"Legion" has some thoughts on the FCC regulating newsrooms.
"Legion" has some thoughts on the FCC regulating newsrooms.
By Matt Barber
Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism. What a difference a few years makes.
Remember when “progressive” media types chided President George W. Bush till they were blue in the face for “going it alone” on Iraq? Well, apparently “going it alone” is totally cool if you have a “D” after your name.
David Corn, Washington bureau chief over at the uber-liberal Mother Jones is disappointed that an increasingly imperialist Barack Obama wasn’t imperialist enough during his recent State of the Union Address. He’s furious that our already chestless Commander-in-Hearing-Himself-Talk showed off his bona fides in weakness and “let the Republicans off easy.”
“Obama didn’t use this opportunity to focus on the reason he has to go it alone: Republicans hell-bent on disrupting the government and thwarting all the initiatives he deems necessary for the good of the nation. Even when he quasi-denounced the government shutdown, he did not name-check House Speaker John Boehner and his tea-party-driven comrades.”
What? “All the initiatives” Obama “deems necessary”? “Go it alone”? Yeah, Josef Stalin – affectionately nicknamed “Uncle Joe” by Obama’s hero, FDR – had a lot of initiatives he “deemed necessary,” too. And like Obama, he also preferred the “go it alone” approach.
Seriously, has Mr. Corn never heard of the separation of powers? The president doesn’t get to just unilaterally “deem” laws into effect. He’s the chief executive, not the chief lawmaker. Neither should he be the chief lawbreaker.
Yet here we are and so he is.
More than any other president in American history (yes, Nixon included), Obama has done both – make the “law” and break the law. Just consider, for instance, his unprecedented, arbitrary, capricious and completely illegal “do-whatever-I-want-to-do” shredding of his signature dark comedy: Obamacare.
Get used to it. During last Tuesday’s SOTU Obama announced his intention to keep at it. In fact, he plans to ramp-up the lawlessness.
And why shouldn’t he? A gutless GOP establishment has let him get away with it at every turn. Corn was partly right. He was justified in taking a jab at the speaker of the House. On this we agree: John Boehner needs to be “checked,” just not for the reasons Corn supposes.
Even some liberals are waking up to the fact that, for the first time, America is living under – as Sen. Ted Cruz calls it – “the imperial presidency.” In a posting originally titled “Obama: Efforts to rein him in not serious,” the off-the-rails-liberal CNN.com took Obama to task for his autocratic misbehavior (CNN later changed the article title to “President Obama says he’s not recalibrating ambitions.” Amazing what an angry phone call from this White House can do to the Obama-natical state-run media).
“Once, Barack Obama spoke of what he wanted for his presidency in terms of healing a nation divided. ‘This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal,’ he said.
“Today, Obama is talking about executive orders and executive actions – with a pen or phone – if a divided Congress won’t or can’t act on an agenda he laid out this week in his State of the Union Address. …
“Sen. Ted Cruz described the actions as ‘the imperial presidency,’” continued CNN, “and House Republicans have threatened to rein in the president’s use of executive actions.
“‘I don’t think that’s very serious,’ Obama said. …”
Right. Most despots don’t take “very serious” efforts to rein them in, particularly when their political opposition has shown neither the courage nor the inclination to do so.
David Corn disagrees. He thinks more despotism is just what the “progressive” doctor ordered. He ended his Mother Jones rant – all but calling the president a weenie:
“Obama barely called out Republicans in this speech; he did not exploit this high-profile moment to confront the obstructionist opposition,” he complained.
Au contraire, my corny little friend. Barack Hussein Obama has stored up no short supply of exploitations. Most especially, he has exploited the very people he is sworn to serve.
“We the people.”
Posted at 12:01 AM in Abortion, Books, Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Domestic Spying, Ecology, Economy, Education, Employment, Energy, Gay - Lesbian, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Medicine, Middle-East, Military, Politics, Racial, Religion, Science, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Posted at 12:01 AM in Abortion, Books, Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Employment, Energy, Gay - Lesbian, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Middle-East, Military, Politics, Racial, Religion, Talk Radio, Taxes, Television, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
"Peter" has some thoughts on a modern day book burning.
This is another example of a typical marxist practice. Simply rewrite history, and burn all the old books. They have done it in every country they took over.
When I was in mainland China, and it was my turn to host a dinner for the young engineers who were working with me, during the conversation I mentioned that they must be proud to live in a country with 4500 years of continuous history and unaltered civilization. They looked back at me, embarrassed and visibly afraid, as if I had advocated armed rebellion or something blasphemous. Then in a hushed voiced one of them sheepishly explained that the history of China began in 1949, when the current (communist) republic was founded by Mao; and that this is a topic that they do not discuss in public. I told them I spent my childhood in communist Hungary and I fully understand. In more rabid times just the look on their faces would have doomed them to torture and death.
Can it happen here? Is it happening here?
When SF built a new "modern" library, to replace the "old, inadequate one," and they discovered that it has LESS shelf space than the old one, they made a public announcement that they are offering to sell OLD books to the public, and anything they can't sell will go to the DUMP. They gave the public only a few days, in the middle of the week. Most books went to the dump.
