“The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” - Malcom X, the Conservative
1.You include irrelevant stats regarding Representative Hooley and Senator Smith while not mentioning some others.
2.You do not mention the perspective of the publisher, David Bradley, which is the Fulbright/Harvard/Georgetown career track that is similar to WJ Clinton's and that he donated twice the amount of campaign funds to Hillary Clinton as he did to any other candidate. While the ratings are based on votes in the 110th Congress, whether an "Aye" vote on any issue constitutes it being either "liberal" or "conservative" is subjective. It also does not reflect what amendments were attempted.
3. You say "Greg Walden, D-Ore., 282nd." If you do not know Representative Walden is a Republican, you would not or should not be a reporter in politics.
4. You claim there are two Republican rivals and claim she is "comfortably ahead," without naming them. Not naming them would be evidence of bias in reporting.
You win the Joseph Gobbels Award for "Public Enlighenment in Journalism" for the day for this piece.
Your characterization of Capitalists as not being progressive is arbitrary and based on partisanizm rather than logical argument, even if the definition of actively working for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government is used. It is abusive and arrogant.
I have decided not to accept the double-think that uses and abuses Progressivism with vague and arbitray conceptualizations as more fit for propaganda than logical argument or critical thinking.
If you want to call a ministry of hate a "Ministry of Love," and a ministry of propaganda the "Minsistry Of Truth," that is fine.
That which has been called "progressive" seems to have no principle on which to measure itself, other than some elitist position that "Our idea is better than your idea!"
I will define "radical" for you as well. Radical is a person or movement that seeks and has a goal of a change in institutions.
Progressivism on the national level is radical, like anything that requires an amendment to the Constitution.
Arguments against the populism that Progressivism brought are elitist ideology to support oligarchy and repress democracy.
It extremely interesting that those fighting for more democracy in government are Republicans. Republican infers you want a representative government.
That Democrats do not support progressive ideals on even on the state level is contradictory to the ideal of democracy.
The problem with having referendums, initiatives, recalls, and popular votes is that they take power away from the party system. When someone says they "belong" to the Democratic Party, Republican Pary, or any other organized third party, my first question to them is what they think of the people being able to vote on every issue. The more they are for their party, the less they are for the democratic principles of Progressivism.
You should be embarrassed in how you referred to the one US Representative in Oregon that has actually BEEN progressive in Oregon. Perhaps you should live in Eastern Oregon awhile where the rural electrification programs were successful. You should tour the area where there are actually wind generators making power.
Metro/Valley Oregon is the most regressive and repressive I have seen in terms of property ownership and innovation. For all their talk, they do not walk the walk.
They also do not want to deal with their social issues. That is why they send both their garbage and their convicted felons to Eastern Oregon.
It has been a boon for Eastern Oregon, though. The garbage makes fuel and the prisoners are safer, more productive, and come out of prison with fewer issues than they do at the prisons in the Valley.
Of course, Eastern Oregon is not all wet. You have to be more responsible there because use of "social services" are seen as a last resort rather than a first response. They will flip burgers rather than be subservient to to the government's "bread and circuses."
Next time you see a wind farm on TV ask yourself where those generators are. Eastern Oregonians already know where the wind come from.... the Valley.
Yet again, in the media, concentrating economic power in the hands of the government is being sold as being "progressive." Yet again, in the media, concentrating regulatory power into the hands of the government is being sold as "progressive."
Progressively going into deeper debt and marginalizing our means of production is not progressive. Taking away rights to property ownership and use for individuals is not progressive.
And now a word from the NIMBY's:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- TODAY'S FACTOID:1.5% of the population earns above $250,000 a year. There are about 116,011,000 households in the U.S. So, there are 1,740,165 households that are "rich." ARRA is budgeted at $787 billion. So, the shared cost for each of those "rich" households is $452,255.96. _______________________________________________________________________________
Obama's strenuous support for the economic stimulus bill removes any remaining doubt that he owns the bill, its earmarks, and its effect on the economy. You may wonder how many of those nearly 9,000 earmarks, worth an estimated $7.7 billion, went to pet projects of the Republican Senators who voted for it: (Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Arlen Specter (R-PA).
