MEDIA MATTERS

CNN – Demands YouTube remove video of fed-up citizens berating reporter

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Cable television news network CNN has attempted to block a video on YouTube.comthat shows “tea party” protesters in Chicago confronting the network’s reporter Susan Roesgen over her allegedly biased and “not fair” coverage of the event.

Members of Founding Bloggers.com were on hand to videotape the crowd’s response to Roesgen’s report, in which she badgered protesters on air, summarizing her report by describing the tea party as “anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right-wing, conservative network Fox.”

Roesgen’s report included arguments with the tea partiers, tossing out contrary positions and demanding her subjects justify their positions, as well as an antagonistic interview with a protester whose sign read, “Obama is a fascist.”

“That’s not representative of most of the people out here,” charged an unidentified woman after the CNN cameras were turned off. Confronting Roesgen, she added, “You are not talking to regular, mainstream people; you picked people to talk to. … We’ve watched what you’ve been doing here, and it’s not fair.”

The man Roesgen had been interviewing right before CNN’s coverage stopped was also captured by the Founding Bloggers camera, saying, “We don’t have any respect for CNN, because it doesn’t respect us.”

When the blog posted the video on YouTube – showing a portion of Roesgen’s report, followed by its own footage – however, the clip was scrubbed and replaced with the message, “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Cable News Network, Inc.”

Want to know how to fight back against grossly biased news coverage? Get “Media Revolution: A Battle Plan to Defeat Mass Deception in America.”

Founding Bloggers contends its use of the CNN footage in its video falls under fair use guidelines, and it re-posted the film, which can be seen below – or, should it be removed from YouTube again, can be viewed at the website of KXMB-TV in Bismarck, N.D.

Editor’s note: The following video includes an instance of strong profanity.

News of CNN squelching the video in a copyright claim, despite the majority of the video consisting of original Founding Bloggers material, quickly spread through the blogosphere.

“It is hard to avoid the inference that in this case,” writes John H. Hinderaker of the Power Line blog. “CNN was motivated not by a desire to protect its intellectual property but by a desire to avoid embarrassment caused by the unprofessional performance of its reporter.”

“Obviously we hit a nerve with CNN because they forced YouTube to pull the video down, along with all of the comments people posted,” Founding Bloggers responded. “We are in the process of consulting our Founding Bloggers legal team to decide if we are going to file a counter claim against CNN. We believe that we are well within our rights under fair use, but we are not attorneys so….we’ll see.”

Ben Sheffner of the blog Copyrights and Campaigns, however, is an attorney who has served as a copyright advisor to NBC Universal, Fox and the John McCain campaign.

“CNN does own copyright in its own news footage and, as a general matter, has the right to demand its removal from YouTube,” Sheffner writes on his blog. “However, as to this particular video, I think Founding Bloggers has a very strong fair use defense. The purpose for Founding Bloggers’ posting of the CNN footage is crystal clear: to comment on and criticize CNN’s reporting on the ‘Tea Party.’ Such a use is right in the heartland of the fair use doctrine; the statute specifically mentions ‘criticism, comment, [and] news reporting’ as protected uses that are ‘not an infringement of copyright.’”

Sheffner adds, “Many fair use cases are difficult, close calls – but, given the facts as I know them, this is an easy one. … I’m surprised CNN made this claim in the first place.”

WND attempted to contact CNN for comment, but no one was available to speak during weekend hours.

.

See, folks, this is an example of the sort of technique that the Main Stream Media, like ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, The L.A. Times, all the major newspapers and some cable news channels as shown with CNN above, try to corral public thought.  This is just one example of Mass Behavior Modification that the Main Stream Media and other media like CNN is using to control and manipulate and program our minds.  This same process and even these sorts of reports are being used in “public” schools right now, as I am writing this, to manipulate the minds of our young children.

Now that CNN has been publicly exposed by Founding Bloggers using this technique of Mass Behavior Modification to control people’s minds and thoughts, in this case with regards to Tea Party goers and people protesting who want to enforce the Federal Government to obey the law, as written word for word, in spirit and intent in The Constitution as it WAS meant on the day it (and Amendments properly and “truthfully” ratified – unlike the 16th Amendment) was ratified, now are trying desperately to remove the video from YouTube.  They, obviously, are trying to remove it so that all the media sources (and public schools) that use this very same mind control technique (on us and our children) are protected from exposure as well.

Then CNN wonders why the general public is beginning to not trust them anymore and why they are losing so much viewership to bloggers and other news sources that can be far more trusted like Fox News.  Fox News Channel, almost the only media news source to report on the MASSIVE NATION WIDE Tea Parties, not only got the report right and completely TRUTHFUL, they had a viewership that far surpassed any other main stream or other reporting organization.  Look at the statistics of how Fox News DOMINATED all organizations at their level in the media:

Fox News Tea Party Coverage Dominates CNN, MSNBC, Headline News Viewership Put Together

FOXNews.com

Thursday, January 29, 2009

The minority whip appears to be someone who has never won an election.

Republican lawmakers who were having a difficult time becoming the “loyal opposition” in the first week of the Obama administration got a swift kick in the pants earlier this week from the “voice” of their constituents: Rush Limbaugh. 

The conservative talk show host was one of many across the country who took to the airwaves to cajole congressional Republicans to line up against President Obama’s $819 billion stimulus package.

The result was unanimity. Though the stimulus bill passed handily Wednesday in the heavily Democratic House, every Republican in the chamber voted against it. 

Their unity won praise from Limbaugh himself, who said Democrats sought bipartisan support only because they know the stimulus plan will fail and don’t want to be solely responsible. 

“[Democrats] want the Republicans to not have cover,” Limbaugh told FOX News on Thursday. “There’s nothing about the economy in this bill.” 