What the heck is the purpose of a library if not to preserve history, to preserve civilization?
2. And what is the purpose of moving the storage of information from physical books to the ephemeral "cloud;" that is, internet servers under the control of whoever kowtows to their various lords and masters? This story, of Obama rewriting the biographies of past presidents, is one illustration what the purpose is of computerizing everything.
Do you really think that once Google gets done scanning in all the contents of all of the world's libraries, that the contents will remain untouched, unedited and reliable as a historical record? Do you really think that "scholars" won't go back into the scanned documents to fix processing flaws, typos and to "correct" historical "errors"?
Yea. Like a publicist would research, write or just make up this kind of stuff. No, it comes from the author:
Submission guidelines at the Dystel & Goderich website (original emphasis): “[Y]ou should describe in two or three sentences—no more—what the book will be about. This is followed by another brief paragraph on why it is being written and then another on why you are qualified to write it….Finally, there should be a more formal narrative Bio of the author.”
All material she used in our proposals came directly from me and my writing partner. She edited our rough-draft proposals and gave us feedback, but the final versions were all ours. Our final versions, bio included, were then simply photo-copied ...... I was asked to write the bio in the third person.
Why would they change the procedure just for Obama, in 1991 or 1998 or 2003 or 2005 or 2007?
They wouldn't. Obama was just continuing his lifelong practice of changing his story for momentary personal gain, as he did in his school and college years, conveniently switching between minority and immigrant status and family names as he needed to.
There is no mystery here, just calculated confusion.
Speaking of which, now there is a "documentary" claiming that Obama Sr, is not his father?
(Film: President’s father not Barack Obama). YEE HAW. Don't we live in interesting times...
Begin forwarded message:
Subject: Fwd: Hey birthers: In His Imperious Majesty's Own Words....
...And those of others:
WND found an August 2003 listing of Dystel & Goderich’s author bios, including the following: “Barack Obama was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii and Chicago. His first book is ‘Dreams of My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.”
the biographies are just a few of numerous published reports – as well as personal claims – that Obama was born abroad, including the recent testimony of a Chicago-area postal worker who reported he was told by the parents of Bill Ayers that Obama was a foreigner.
an internal bulletin from the Kenyan National Security Intelligence Service, or NSIS, that states that the Kenyan government in 2009 commissioned a cultural museum in the Obama home village of Kogelo to honor the “birthplace of President Barack Obama” ...... The Daily Nation, which published an artist’s sketch of the proposed Kogelo cultural center, referred to it as Obama’s “ancestral home.” ......Kenyan MP James Orengo at one point asked the nation’s parliament, “How could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America?” ...... after Obama’s election, MP Boni Khalwale asked fellow members, “Could we allow … a Motion for Adjournment so that we could also continue the celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the USA?”
Michelle Obama herself created a stir of new questions when she spoke of her husband visiting “his home country in Kenya”
Begin forwarded message:
I guess this makes him one of the few people who can truly be called "African-American." This hyphenated formulation has traditionally been reserved to new or recent immigrants, not to people who have been Americans for dozens and dozens of generations....
What does this say about ANYTHING published on Wikipedia?
the original entry had three citations: an NPR article, “Microform review, Volume 10,” and “Body Cultures: Essays on Sport, Space, and Identity.” But since the writing of this article, both “Microform” and “Body Cultures” have been removed.
any linking to socialist/communist causes would be original thought.
Oh, no, the people must never know that "Forward" is a LONG time communist slogan, even used as a form of greeting to replace Hello, Good Bye, Good Morning, etc., and of course the title of countless communist publications all over the world.
This is not OPINION, it is HISTORICAL FACT.
OPINION is when the reader concludes that Obama has been doing everything to rub your face into the fact he is a Muslim communist (FACT), and has been so since childhood (FACT), but he thinks he is free to toy with you as he pleases because you will never see through him and his well documented life-long associations (FACT).
THAT is "opinion," or in Wikipedia parlance, "original thought."
“Well, we COULD
* Flood the war zones with thousands and millions more Bibles sent directly to the troops,
* Court-martial the commanders who order such sacrilege,
* Bring civil rights suits against the civilian officials who order such sacrilege,
* Warn them that "we know where their families live,"
and picket their homes and offices,
* Threaten to de-fund the Pentagon's favorite programs,
* De-fund the State Department's favorite programs, ...
“But of course we'll just ignore it, in the name of not wanting to enflame the rabid the "Arab street." Like spoiled toddlers, all they have to do is throw a tantrum -- the more murderous the better -- and we turn the other cheek, and even eat our own if necessary to prove that we are not on a "crusade."
“EXCEPT, we ARE on a crusade. By its very definition, a crusade as practiced a thousand years ago, even as today, is a military REACTION to sustained murderous Muslim attacks on Christians and other "infidels" for the simple reason that they are not Muslims. A thousand years ago the reason was the Muslim conquest and murder of Christians in the Holy Land. A decade ago it was a murderous Muslim attack on NYC and DC using our own airplanes as missiles. Our soldiers should be proudly wearing the crusader cross on their uniforms -- except we won't let them because our misguided civilian officials are desperately hoping against hope that we are engaged in "nation-building" and "spreading democracy" in lands, peoples, cultures and a religion that is totally incompatible with and incapable of understanding, accepting, accommodating and assimilating our western ideas and ideals.