I wonder if Snow got her amendment that "expands the eligible participants of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. This program will be very valuable toward increasing broadband availability and access nationwide."
Then there is Spector's pet, the National Institutes Of Health (NIH)that has so many research projects going on at the University of Pennsylvannia in psychology, immunology, veternary husbandry, et cetera. I am guessing the QuantumBio Inc., who was awarded National Institutes of Health Contract to Develop Quantum Mechanics-based Protein/Drug Scoring and Interaction Decomposition Methodologies, was sweating bullets over this budget, but Spector brought it home.... the bacon that is... or was it pork.... Okay. I will be nice. It was a "stimulus infusion,"..... of (pork) earmarks.
I wonder if Snow got her the amendment that she have submitted, together with Senator Pryor, "on behalf of our Nation's struggling communities that are negatively affected by base closures or realignments. During even the best of economic times, the closure or realignment of a military base can devastate a local economy. With the gravity of our economic circumstances--the most dire we have witnessed since the Great Depression--it is more difficult than ever for these communities to redevelop and stem job losses."
Certainly those two amendments sound good. If you have a military base or a telecommunications company based in your State or District, I am certain it sounds wonderful. It should. Both of those made it into the bill, if that military base of yours did not fall into the District of a U.S. Representative that voted against it. Certainly, junior Senator Collins, also from Maine, would would benefit by this earmark as well.
Now what was this talk about the media not challenging President Obama item by item? In fact, they are not challenging President Obama because Senate Leader Reid and Chairwoman Pelosi can deliver when it comes to pork. President Obama is just a tool - a rubber stamp - of the Democratic Party. In the end, The Democratic Party is no more and no less than the Chairwoman who wrote the House of Representative Rules in 2007. The rest is just fogging and propaganda.
This is definitely NOT a non-issue. If it were a non-issue it would pass without objection as hundreds of other memorials and positions pass every day in the Senate and Congress.
Reagan calculated the possible response to this by the U.S. Supreme Court and decided to stop attempts to enforce the "Fairness Doctrine."
The FCC 1985 Fairness Report quite clearly determined that the fairness doctrine as embodied in its regulations no longer serves the statutory public interest Congress charges the Commission with advancing and further states that if it were up to the Commission, it would hold the doctrine unconstitutional.
If you think President Obama saying he would not endorce this means anything, consider this: 1. President Obama has and is proving he follows the party line as a Senator, a Candidate, and a President. 2. Chairwoman Pelosi is the one pulling the (purse) strings since her "First Hundred Hours," of 2007. Both President Bush and President Obama have had to follow her dictates.
Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis
At a 2004 hearing see Democrat after Democrat covering up and attacking the regulations to protect Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that are now destroying our economy.
Pelosi's President Obama layed out broad principles for regulatory reform legislation today they plan with Congress to on in the coming weeks leading up to the G20 (summit in London in April.
President is claiming he expects Congress to pass strong financial sector regulation ato prevent future crises and restore "accountability, transparency and trust in our financial markets."
That would be a new thing. Why did they not try it in 2004? Did they want the economy to fail so they could "save" it? Why, in 2007 in the First 100 Hours of Pelosi, did they pass a "supplimentary budget." Did they really not know that this would cause a credit crisis at the end of 2007? If the Federal government is borrowing $700+ billion, is there any reason they should not know it would be competing with the Housing Market?
Regardless of whether you believe they made a budget crisis bomb, you have to see that their own remarks in 2004 show how hypocritical it is to blame Republicans for a crisis the Democrats refused to addresss in 2004.
Yesterday, Yahoo News claimed, "Pelosi - Breaking News: Majority of Americans Support American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." Essentially it was a no holds barred parroting of Pelosi as she quotes the Washington Post.
In it Chairwoman Pelosi reiterates the claim ARRA of 2009 or the "Stimulus Plan," has high endorcement of the public by about 64% of the population.