With Wednesday’s vote, House Republicans have effectively disowned the package. But lawmakers are not off the conservative hook. With Democrats determined to pass the bill, right-leaning hosts have signaled that the stimulus will be their rallying cry in the early months of the Obama administration. It will be Kryptonite to those who embrace it and a lightning rod for conservative audiences. 

“This economic stimulus package is bad for the country, but it sure is good for the Republican Party,” talk show host Mike Gallagher told FOXNews.com. He said hosts like himself will play the “loyal opposition” on this defining issue. “And the battle is just beginning for us.” 

Leslie Marshall, who’s on the liberal end of nationally syndicated radio hosts, said Limbaugh will not derail the stimulus but will have fuel for as long as the package is being executed. She suggested the conservative talk giants are in a good spot right now. 

“Rush Limbaugh came to glory during the Clinton years because he had somebody he could bash, in a sense, and liberal hosts have been having a field day for the last eight years,” she told FOXNews.com, explaining that nitpicking the opposition party is “part of why people listen to us.” 

It also didn’t hurt ratings when Obama mentioned Limbaugh by name at a White House meeting last week, telling GOP lawmakers not to let people like Limbaugh derail the package. 

“[Obama is] obviously more frightened of me than he is of (Senate Minority Leader) Mitch McConnell,” Limbaugh told his listeners. “He is more frightened of me than he is of, say, (House Minority Leader) John Boehner, which doesn’t say much about our party,” 

Given the vote breakdown in the House, Obama’s remark may have been a blunder. The San Francisco Chronicle on Thursday called it Obama’s “first tactical error” because it elevated Limbaugh. 

And Republicans apparently still fear the host. Just ask Georgia Rep. Phil Gingrey, whom Politico.com quoted Tuesday defending his party’s leaders in light of Limbaugh’s comments. 

“It’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks,” Gingrey said. “But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell.” 

The next day, after apparently hearing an earful from constituents, Gingrey issued a mea culpa on his government Web site. 

“I have actively opposed every bailout … I see eye-to-eye with Rush Limbaugh. Regardless of what yesterday’s headline may have read, I never told Rush to back off,” Gingrey wrote. 

“Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and other conservative giants are the voices of the conservative movement’s conscience.” 

Limbaugh, who offered his own stimulus proposal in a Wall Street Journal editorial on Thursday, accepted Gingrey’s apology. He added that despite multiple efforts, he can’t be marginalized. 

“They know that I am the direct route to conservative-based voters and if they can discredit me, if they can marginalize me, they think that they’ve got Republicans out of the way,” he said. 

Democratic dominance in Washington virtually ensures that conservative talk hosts will not enjoy the level of influence they had when they successfully mobilized their audiences in 2007 to push lawmakers to kill immigration reform. But it does give them the opportunity to hound Republican officials to fall back into the conservative line. 

“I think Republican senators who vote against this thing are really, really going to do so at their own peril,” Gallagher said. 

“The Republicans need to decide do we believe in small government, do we believe in fiscal responsibility,” said conservative commentator and FOX News host Glenn Beck. 

Beck, in an interview with FOXNews.com minutes after the House voted for the stimulus, said he’s by no means banking on the failure of the stimulus program if it passes. 

“If it succeeds, God bless us,” he said. “It’s not a game for me. It’s not a game for most Republicans. It’s real.” 

He said it’s difficult to cast the bailout trend as a purely Democratic initiative since the Bush administration backed the first stimulus package last year, as well as the financial rescue package. 

He continues to criticize Republicans and left open the question of whether GOP leadership really follows his advice. 

But conservative talk is on night watch as the package heads to the Senate. After Boehner challenged Beck in an interview Wednesday to watch him rein in spending, Beck responded, “Believe me, sir. I will be.”

FOXNews.com’s Judson Berger contributed to this report. 

SOROS FLUNKY RUNS OBAMA’S PRO-U.N. POLICY

By Cliff Kincaid

January 14, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

In violation of Barack Obama’s promise to run an open and transparent transition to the next administration, an associate of convicted document thief Sandy Berger has been secretly meeting with far-left groups under the auspices of the Obama-Biden Transition Project to develop a range of pro-U.N. policies. These include placing “more [U.N.] blue helmets on U.S. troops” and forcing the U.S. to join the U.N.’s International Criminal Court (ICC).

The ICC is an international entity that could prosecute American citizens and soldiers for “war crimes” and other offenses, in violation of U.S. Constitutional protections.

The ICC treaty was signed by President Clinton, who expressed concern about some of its provisions, but under President Bush it was “unsigned” by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton in what he called his “happiest moment” at the State Department.

In response to the possibility of the ICC prosecuting American soldiers, the Congress in 2002 passed the American Service members Protection Act, in order to protect U.S. soldiers from the jurisdiction of the court.

While Obama comes across in the media as a “moderate” or “centrist” in foreign policy, his Transition Project is developing an extreme pro-U.N. policy that is supposed to be implemented by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan E. Rice.

The Berger associate, Eric. P. Schwartz, is the executive director of the U.S. Connect Fund and represents several liberal and leftist foundations, including and most notably the Open Society Institute of financial hedge-fund operator George Soros. Soros is considered by some the virtual owner of the Democratic Party, having contributed lavishly to the party, its causes and candidates, including Obama. He personally contributed $50,000, the maximum allowed, to the Obama inauguration.

While Obama did not publicly endorse the International Criminal Court during the campaign, because “many questions remain unanswered about the ultimate scope of its activities,” Schwartz and his associates are clearly laying the groundwork for the Obama Administration’s acceptance of and membership in the ICC. Schwartz is perfectly suited for the task, having “initiated and managed the White House review that resulted in U.S. signature of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court” under Clinton, according to his own bio.

