to siphon off more of it to bail out bankrupt California and create a "national housing trust fund" to bail out low-income renters. Grabby-handed politicians have used TARP as a crowbar to pry open new areas for command-and-control meddling under the guise of saving the economy.
How much longer until the pay czar is determining all corporate pay he wishes to deem "inappropriate, unsound or excessive"? House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank has yapped all year long about extending pay curbs to all financial institutions and perhaps to all U.S. companies.
Let's remember that the Beltway hysteria over bonuses served as a convenient distraction from the responsibility of subprime meltdown-enabling lawmakers like Frank and Obama's crony economic team. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner landed his previous job as head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York thanks to heavy lobbying by his Wall Street mentors Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, both of whom sat on the New York Fed's selection committee. Their cronyism had multi-billion-dollar consequences for taxpayers.
Rubin was also an executive at New York-based Citigroup, which Geithner regulated. Or was supposed to regulate. Instead, he helped foster Citi's spending binge and engineered the teetering company's $52 billion federal bailout. This makes the Obama administration's recent protestations about one Citi employee's $100 million compensation package look like the very kind of manufactured outrage of which it incessantly accuses its political opponents.
Geithner also had a hand in the $30 billion Bear Stearns bailout and the multilevel AIG bailouts ($85 billion and $38 billion under President Bush and another $30 billion in March 2009 under Obama). Massive sums of that taxpayer money went to major financial institutions that had employed Obama's moneymen and their closest confidants. Goldman Sachs, for example, raked in nearly $13 billion in December 2009 from AIG in federal TARP funds -- and reported record profits this quarter with a bonus pool of more than $11 billion.
The "solution" isn't to empower a pay czar to curb bonus payouts ex post facto. The solution is to stop dumping billions into failing companies in the first place.
As for private businesses (what's left of them, anyway), this is a teachable moment, to borrow one of the president's favorite phrases. Government strings are like sexually transmitted diseases: They attach forever. If a basket-case company is willing to take bailout money, it will pay an interminable price. The long arm of regulators can and will reach back and open sealed deals and signed contracts on a whim. The Obama campaign chant is the czars' chant, too: "Yes, we can!"
_____________________________________________________
Last but not least - Complete governmental control of our health, welfare, and the air we breathe...
DOOMSDAY MACHINES
– Tale of two hoaxes: capping carbon won’t affect global temperature and there aren’t 46 million uninsured.
We are at a perilous moment. Do not believe reports that the Obama agenda is losing steam. The truth is we are on the cusp of something truly seminal yet terrible: the one-two sucker punches of cap-and-trade and Obamacare. The economic destruction both will bring is nearly unimaginable; the way they will forever alter our nation’s DNA – creating generations of dependent Americans who will settle for managed decline, not exceptionalism – is beyond criminal.
It’s hard to decide which threat posed by these monstrosities is the most vile. The over $10 trillion price tag for both? The Chicago-thug way both are being rammed through Congress? The lies disguised as altruism to sell to America this socialist pile of shit? The guaranteed destruction they will bring to the traditions and institutions that made this country great?
Perhaps the worst is the ugly truth; both are based on liberal hoaxes. Not good intentions, not honest miscalculations, not “misreading,” but insidious, sinister, purposeful, snake-oil hoaxes.
CAP-AND-TRADE. – The Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House not only unread – but unwritten(!) – will give the EPA unprecedented authority to regulate anything that emits carbon dioxide, a natural atmospheric gas; smokestacks, cars, farm animals, humans, you name it. The EPA, playing God, will “cap” carbon emissions at an arbitrary level of their choosing, allowing emissions only through permits which can be bought or sold via a government-meddled market. Those limited permits, by definition, will go for a pretty penny. So who will pay for them? 1) You. Costs are always shifted to the consumer. 2) Employees, when their jobs are lost overseas where companies don’t have to pay the government to emit. 3) Businesses, when unattainable permits cause them to downsize or fold. 4) Taxpayers, who must ultimately bear out the cost of this hideous expansion.
Think about it: since carbon is always emitted through the use of energy, and since energy is needed to produce and transport every good and service on the planet, nearly every economic transaction will have a Waxman-Markey-added price tag. The total cost of 23 years of compliance with this bill from 2012-2035? Oh, about $9.4 trillion, according to the Heritage Foundation - $393 billion annually. Heritage also calculates that our electricity bills will shoot up 90% by 2035, gas up 55%, and we’ll lose a couple of million jobs (and yes, that’s accounting for the “green jobs” we’’ supposedly gain). Remember, during the campaign Obama told The San Francisco Chronicle that he was well aware his plan would cause electricity cost to “skyrocket.” Democrats know exactly what they are doing. Then there’s the bureaucratic nightmare of Waxman-Markey 397 regulations and 1,060 government mandates, the giveaways to ACORN, the wealth-redistribution (in addition to your own energy bills, you’ll also foot those of “low-income” folks), the “strategic action plan to assist health professionals in preparing for and responding to the impacts of climate change,” and the other billions of dollars for left-wing party favors.
Why commit national economic suicide? Libs swear it’s to save humanity. Sen. Barbara Boxer claims, reports AP, that without the bill “there will be dire results; droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.” Good thing the worlds coming together to stop this Armageddon. Only it’s not. China and India are flat-out refusing any emissions-cutting schemes. The Europeans are scaling back their cap-and-trade failures. But America’s $9.4 trillion boondoggle will save the world, right? Testified Lisa Jackson, EPA administrator, to a Senate Committee: “U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.” Indeed, she was describing a chart put out by her own agency showing that cap-and-trade will have zip, zero, nada effect on climate levels.