Of course, Rasmussen Reports has had nearly the opposite data, and getting worse. They state, "Thirty-four percent (34%) of U.S. voters now say the plan will help the economy, while 32% believe it will hurt...A week ago, 38% of voters said the plan will help the economy, while 29% said it will hurt....Forty-one percent (41%) of voters say they are less likely to vote for their representative in Congress if he or she voted for the stimulus measure, compared to 35% a week ago....Twenty-nine percent (29%) say they are more likely to vote for a representative who supported the plan, a drop of three points in a week."
There is an ongoing justification in the Huffington Post for the "Fairness Doctrine" and they have had many anonymous posters that claimed the conservative talk show hosts were saying irresponsible things and should be held accountable.
This is just one case, though, where they were not responsible and failed to check the sources and believe their legal fine print covers them.
Most terrorism experts agree: it is not "if" we are attacked again, but "when." Yet the assault has already happened. A silent battle is being waged on our nation everyday.
Spencer says, "This effort aims not to bring America to its knees through attacks with guns or bombs, but to subvert the country from within--by gradually Islamizing America. The ultimate goal, the stealth jihadists themselves declare, is nothing less than the adoption of Islamic law in the United States."
Jihadists have reinvented themselves as mainstream civil rights activists, even with their past programs and propaganda of Islamic supremacism outside the media mainstream. insistence on "accommodating" Islamic cultural and religious practices in America is part of a calculated strategy to achieve a larger agenda.
This includes the work place, libraries, and public schools where Christianity is not allowed. Jihadists are whitewashing the teaching of Islam in schools and colleges.
For instance, the Muslims, in public universities, have received money from student fees which are given to various organizations on campus, while not allowing any funds for campus Christian groups.
The Media is not different. They justify publishing propaganda of these stealth Jihadists as part of their fairness doctrine, diversity or "freedom of speech," without checking sources. You dare not question their statments.
On the otherhand, there is an editorial bias against traditional and fundamentalist Christianity.
Representative Sue Myrick of North Carolina has a ten point program to begin this: 1. Investigate all military chaplains endorsed by Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was imprisoned for funding a terrorist organization. 2. Investigate all prison chaplains endorsed by Alamoudi. 3. Investigate the selection process of Arabic translators working for the Pentagon and FBI. 4. Examine the nonprofit status of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. 5. Make it an act of sedition or solicitation of treason to preach or publish materials that call for the deaths of Americans. 6. Audit sovereign wealth funds in the United States. 7. Cancel scholarship student visa program with Saudi Arabia until they reform their text books, which she claims preach hatred and violence against non-Muslims. 8. Restrict religious visas for imams who come from countries that don't allow reciprocal visits by non-Muslim clergy. 9. Cancel contracts to train Saudi police and security in U.S. counterterrorism tactics.
10. Block the sale of sensitive military munitions to Saudi Arabia.
This Armband Wearing was just that. It was a symbolic act rather than speech. It did not substantually disrupt the school and so could not be prohibited. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Tinker et al. v. Des Moines Independent Community School District et al No. 21 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 393 U.S. 503 Argued November 12, 1968 Decided February 24, 1969
Syllabus Petitioners, three public school pupils in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government's policy in Vietnam. They sought nominal damages and an injunction against a regulation that the respondents had promulgated banning the wearing of armbands. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the regulation was within the Board's power, despite the absence of any finding of substantial interference with the conduct of school activities. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed by an equally divided court. Held:
1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Pp. 505-506.
2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Pp. 506-507.
3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 507-514.
MR. JUSTICE FORTAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner John F. Tinker, 15 years old, and petitioner Christopher Eckhardt, 16 years old, attended high schools in Des Moines, Iowa. Petitioner Mary Beth Tinker, John's sister, was a 13-year-old student in junior high school.
In December 1965, a group of adults and students in Des Moines held a meeting at the Eckhardt home. The group determined to publicize their objections to the hostilities in Vietnam and their support for a truce by wearing black armbands during the holiday season and by fasting on December 16 and New Year's Eve. Petitioners and their parents had previously engaged in similar activities, and they decided to participate in the program.
The principals of the Des Moines schools became aware of the plan to wear armbands. On December 14, 1965, they met and adopted a policy that any student wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it, and if he refused he would be suspended until he returned without the armband. Petitioners were aware of the regulation that the school authorities adopted.