Other members of the secretive Obama group include Samantha Power, the Harvard academic and one of Obama’s closest foreign policy advisers who left the Obama presidential campaign temporarily after calling Hillary Clinton a “monster.” A self-described “humanitarian hawk,” Power believes in using the United Nations to confront “genocide” in the world, despite the corruption scandals involving U.N. peacekeepers in human rights violations and sexual child abuse.

Soros, who backed Obama during the presidential campaign, is a well-known advocate of a “New World Order” in which the U.S. refuses to act unilaterally in its own interests but works through international organizations such as the U.N. on foreign policy matters. Critics note that such an approach gives the U.N. and other nations a veto over what the U.S. can do militarily.

A convicted inside trader whose currency manipulations have been known to threaten national governments and currencies, he testified on November 13, 2008, before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about the risks posed by the hedge funds that he and other billionaires operate. In addition to the Democratic Party, his financial fingerprints are all over leftist, “progressive” and news media organizations.

The Connect U.S. Fund is funded by Soros’s Open Society Institute and other liberal foundations and provides grants to pro-U.N. groups around the country. These groups, which provide the appearance of public support for more U.S. involvement in the U.N., were involved in a January 10 national conference call to promote a “Responsible U. S. Global Engagement” agenda for the Obama Administration. They are releasing a letter to Obama this week urging close cooperation with the U.N. on such issues as human rights, climate change, arms control and foreign aid.

This is bound to find a favorable response, since the co-chair of the Obama-Biden Transition Project, John Podesta, a former Clinton chief of staff, comes from another Soros-funded group, the Center for American Progress.

Although Obama and Podesta promised full disclosure of transition meetings and documents—and Podesta even issued a December 5, 2008, memorandum on the subject—no information about Schwartz’s December 6, 2008, meetings with the Washington Working Group on the International Criminal Court (WICC) and the Partnership for Effective Peacekeeping (PEP) appears on the “Seat at the Table” section of the Obama website. The “Seat at the Table” was designed to create the impression that the Transition Project was being open and honest about meeting with special interest and outside groups.

WICC and PEP are fronts of Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS), the new name of the World Federalist Association, an organization openly dedicated to the establishment of a world government with a world army financed by global taxes.

The CGS itself disclosed the meetings with Schwartz, boasting that the WICC and PEP emphasized the need for Obama to accept the ICC and place “more blue helmets on U.S. troops,” a reference to U.N. military operations where American troops wear U.N. blue berets or helmets and take orders from foreign commanders. So-called “progressive” groups and media figures such as Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times have been waging vigorous campaigns to get U.S. forces deployed around the world in various conflicts that do not involve threats to U.S. national security.

Such a policy under Clinton in the former Yugoslavia, where NATO was deployed for the first time in an offensive military capacity without the approval of Congress, led to the famous case of Army Specialist Michael New refusing orders to serve a foreign U.N. commander in Macedonia. After saying he had signed up for the green team, not the blue team, he was court-martialed and discharged for “bad conduct.” His lawyers in the Michael New Action Fund fought the discharge in the courts for over 10 years, arguing that presidential orders to report to the U.N. were illegal and unconstitutional. While the Supreme Court ultimately refused to review the case, many members of Congress and the public rallied to Michael New’s defense.

Clinton had ordered U.S. troops to serve the U.N. under the still-secret Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 25, which has never been repealed by President Bush. Although Bush had promised never to assign U.S. troops to U.N. command, American soldiers have continued to be inducted into U.N. “peacekeeping” operations during his administration. He has also begun to cooperate with the ICC and on January 5 ordered the airlift of military supplies to Darfur in support of a U.N. military force.

Schwartz’s job, quite clearly, is to dramatically expand this policy and get the Senate to ratify the ICC treaty and accept unconstitutional ICC jurisdiction over American troops. Such an approach would mark the end of U.S. military superiority and perhaps the end to U.S. status as a superpower.

Officially, Schwartz is identified merely as a “member” of the Obama-Biden “working group” on national security with jurisdiction over U.N. issues. In addition to Power, members of the “national security team” on “US/UN” issues are Michael Pan, Jennifer Simon, Elizabeth Cousens, Grant Harris, and Victoria Holt. No detail about these individuals or their backgrounds is officially provided, but some information is available through research conducted from public Internet sources. Many have links to the U.N., leftist think tanks, or Congressional Democrats.

Letters to Podesta and Schwartz seeking an explanation of the failure to disclose these meetings—and what was discussed in them and what documents were exchanged or provided—have gone unanswered.

Publicly, the media focus has been on personalities—such as whether Senator Hillary Clinton, whose nomination as Secretary of State is the subject of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday, can get along with Susan E. Rice, Obama’s nominee as Ambassador to the U.N., whose nomination will be the subject of a hearing on Thursday.

This “controversy,” however, is largely phony, since Clinton and Rice are both associates of Brookings Institution President Strobe Talbott, a prominent advocate of “global governance” and increased U.S./U.N. collaboration. Talbott, one of the leading foreign policy thinkers in the Democratic Party, was an official in the Clinton State Department and is considered an old friend of Hillary Clinton, while Talbott and Rice, another former Clinton State Department official, served together at Brookings.

A controversial figure who recently told the German magazine Der Spiegel that Obama is a true “citizen of the world,” Talbott was accused by a former Russian spymaster at the U.N. of being a special contact of the Russian intelligence service when he served in the Clinton State Department. The charge, denied by Talbott, was included in the sensational book, Comrade J, which describes the U.N. as a base of activities for hostile foreign intelligence services.

Fascinated by such matters as Barack and Michelle Obama’s wardrobe and inaugural festivities, the U.S. media seem uninterested in any of this. While Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times has written in general about the violations of Obama’s promise to reveal the existence and nature of the Transition Project meetings, she has failed to provide any details about the controversial characters involved in them.