And here’s the hoax. When they tout cap-and-trade, Waxman, Markey, Obama, et al, never say how much cooler the earth will be by what year. They can’t, and they don’t care. The only person who has honestly tried to run Waxman-Markey through the models – Chip Knappenberger of the World Climate report – found that, at absolute best, it might make the world .05 deg C cooler by 2050. That’s five-one-hundredths of one degree. Maybe discounting any solar flares, unforeseen carbon emissions by the rest of the world, etc. Got that? Both the “scientific community” and the Obama Administration admit Waxman-Markey will have virtually no effect whatsoever on the climate.
OBAMACARE. – “If you’ve got health insurance that you’re happy with through the private sector, then we’re not going to force you to do anything. All we’re saying is for the 46 million people who don’t have health insurance… all we’re trying to make sure of is that there is an option out there for people where the public – where the free market fails.” So said the Bamster in Green Bay on June 11, 2009. It’s a lie; in fact as Investor’s Business Daily discovered upon actually reading the House bill, Obamacare will ultimately outlaw private individual insurance plans. But note the key reason for Obamacare; those “46 million” without insurance. Wrote Christina Romer, a chief member of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors (CEA); “Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for healthcare reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health care.” Here’s the hoax. That “46 million” figure is pure myth. Cull Census Bureau and other government data, and you have a rough breakdown: 9 million of those 46 million are already on Medicaid; 3.5 million are eligible for existing government coverage; 20 million can afford insurance (they have incomes at least double the poverty line) but choose not to buy it. That leaves us 13.5 million uninsured – mostly accounted for by the illegal immigrant population of 7 to 20 million people (who will all, by the way, be covered by Obamacare). In other words, the number of American victims of “where the free market fails” in health care is virtually nil. In addition, the “uninsured” is not a fixed number. People are constantly shifting in and out of employment and levels of income; the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says about 45% of the uninsured are actually only uninsured for 4 months or less.
CBO also has the Obamacare bill costing us about $1.042 trillion in five years. But focusing on cost distracts from the root issue: the immorality of rationed care – and the unabashed intrusion of government into our health choices. Just as the EPA can regulate almost anything on the basis of its relation to carbon under Waxman-Markey, Obamacare will give the government carte blanche to regulate our lives on the basis of “prevention” and health costs. Under the benevolent-sounding “Advanced Care Planning Consultation,” the bill requires – mandates – senior citizens to meet at least every five years with a medical professional to discuss “dying with dignity.” Get off the planet already! (Of course, no counseling is permitted when it comes to alternatives to abortion.) Believe it or not, there are actually clauses in the House bill allowing the government direct access to your electronic bank accounts for health payments, as well as access to all your financial and personal records.
This is all about control. Obama dissembled when on June 11 he told a crowd in Green Bay; “Socialized medicine would mean that the government would basically run all of health care… Nobody’s talking about doing that, All right? So when you hear people saying, ‘socialized medicine,’ understand, I don’t know anybody in Washington who is proposing that, certainly not me.” Lie. Obama gave away the game in a little-noticed speech to the AFL-CIO in 2003; “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. {APPLAUSE} I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim [Duffett, director of the Illinois advocacy group Campaign for Better Health Care] is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” Done, done, and done. And, should these two abominations become law, done is America.
__________________________________________________________
Democrats (OBAMA) Election Fraud - recent example.
It is a well-known fact that our current administration has taken over control of our U.S. Census from the Commerce Department, thereby making it partisan(controlled by Democrats)who will make sure that illegal aliens are counted and obviously ACORN will be heavily involved, as well as Americorps - 2 large groups we are led to believe are non-partisan (the Clinton's and Obama told us so) but are clearly pro-democrats. ACORN is in fact under criminal investigation in several states for voter fraud and below is an example of where that's at now...
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
ACORN Director Pleads Guilty
Posted by: Meredith Jessup at 1:31 PM
From Judicial Watch:
A high-ranking official at the taxpayer-funded leftist group that conducts fraudulent voter registration drives has pleaded guilty to conspiracy for organizing a scheme that illegally paid workers to register new voters.
As a Nevada field director for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), Christopher Edwards paid canvassers—many of them “lazy crack heads”—to register new voters for the 2008 presidential election. He also set illegal quotas of at least 20 voters a day for canvassers to keep their job and offered an additional $5 for registering 21 or more.
ACORN’s shady quota system is illegal in Nevada as well as most states and the Chicago-based community group with strong ties to President Obama faces criminal charges across the nation. As part of Edwards’ guilty plea, he is cooperating with authorities and will testify against several high-ranking ACORN regional officials...
ACORN’s well documented history of fraud and corruption led to an overdue congressional investigation that determined the community group is a criminal enterprise. A lengthy report recently published by the House Committee on Government Reform reveals that ACORN has repeatedly and deliberately engaged in systematic fraud and that the group hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate.
Incredibly, the radical leftist organization with offices around the nation continues to receive massive amounts of U.S. taxpayer dollars for its various community programs. Earlier this year ACORN got a multi billion-dollar infusion—for “neighborhood stabilization activities”—from the monstrous economic recovery bill that was supposed to create new jobs and offer an immediate tax relief to stimulate the ailing economy.
Obama's middle name should just be "Fraud". He is one huge Fraud.
No comments:
Post a Comment