On December 16, Mary Beth and Christopher wore black armbands to their schools. John Tinker wore his armband the next day. They were all sent home and suspended from school until they would come back without their armbands. They did not return to school until after the planned period for wearing armbands had expired--that is, until after New Year's Day.
This complaint was filed in the United States District Court by petitioners, through their fathers, under § 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code. It prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent school officials and the respondent members of the board of directors of the school district from disciplining the petitioners, and it sought nominal damages. After an evidentiary hearing the District Court dismissed the complaint. It upheld [505] the constitutionality of the school authorities' action on the ground that it was reasonable in order to prevent disturbance of school discipline. 258 F.Supp. 971 (1966). The court referred to but expressly declined to follow the Fifth Circuit's holding in a similar case that the wearing of symbols like the armbands cannot be prohibited unless it "materially and substantially interfere[s] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school." Burnside v. Byars, 363 F.2d 744, 749 (1966). [note 1] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . . . We express no opinion as to the form of relief which should be granted, this being a matter for the lower courts to determine. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
After years of President G.W. Bush being portrayed as a chimp and your objecting assuming this refers to President Obama being an African American, you now must be assuming President Bush was the first African American President.
Or, people are being ignorant of the Constitution where it only gives the power of the President to SIGN or to VETO a bill.
The bill was written and passed in the House by Chairwoman Pelosi before B.H. Obama was elected to be the President.
Personally, I prefer to believe that President Obama was grasping at straws when he signed this rather than cooking up this Ponzi Scheme.
Today on his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck asked Pastor John Hagee whether Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is the embodiment of evil:There are people — they say this about Bill Clinton — he might be the Antichrist. Odds that Barack Obama is the Antichrist? Watch it: In 2006, Beck also called Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) the anti-Christ, stating, “I think we may have found our Antichrist and our next president.”
Op-Ed Columnist Obama and the Bigots NICHOLAS D. KRISTOFPublished: March 9, 2008
Proponents of this theory offer detailed theological explanations for why he is the Antichrist, and the proof is that he claims to be Christian — after all, the Antichrist would say that, wouldn’t he? The rumors circulate enough that Glenn Beck of CNN asked the Rev. John Hagee, a conservative evangelical, what the odds are that Mr. Obama is the Antichrist.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., in an interview last week with radio host and former CNN "Crossfire" co-host Bill Press, said: "I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves."
When Press asked if he could depend on the senator to push for hearings on the issue, Stabenow said she had already discussed the matter with fellow senators "and, you know, I feel like that's gonna happen. Yep."
There is also an obvious conflict of interest: Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, is co-founder of the liberal TalkUSA radio network and served as executive vice president of the Air America network — now bankrupt because so few Americans were interested in listening to it. Of course, Sabenow is highly unlikely to ever recuse herself with this conflict of interest.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said,"the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since."
Sen. John Kerry, said "the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there, and I also think the equal-time doctrine ought to come back."
Rep. Anna Eshoo, (D-CA), of the House telecommunications subcommittee, is also promising to work on bringing back a version of the Fairness Doctrine.
Congressman Greg Walden urges his colleagues to sign the petition to bring an up or down vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act and the Fairness Doctrine to the House floor on October 23, 2007. It never made it to a vote under Chairwoman Pelosi.
Read the second time and placed on the calendar Text of H.R.226 Back to Bill Details HR 226 IH 111th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 226 To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BILL To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 2. FAIRNESS DOCTRINE PROHIBITED. Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:
‘SEC. 303A. LIMITATION ON GENERAL POWERS: FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. ‘Notwithstanding section 303 or any other provision of this Act or any other Act authorizing the Commission to prescribe rules, regulations, policies, doctrines, standards, or other requirements, the Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’, as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).’.