One of those characters, Schwartz, suggests the continuing influence of former Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger, who became known as Sandy Burglar after he was caught stealing classified documents from the National Archives. He pleaded guilty to charges in the case in 2005, paid a fine, performed community service, but never served any jail time. He now runs a lobbying firm, Stonebridge International, representing major corporations doing business in China and other areas of the world. Stonebridge has just announced former Citigroup Chairman and CEO Charles Prince as Vice Chairman of the firm and Chairman of the firm’s Board of Advisors.

Berger teamed up with Schwartz once more in 2007 to write an op-ed advocating more U.S. “global engagement”—a euphemism for more reliance on the U.N. and international organizations. Schwartz’s official title under Berger at the National Security Council was senior director for multilateral and humanitarian affairs. After leaving the Clinton Administration he went to work for the United Nations.

Not surprisingly, one of Schwartz’s associates at the U.S. Connect Fund is Heather Hamilton, a former top official of CGS, where she lobbied against John Bolton’s nomination as Ambassador to the U.N. and for U.S. acceptance of the International Criminal Court and the U.N.’s controversial U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

While publicly exhibiting caution regarding the ICC, apparently because of the opposition to the court by U.S. military leaders, Obama has said that he supports Senate ratification of UNCLOS, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

“As president,” he told the American Society of International Law, “I will make it my priority to build bipartisan consensus behind ratification of such treaties.”

© 2009 Cliff Kincaid – All Rights Reserved

Despite the fact that Americans just elected one of the most liberal presidents in history, they also voted to uphold traditional marriage in every state where it was on the ballot.

Gay activists (and a few Episcopal bishops) would have you believe that votes against gay “marriage” are a result of bigotry, the equivalent of racism or sexism.  After all, they argue, what’s wrong with two people loving each other and wanting to publicly proclaim it?  Doesn’t the world need more committed love, not less?

S.T. Karnick, writing in the autumn issue of SALVO magazine, points out that homosexuals may already “marry” in any number of places, under the auspices of any number of organizations.  Churches such as the Episcopal Church USA, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ, and numerous others “either explicitly allow the consecration or blessing of same-sex ‘marriages’ or look the other way when individual congregations perform such ceremonies.”
 
No law prevents these religious organizations from conducting such rituals, nor would most Americans expect or want the government to dictate doctrine to churches.  But if and when same-sex “marriage” becomes law, it becomes against the law not to follow it.  And that could indeed result in the government not only dictating doctrine to churches, but to religious schools, and to individuals.
 
Right now, individuals and corporations may choose to treat same-sex unions the same way they treat traditional marriage, or not.  As Karnick writes so succinctly: “This, of course, is the truly liberal and tolerant position.”  What’s at issue here is government-enforced recognition that same-sex “marriage” is legally identical to traditional marriage, no matter the individuals’ or institutions’ religious beliefs.
 
Government intrusion on religion is what’s at stake.
 
Despite what proponents of gay “marriage” argue, there are serious and wide-ranging implications for society by redefining something so fundamental.  Already in Canada and Europe, pastors have been threatened with legal challenges as a result of teaching traditional Christian doctrine on marriage.  And what about parents who want the right to be the ones teaching morality to their children?  Will they have a legal leg to stand on when public schools teach that gay “marriage” is okay?  Already, thanks to GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), homosexuality is being introduced in schools at younger and younger ages. Just a few days ago, kindergarten students at a California school were given pledge cards produced by GLSEN and asked to sign them to support a “harassment-free school.”  Parents protested.  But is there a day coming when such protests would bring charges of discrimination, punishable by law?
 
“Equality” laws in Great Britain recently forced a Christian adoption agency there out of business.  Like a similar case in Massachusetts (where same-sex “marriage” is law), a Roman Catholic adoption agency in Wales can no longer continue its work of placing abandoned and abused children in homes.  Why?  Based on its Christian beliefs, St. David’s Children sought out only homes with a mother and a father.  As one British MP pointed out, there are plenty of other adoption agencies gay couples could have used.  The government, because of innocuous-sounding “equality” laws, has essentially told the agency it can no longer base its work on its Roman Catholic tenets because they are, in effect, discriminatory.  That is frightening.  Exactly who are these laws supposed to be liberating, or for that matter, protecting?
 

Visit Marcia Segelstein’s blog — she values your comments and ideas!

Will it someday be considered hate speech to publicly state what researchers have already determined: that children fare best when raised by their biological father and mother?  By sheer common sense, most people realize that basic fact.  We’ve seen the damage inflicted on children by divorce, for example, in study after study.  The vital role that fathers play in their children’s lives has been well documented, and we know that in households without fathers children statistically don’t fare nearly as well.
 
Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, has written extensively about this issue.  “Marriage as a universal human idea,” she says, “has deep roots in three enduring truths about human beings everywhere: Sex between men and women makes babies, society needs babies, and babies need a father as well as a mother.”
 
Same-sex couples who have children (by adoption or other means) are automatically removing either a father or a mother from their children’s lives.  Of course children from traditional marriages often end up in less than ideal situations because of divorce or the death of a parent.  But that doesn’t mean we should impose on a child from the outset a less-than-ideal scenario.  Shouldn’t we be aiming for what’s best for children?
 
Shortly after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex “marriage” is a constitutional right, and that sexual orientation is a protected class, it also ruled that a Christian doctor who refused to inseminate a lesbian couple should face legal consequences.  My Roman Catholic obstetrician does not perform abortions, presumably for religious reasons.  The state cannot force him to do so.  It is his choice.  But soon, given the fact that same-sex “marriage” has just been made legal in my home state of Connecticut, he may be forced to act against his religious beliefs when it comes to same-sex couples, or face legal consequences like the doctor in California.
 
What’s at risk in this fight is not the civil rights of homosexuals.  What’s at risk is religious freedom for every American.  That and the not-so-small problem of undermining what has been for centuries the very foundation of society.