“The only reasonable or possible US foreign and domestic policy under these conditions would consist of:
1. Free trade, restricted to the exchange of goods, not free travel to our country.
2. Overwhelming military retaliation on their most sensitive targets -- military, governmental, civilian, religious --in case of terrorist or other attacks on our country.
3. Demand, on pain of deportation, that those muslims who already reside in our country actively support and engage in our anti-terrorist activities, using their knowledge of language and culture to help us foil their plots and round up the potential perpetrators.
4. Deport all imams who preach jihad and other forms of islamist expansionism. They already have their lands, let us have ours. We cannot tolerate and accommodate a religion of murderous intolerance to thrive among us in the name of "religions freedom;" the Constitution is not a suicide pact. If mosques and imams are to be tolerated in our country, they must be at the forefront of an Islamic Reformation that results in the conversion of Islam from violent and murderous evangelism to total tolerance of and co-existence with all faiths. Otherwise, send them all home and demolish their houses of "worship," eradicate all signs that they had ever set foot in our country -- as they have always done in countries that they conquered.”
It appears Pastor Terry Jones has stirred up the proverbial hornets’ nest in Afghanistan and the Middle-East. Jones, the head of a small church in Florida, had once before threatened to burn a copy of the Quran, but was persuaded to put down the torch by cooler heads. Jones went ahead and with his planned burning on March 20, but this time with the added melodrama of a mock trial of Islam. Then all hell broke loose, as the saying goes, when Afghans went on a rampage that has claimed 23 lives, including seven foreign U.N. staff and two Afghan police officers.
Angry protestors have laid siege to at least five major Afghan centers, with violence in Mazar-e-Sharif in the north and Kandahar in southern Afghanistan.
While much ink and airtime has been devoted to the Quran burning, almost no press attention was given to the mock trial of Islam. According to CNS, only 30 people showed up, none of which were from the mainstream media. One doubts that the trial would have changed many liberals’ minds; after all the activities of the Islamic fundamentalists are well known. That would be well known to liberals, but not necessarily believed. Most liberals tend to block out facts that conflict with their core beliefs.
Be that as it may, Terry Jones’s press releases were widely circulated in Muslim nations – and it did not go unnoticed. As of this writing, their furor continues unabated.
Some serious and long ranging questions arise out of this Quran burning. Jones was warned by our military that such an act would place our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, yes, the riots and killings came as a direct result of the Quran burning. On the other side, there are those who say Jones should be congratulated on bringing to light the excesses of radical Islam. And, should Jones be intimidated by the mullahs, whose religious convictions lead them to openly encourage murder of those who believe differently. Should the safety of our military and embassy personnel trump Jones’s right to tell the truth as he sees it.
The big question is what our government will do to restore calm to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and the other offended countries. There are rumors our president and/or congress will issue some sort of official policy on the Quran burning. If so, what kind of message does this convey to the world? That intimidation works? That we are wrong to condemn radical Islam?
There has been much discussion about Sharia law, which the average American assumes comes directly out of the Quran. The news is replete with stories of women being stoned to death for adultery and other so-called “crimes,” honor killings, and horrible punishments of individuals for minor crimes.
Apparently, the Quran is often misunderstood, even by rank and file Muslims. According to the Skepic’s Society there is no mention of execution by stoning in the Quran. (The Skeptic’s Society is far from an apologist organization; they take a critical look at all of the holy books, including the Bible and the Book of Mormon.) What is not understood by many is the fact that much of Sharia law is derived from the Hadith, which was written by Muslim scholars. The Hadith was the scholars’ interpretation of what they thought Mohammed wished for his followers.
So, how did all of those horrible punishments wind up in Sharia Law. Many suggest it was lifted from the Old Testament of the Bible, which contains the “law books” as written by Moses. Below, is a list of verses taken from the Old Testament. Does any of this sound familiar?
FOR TOUCHING MT SINAI
Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. Exodus 19:13
FOR TAKING ACCURSED THINGS
Achan ... took of the accursed thing. ... And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. ... So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Joshua 7:1-26
CURSING AND BLASPHING
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned. Exodus 21:28
WOMEN WHO HAVE PREMARITIAL SEX (Honor Killings)
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
WORSHIPING OTHER GODS
If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... tone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:5-10
DISOBEYING PARENTS (Honor Killings)
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
WITCHES AND WIZARDS
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27
GIVING YOUR CHILDREN TO MOLECH (An ancient Semitic god in particular a god of the Phoenicians, and the name of a particular kind of child sacrifice associated with that god.)
Whosoever ... giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Leviticus 20:2
BREAKING THE SABBATH
They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56
CURSING THE KING
Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. 1 Kings 21:10
One cannot help but see the irony in the similarity between the laws laid out in the Old Testament versus what is practiced by those adhering to Sharia Law. Can the Jewish law of old be that different from what is practiced in Sharia Law?