CAUGHT ON TAPE:
FOX NEWS Producer Griff Jenkins interviewed Chairwoman Pelosi as she passed through the halls on this issue. She was asked, "Madam Speaker, do you still support reintstating the Fairness Doctrine?" She responded with, "I always have." That segment is shown in a report by Bill O'Reilly:
Introduced: January 05, 2009 Status: Introduced Next step: Voted on by Senate Latest action: Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 12. Sponsor: Sen. Jim DeMint [R, SC] A BILL To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009’. SEC. 2. FAIRNESS DOCTRINE PROHIBITED. Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section: ‘SEC. 303A. LIMITATION ON GENERAL POWERS: FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. ‘Notwithstanding section 303 or any other provision of this Act or any other Act authorizing the Commission to prescribe rules, regulations, policies, doctrines, standards, or other requirements, the Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’, as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).’. Calendar No. 12
This is the second time this bill has been introduced. It was introduced in 2008.
“A basic principle of our democracy is a press that is free of government influence or control. It is shameful that some now believe the federal government should dictate to Texans what they can say and when on the airwaves,” U.S. Sen. Cornyn said. “If reinstated, the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ would be a direct assault on one of this nation’s most cherished freedoms. This important legislation will ensure that all ideas can be expressed openly and freely on our nation’s airwaves.”
Democrat leaders in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate have expressed support for reinstating the “Fairness Doctrine,” which was repealed some 20 years ago. This was an obsolete federal regulation that, until its repeal in 1987, required broadcasters to air all sides of controversial issues, regardless of listener choice, or risk the loss of their broadcast license.
This Senate version is meant to prevent another bout of McCarthyism, which is the era this law came from. If the Democratic Party prevents its passage, I hope they live to see the day that they suffer under it.Feel free to check out former 1968 Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson begins with a great speech from 1968. The video ends with a short discussion of Barack Obama's attempt to limit the Freedoms of the Press.
It is a the Fairness Doctrine, Ezra Benson to Barack Obama
Mark Halperin is the political director of ABC News and creator of ABC.com’s “The Note." He here gives O'Reilly the ammo to claim that there is an admitted liberal bias in the media. The motivation for Halpern is to sell his book, "The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 ," on how politicians can be sold to the media and the public.
The interview, by any understanding, discusses the bias in at least the older broadcast media (ABC,CBS,NBC, et al). When they start to discuss the bias in the
, like Accuracy in Media, Center for Media and Democracy,Media Matters, MediaWatch, The Online News Hour, and the others who claim to be in favor of accuracy and against bias in news reporting, then it will be worthy of more interesting discussion.
The first Werner Goldberg Award goes to President Obama for playing to the public with President Lincoln as an ikon and making quotes, making certain not to mention this one:
" I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people ... I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone."
The winner must conform to the principles and ethics of Doctor Paul Joseph Goebbels, Ph.D.
Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths. Those are found in other circumstances, I find them when thinking at my desk, but not in the meeting hall.
Speech by Joseph Goebbels on 9 January 1928 to an audience of party members at the "Hochschule für Politik", a series of training talks for Nazi party members in Berlin
TVbytheNumbers » Cable News RatingsSenator/ Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's official YouTube channel http://mcconnell.senate.gov The official YouTube channel of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell http://mcconnell.senate.gov/http://www.youtube.com/user/RepublicanLeaderSenator Jim DeMint's Official YouTube Account Following the November elections in 2006, the senator stood up against big spenders in Congress and stopped over 10,000 wasteful pork projects. Famed Washington journalist Robert Novak called him a "hero."He was recently ranked as the Senate's most conservative member by National Journal and as the No. 1 senator voting for responsible tax and spending policies by the National Taxpayers Union. DeMint understands the greatness of a country is found in its people and values, not in its government http://www.youtube.com/user/SenJimDeMintRepublican Leader of the House, John Boehner House Republican Leader and a staunch opponent of pork-barrel politics, John is fighting to eliminate wasteful spending, create jobs, and balance the federal budget without raising taxes. He has challenged Republicans in the 111th Congress to be not just the party of “opposition,” but the party of better solutions to the challenges facing the American people. Under the new House GOP leadership team John leads, House Republicans have formed “solutions groups” to develop principled alternatives on the issues that matter most to American families and small businesses, and launched the GOP State Solutions project, an initiative aimed at bringing reform-minded Republicans at the state and federal levels together to promote common-sense solutions from outside the Beltway.
An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power
-
*The data for this was taken from:*
"An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power" by Greg Ellifritz
*Greg Ellifritz is the full time firearms and defensive ...