]]> http://captkarl.blogivists.com/2008/11/18/why-same-sex-marriage-matters/feed/ 0 http://captkarl.blogivists.com/2008/11/18/courting-energy/ http://captkarl.blogivists.com/2008/11/18/courting-energy/#comments Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:10:11 +0000 Capt. Karl http://captkarl.blogivists.com/?p=289 Courting Energy

By Isaac MacMillen

America needs more and better sources of energy. That’s not up for discussion. But what a firestorm has erupted over what those sources should be!

Despite public opinion (e.g. with prices down, support for offshore drilling remains high—at 68%), America’s energy solutions continue to be dictated and repressed by Hard Left environmentalist groups—and they are increasingly turning to the courts to enforce their liberal, anti-energy agenda.

A quick look at available energy sources tells a sad tale:

• Coal? In Utah, the permit for a coal-burning plant was blocked by the EPA for CO emission reasons. This halts the construction of new coal power plants. Using similar environmentalist reasoning, a judge in Georgia blocked another coal plant earlier this year. Even clean-coal plants are feeling the pressure, with 8 plants forced to cancel construction in 2007 because of regulation-driven costs or uncertainties.

• Natural gas? A natural gas pipeline in Long Island was blocked for environmental reasons. And the fate of a gas pipeline in Colorado remains uncertain.

• Drilling? We have the oil. But as Shell found out last year, courts can step in and prevent exploration. Of course, given the strength of envirolobby supporters in Congress, Shell—and other oil companies—will have to consider the courts the least of their worries. The lifting of the offshore drilling moratorium may be short-lived. New, advanced methods of extracting oil may be doomed by environmental regulation. And the oceans of oil and gas in the continental United States will continue to be neglected.

• Nuclear? Regulations have made this—the safest of all power options—economically impractical. Too bad, as it has already helped France achieve virtually complete energy independence. But apparently France’s near-pristine safety record doesn’t move their hard-core dogmatists. A quick glance at the safety precautions in place show that most fears of nuclear disaster (accidental or deliberate) are misplaced, as the threat is extremely remote.

• Wind and solar power? The same liberals who have opposed offshore drilling because of its supposed aesthetic impact—will they be silent as huge wind and solar farms are built across beautiful plains and rugged desert? (Wait—looks like they’ve already spoken up—as when Robert Kennedy, Jr., put his own aesthetic wants above his neighbors’ energy needs.)

Environmental radicals have even used the courts for measures as extreme as forcing the U.S. Navy to cease a vital sonar drill because of potential environmental impact, despite a paucity of proof or a scintilla of evidence. (Fortunately, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling.)

How well is the Left’s judicial activism working? The environmental legal group Beverage and Diamond stated:

“By way of these lawsuits, the courts are to some extent shaping climate change policy while state regulatory agencies act more slowly.”

Donnell Van Noppen III, the president of Earthjustice, a group affiliated with the liberal Sierra Club, stated:

“People who support us are the ones who really believe that the use of the courts is crucial. It’s been really proven true in the last few years that the courts are essential because we’ve had a Congress and a White House really wanting to go in quite an anti-environmental direction, and the courts have been the backstop.”

The damage the courts are doing to American energy policy is staggering. As a tool of the liberal envirolobby, they have wreaked havoc on America’s energy policies, turning solutions into problems, including the Supreme Court classifying carbon dioxide a pollutant regulable under the Clean Air Act. But that should come as no surprise to those who have followed their antics throughout the years.

The zeal that radical environmentalists have shown to saving the planet—even at the cost of human life—will ultimately prove fruitless. While they may preserve the planet, what is the point if no one is left to enjoy it? It’s no wonder that they are forced to rely on an oligarchy of black robed judges to proceed with their plans.

If courts continue dictating court-ordered environmental policy, American businesses may eventually find themselves in the same situation as a UK power plant, which was vandalized by environmental activists to the tune of nearly $75,000. But when it brought the crooks to court, the vandalism was ruled “justified” in light of the “greater threat” of global warming.

Businesses need to know, for the long-term, what the rules are going to be. At present, these rules change so often that it is impossible for the businesses to be confident that the investment they make today will not be pillaged tomorrow.

So, it’s true: America needs more and better sources of energy. But right now, even more, it needs to stop the courts from doing the bidding of the radical envirolobby before its wholly contrived firestorm leaves energy independence in ashes.

Isaac MacMillen is a contributing editor of ALG News Bureau.

The utter hate of the Left Liberals is very scary.  Whether you reading this blog are Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative, you know and have witnessed for yourselves, at least in the news, if not in person, the intense power of the violent or near violent irrational hate and personal verbal and physical attacks by the liberals of Conservative commentators and public officials such as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney (I don’t think Bush is very “Conservative”, when it comes to domestic spending and pork barrel by members of Congress).  Talking with and educating people with regards to freedom, economics, American Heritage, American history and our unique American culture, who I meet at public places and taverns, while most are interested and listen intently, I have met a few who become hateful and violent myself.  I was talking, one time, about how horrible taxes are going to be in the future and asking how are the average working class American people going to survive with the humongous taxes that are going to be taken out of our paycheck for Social Security and Medicare and all the other governmental spending programs and how we Americans shouldn’t be taxed to the level that is coming.  About five people in their early twenties wanted to get violent with me for reporting the detailed facts and reported news and sources to people around the bar.  They felt that this valuable information affecting the lives of all Americans financially shouldn’t be communicated to the public and they were willing to physically stop me from doing so.

I find it very alarming that liberals can be so violent, mean and uncaring for the wellbeing of their fellow countrymen to the point of getting so abusive.  I believe that this pretty well demonstrates the character of the majority of liberals, who do not and will not tolerate facts and truth, especially when going out to and educating the general population who have been lacking a full and proper education of these matters in the Government sponsored public school systems throughout our country; who have done us and our society such a great disservice which has led to and is the foundational cause of our current “financial crisis”, for the young know nothing of freedom, liberty, world history of governments and the downfall of civilizations due to Socialistic and Communistic ideals, concepts and governance.  Even on this blog you will find comments that some people are quite negative of the information, facts and historical data that I provide to inform the public so that we might, someday, regain our freedom and personal, individual prosperity.

The following is what happened to Glenn Beck when he stopped at a Wendy’s at a truck stop.  It shows the mean, hateful character of liberals and why we who believe in and strive for freedom (from Government and Socialism/ Communism) must be careful of those around us.  I would also point out that the left, who from my perspective and observations tend to be weaker and less physically able than the typical athletic quick and powerful but reserved and meek “jock” types that make up most of the Conservative population (meek means strong, powerful but generally reserved, rational, docile even under the provocation of others), are quick to call police, press charges and bring on lawsuits when they finally so provoke conservatives to the point of action or even self defense.  The liberals are quick to call police after they start physical scraps and blame conservatives.  They know how to goat conservatives and use government to work against conservatives.  So be careful out there.  Use their own methods and “playbook” against them.  If they get physical call the police and stay reserved.  Use any proceeds to facilitate even further education of the truth that will set us free from the dire straits of Socialism and Communism.

Perhaps, someday, our physical ability, strength and quickness we have been blessed with as conservatives may come in use at a proper time when we will be in a combination civil and Re-Revolutionary War as predicted elsewhere in this blog.  But until that time comes, remain meek, reserved and just continue to educate our fellow countrymen to the benefits and historical facts and truth of freedom and liberty.  But also beware of the meanness, cruelty and irrational behaviors of the left who will try to goat us into violence and anger.  I would recommend we just have pity and pray for them that they might see the light of the truth and be blessed to be changed by the light of God. 

Freedom is Godly.  Socialism and Communism takes free will, free choice, personal and individual decision making and therefore, God, out of our lives.  Governments force “their” decisions down our throats and, therefore, Godly intervention in our hearts and our minds becomes moot, as the power of government makes these decisions and therefore our actions and executions, for us.  Socialist and/or Communist governments, in this way, take and thwart the will of God.  And, I believe, this does not make God happy, to say the least.

I believe that God really loves America, our American uniquely Godly culture and beliefs.  I am really concerned that if we Americans lose our American way and our freedom, I honestly think we true Americans, we traditionally thinking, American heritage type Americans, maybe the only thing holding God back from bring down the house.  I believe God gave, truly gave, us “free will”.  I think that if we let, decide to let, the immoral and unrighteous amongst us take away the blessing of freedom (from Government otherwise known as “self government”) that God himself bestowed upon us and which provided for INDIVIDUAL wealth, happiness and greatness beyond all the rest of our planet, I think he is going to be really pissed.  I think we better start wising up and get out there and start educating our population and fighting for freedom, before it is too late.   We better start rejecting “free stuff” from government and accept the hard work blessings from God, where God and not government blesses us with individual prosperity and wealth.  Yes unequally as he sees fit.   With this we who are blessed will have the personal opportunity to help those with less and give of our wealth and our intellect so that God may judge us as how we individually love and help our neighbors in times of need and share of our individual fruit that he provides and blesses us through our hard work.

Now as an example of the typical liberal character, here is how one of them treated Glenn Beck, in his own words, who only wanted to buy a frosty:

It happened to me at Wendy’s Saturday night. We are on the bus and we stop to get fuel and I said, I’m going to go in, I’m treating. Everybody wants a Frosty. I’m going to go get Frosties. And one of the security guys, said, No, you’re not. I said, Yeah, I am. I mean, it’s a truck stop. How much trouble am I going to get in in a truck stop? Everybody here you can trust. You’re not going in. I went in, but I had to bring the swat team with me and so I’m just, I just want to Frosty, please, the guy standing next to me, who, by the way, I may point out. Had food in his hair, is a truck driver and he turned around. He looked at me and the recognition was immediate and he said, You racist bigot! And I just said — I wanted to say, I think you have me mistaken for someone else, but I knew he knew who I was and he just hated me for who I was. You conservatives that have destroyed this country! And the hatred was so deep, it was breath taking. Luckily the swat team was there and I just separated myself from him and he just shouted through other people and there were children in the restaurant and he blamed me for everything, I believe including the Holocaust, and the hatred was palpable. The guy screamed at the restaurant, you better not let me see you in the parking lot because I’ve got a truck and I’ll run your ass over! Wow. Is this who we’ve become? Is this who we’ve become?

Claim:   Editorial by pianist Huntley Brown explains why he won’t vote for Barack Obama.

Status:   True.

Example:   [Collected via e-mail, October 2008]

Origins:   Huntley Brown is, as described on his web site, a “a Christian concert pianist whose versatile repertoire includes classical, jazz, gospel, reggae and many other styles.” An e-mail to Mr. Brown about the item reproduced above, an explanation attributed to him about why he would not be voting for Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, drew the following response:

Yes, I wrote this e-mail. I was responding to my friends who asked me to vote for Senator Obama because he is black.

It was not my intention to send it around the world.

I did not post this e-mail or send out any pictures attached. I wish they had not done that.

My friends did not ask me to vote for Senator Mccain which explains why my e-mail was geared towards Senator Obama.

My e-mail was not meant to influence public opinion in any way, but simply to share with my friends my views on why I could not vote for Senator Obama.

I have problems with both candidates, but the differences I have with Senator Mccain are pale in comparison with the ones I have with Senator Obama

For the record, I am not a politician. I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I am a Christian independent who just loves the Lord.

If Senator Obama wins he can count on my prayer support every day.

I tell my friends it’s like a family where you have different opinions, but you love each other just the same. I love and appreciate Senator Obama but our views are diametrically opposed.

If I knew my e-mail would have generated this much interest on a national level, I would have left out a few points. I don’t want people to think I am against gay people or against people who have had abortions. (I am not) We are all sinners saved by grace but we need to have some absolute laws to govern society or else we will self destruct.

What has really bothered me is our beautiful black women constitute only 6% of the population, yet they comprise 36% of the abortion industry’s clientele. Obama has done nothing to stop this. Most people don’t know that the leading abortion providers have chosen to exploit us blacks by locating 94% of their abortuaries in urban neighborhoods with high black populations. Obama has done nothing to stop this?

To be honest I can’t wait to vote for the first black President but it has to be a person who shares the values I read in the Bible.

Thanks for checking to make sure my e-mail is legit it is.

The sad part is I have been getting hate mail and my family is being harassed. As you can imagine not everyone is happy with my e-mail. God bless you richly.

Last updated:   15 October 2008

The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/huntleybrown.asp

Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2008 by snopes.com.
This material may not be reproduced without permission.
snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com.

Barack Obama shrugs off charges of socialism, but noted in his own memoir that he carefully chose Marxist professors as friends in college.

By Bill Sammon

FOXNews.com

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

I was, for years, for a flat tax.  I felt that income taxes, as devised, were detrimental to our economy and each individual American.

Last year, minding my own business so-to-speak, I was doing research for tax preparation.  An article caught my eye which has led me on an investigation for over 1 ½ years now.  I have been trying to prove that The Constitution does not require that taxes are to be apportioned and that the Supreme Court did not find that the Constitution was not changed by the Sixteenth Amendment.  I have been just about pulling out my hair, because everywhere I turn, despite all manner of spin, twists and turns by the U.S. Government and many “Liberal” / Socialist types my findings have been and still are that the Constitution, according to the Supreme Court, remains unchanged with regards to the apportionment clause.

I am utterly convinced that Thomas Jefferson won; that the Federal Government is to have only “enumerated powers” and that it is supposed to be an agent of the free and “INDEPENDENT” States and be a very small office relative to it’s current “ILLEGAL” size and scope.  Further I have found multitudes of reasons WRITTEN by the founding fathers as to why this is so and how the “apportionment” clause was to see to it that the U.S. Government never would be able to develop the financial assets required to gain power over the States or any involvement over the daily lives of Americans who live in the States.  That each State was to have its own army and “militias”  to further ensure against a Federal Government take over of the lives and daily freedoms of individual Americans or the individual free States.

I have further found out that in every court case that I have personally read the transcripts, where so-called, tax protesters have lost, the judge SPECIFICALLY stated that he would not allow the law to be used in the court and that he would “direct” the jury as to what the law was.   Additionally I have found it extraordinary how many cases have been won by “so-called” tax protesters that go un-reported by any major media source.  In one case there were 161 counts of various tax evasion counts against a business and several individuals.  The IRS lost each and every count ZERO out of 161 counts.  That has happened as recently as with in the year.  Several individuals have also won where the jury “demanded” to see the law for themselves.  Neither the judge nor the IRS could produce any law that called for taxes on the average American citizen.  This is because there is no law, including the Sixteenth Amendment, that has reversed the apportionment clause according to The Supreme Court.

I personally believe that we can not afford to pick and choose which laws that the Federal Government has to obey, of The Constitution, and which ones the scofflaws can thwart.  I know for a fact, from all my research that our founding fathers wrote each and every law in The Constitution for a very specific well thought out reason, because I have read and still read almost every day about these matters.  I believe that our country is about to undergo nightmarishly hard times because We The People have not taken care of our responsibility to police the Federal Government and many of the State Governments for that matter.  Social Security and Medicare ALONE, for example, will be $90,000,000,000,000.00 (NINTY TRILLION DOLLARS) in debt, over the infinite horizon, by the time the new President and Congress takes over in January.  There is only one place to find that much money; and that is from the payroll withholding taxes of the hundreds of millions of working men and women of this country.  David Walker, the past Comptroller General of The United States of America for almost Ten years figures that we are talking about withholding payroll taxes of 70 – 80 percent of every paycheck unless something is done and done soon.

There is no choice but to engage the full scope of THE LAW on the Federal Government.  So in my opinion, sir, taxes must be apportioned.  Obviously that is not politically possible, which is exactly the intent as written by the founding fathers, which means that the Federal Government has to collapse down to handling only the ENUMERATED powers and responsibilities allowed by the law that We The People did ordain and establish on the Federal Government.  It is that or pure Socialism under a one world Government headed up by the largest private company on Earth that collects every penny of our Income Taxes in the form of interest – The Federal Reserve, who also created and “leads” the Trilateral Commission www.trilateral.org .  The IRS does not work for the U.S. Government as, according to the publically available Grace Commission Report to President Reagan in 1983, every penny collected goes directly to this private closely held by forty mega-powerful stock holders and which not a penny goes into the U.S. Treasury for even a New York minute.  Congress has to beg The Federal Reserve for each and every penny they spend in the form of a loan, of which we pay even more interest on top of the interest.

If that weren’t bad enough, the real icing on the cake is that the dollar is only backed by about 4 cents of various bullion reserves and assets.  That means that eventually, at least in a realistic world, a $1,000.00 mortgage should really be $25,000.00, but in reality we have never received pay for our hard work and we, nor anyone has ever paid for anything.  In effect and in a true reality we live in a form of “The Matrix” just like the movie because nothing exists in the way we perceive in our minds, as programmed by The Federal Reserve System, in that nothing that we can see, touch, smell or taste has been paid for by anybody.  So in a realistic sense we only perceive in our minds that we or anybody else owns anything.  Another reason for this is printed on all Dollar bills.  Printed on them is the following: “FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE”.  Do you know what a NOTE is?  It is nothing more than the “promise” to pay with “real” money sometime in the future.  In this case, it is a future that will never arrive.  Therefore, in a very realistic sense, nothing exists as we perceive it with our senses, in terms of ownership or having been secured by way of purchase.  The cost to run this “Matrix” is too much even for the forty owners of The Federal Reserve System which is as “Federal” as Federal Express.  And they, being a “private” company have the right to say no to any loan request by Congress.  So Congress has to “keep the bank happy”.  And, the bank likes to “advise” the top Government officials and keep them informed of the “best course of action and legislation” behind closed doors.  If The Constitution were to be obeyed by the Federal Government none of this stuff would have happened to us.  The power to tax is the power to destroy.

Taxes, any taxes, if you knew the reality of our present situation you wouldn’t talk so foolish as to require any such illegality.  According to the law there isn’t supposed to be any taxes unless they are apportioned (PERIOD!).  There will come a time where people will have to decide between the Constitution and Socialism, or more precisely freedom or the chains and bondage of the Socialist Welfare Police State.  It has come to that.  Unfortunately the Government did not see fit to educate our population, meaning you and me, in school so that we understood our great American heritage, freedom, liberty and the wealth that generates forth from it.  Instead our Government deemed it more important for us to learn liberal arts and so that is our children’s curriculum.  So here we sit with freedom (which means FREEDOM from Government) slipping from our grasp, day by day, by day, as The Federal Reserve System programs our minds to believe what isn’t while they steal our money, our property and our rights just as surely as The Matrix in the movie sucked out power out of the cerebral cortexes of millions upon millions of humans housed in multi-levels of vats and replace that energy with programming to make us think things that just don’t exist in the real world because the Dollar, as we think of it, does not exist; as proven by the fact that they are “NOTES” and the fact that they are only supported by about 4 cents per dollar.  This is the reason the dollar has been collapsing over the last year and why it will continue to collapse over time.  – - Unless The Federal Reserve is successful in creating and passing the North American Union, where they can add hundreds of millions of Canadian and Mexican taxpayers to the socialist slavery vats of the Matrix to pay for the cost of running and programming The Matrix.  With out the NAU The Matrix will not be able to even handle the weight and pressure of trying to control every single American and The Federal Government and this is the very reason why “The Matrix” is oscillating right now as I write this e-mail to you.  It is on the verge of collapse because it is under such stress trying to control our entire country and every living soul there in.  That is the factual and true reason for the collapse of Bear Stearns, multiple banks and perhaps Freddy Mac and Freddy May.  If they do not pass the NAU soon The Matrix and The Federal Reserve System will collapse.  This, in the longgggg run will provide once again our individual freedom and eventually the return of individual prosperity.  The worst thing that could happen would be if The Federal Reserve succeeds in their attempt to force the NAU down our “collective” throats; because that will be the end of our unique American culture, our freedom and the American dream.

Forget taxes, go for enforcement of the Constitution to the very meaning, spirit and intent as meant on the day of its drafting.  For without that we and our posterity will suffer a fate far too horrible to comprehend.  To ignore these facts is to welcome and exacerbate the imminent result.

Yes I will put your request in my blog, because it is a miniscule step in the right direction, but you need to realize the full scope of this vast problem and you need to realize that we are going to have to fight, hopefully peacefully, for our freedom by way of The Constitution which is the only thing standing in the way of the megalomaniacal Socialist / Communist members and “One World Government” of The Federal Reserve and the Trilateral Commission of which they are the leaders.

The Matrix is a system, Mr. Culling. The Federal Reserve System.  That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.  The Matrix, the belief that the Dollar has paid for everything in your existence including your wages and/or salary, is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work… when you go to church… when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.  The Federal Reserve is in control of every single thing. What could a private company that collects every single nickel of our income taxes do with those assets created by the hard work of the American people and small businesses?  That is the reason why income taxes, unless apportioned, are illegal as written by our founding fathers.  They foresaw all of this.

Mr. Cullen, I am trying to free your mind, but you are the one that has to walk through the door.  Have you ever had a dream, Mr. Cullen, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?  Welcome to the real world.  We all, every one of us, owns nothing.  And nothing, in our lifetimes, has been paid for, with the minor exception of those who used “Silver Certificates” which were backed by real Silver Bullion in an attempt by the courageous President John F. Kennedy to rid our country of its Federal Reserve Masters.  And you know what happened to him, only five months after signing the Executive order for Congress to obey The Constitution and mint and coin money in the form of Silver Certificates which would have eventually spelled the end of The Federal Reserve System, “The Matrix”, BIG Government, and the Social Security and Medicare problem because it would have been “stepped down” in an orderly fashion at the best time possible, resulting in posterity, us, being able to avoid the imminent combination Civil / RE-Revolutionary War to restore The Constitution to full force and effect as intended in spirit and affect as it was on the day of its drafting by a committee of our Founding Fathers, God bless them.  For it will become, thank God, a choice between true freedom from the Federal Government for all, or 70 – 80% payroll withholding taxes and massive energy cost due to The Federal Reserve controlling Congress to prevent us from drilling and harvesting our own vast volumes of energy resources so that we will become so financially and spiritually weakened they “think” we will succumb to the Final Demand.  And what then?

  If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of Socialism by committing an immorality so great as saying to Three Hundred Million now in slavery in “The Matrix” program of The Federal Reserve System, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Let’s set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace–and you can have it in the next second–surrender.

Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face–that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand–the ultimatum. And what then? When Barack Obama has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of high energy costs and taxation that he and his cohorts such as Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Congressman Steve Kagen, Senator Harry Reid, Senator Herbert Kohl and the majority of the Democrats have chained us with, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he would rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin–just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” There is a point beyond which they must not advance. This is the meaning in the phrase of “peace through individual strength.” Winston Churchill said that “the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces, like the privately held Federal Reserve Corporation, are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits–not animals.” And he said, “There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that divine providence and faith in the creator who has bestowed us with certain unalienable rights stands with us in defiance of those who would rob us of what we have been bequeathed.