The following list of “Leftie” jokes may only be funny to those who aren’t but all together, they clearly evince much that is wrong with many in our society. Because those who hold these views are often in prominent or influential positions (news media, teachers), they also explain why in America we are faced with so many problems and why there exists such a cultural divide.
You might be a left head, if ...
James Lewis May 01, 2011
Remember redneck jokes? Blonde jokes? Polish jokes? So --- why don't we have leftie jokes? The United States is infested by out-of-control lefties swarming around the media like body lice. Why don't we scratch where it itches?
To start making up for our humor deficit, here are a few starting ideas. Please add your own. Extra points for funny.
"You might be a left head if...
• You can't tell "it's" from "its."
• Your mind cuts out after one tweet a day.
• You think "like" is part of English grammar.
• You believe Jerk Rap is better than Mozart.
• You feel sure that 2 + 2 equals 5 in some cultures.
• You think snowstorms prove global warming.
• You believe God is dead but Karl Marx lives.
• You secretly think human history started when you woke up in high school.
• You've had at least twelve years of education, but you can't read, write, add, subtract, multiply or divide, or make any sense.
• Your eyes glaze over when somebody talks facts and logic.
• You never liked history because it has too many dates.
• You're twelve years old and feel ready to have a baby.
• You think undocumented immigrants lost their documents someplace.
• You think blacks can't be racists.
• You consider Al Sharpton to be a spiritual leader.
• You want to spend your life doing good for humanity, but you can't stand math, science, business, accounting, agriculture, economics or engineering. Or work.
• You think the Nazis were conservatives.
• You're sure you're a Progressive but can't explain what that means. If anything.
• You believe Karl Marx gave human rights to women, blacks, and gays.
• You think the Soviet Union was a good idea.
• You think the most intellectually stuck president in history is a genius.
• You think ObamaCare will balance the budget.
• You think Bill Maher is funny.
• You think race baiting is a perfectly good political argument.
• You believe anything in the New York Times. Anything. A-n-y-t-h-i-n-g.
• You know in your heart that people who don't agree with you are evil, racist, sexist, gay-hating, and Islamophobes.
• You think America deserved 9/11.
• You're scared about Islamophobia, but not about suicide bombers with nukes.
• You believe Christians should not be allowed to criticize Muslims.
• You think it's ok for Hamas to kill families in Israel, but it's not ok for Israel to strike Hamas.
• You think that all drugs should be legalized, because people will use less of them if they're cheap and legal.
• You think Christians are evil, but Muslim terrorists deserve more sympathy and understanding.
• You think the media tell the truth.
• You think Obama never tells a lie.
Print This Post
Many of the elected Left are seeking to make elections and elected officials somewhat unimportant in many ways. That is, they are continually seeking to impose greater restrictions on the American public not necessarily just through laws passed by Congress but also by seemingly infinite rules and regulations promulgated by unelected bureaucrats.
To evolve our country into a socialistic one with a large central government that has virtually total control over most of the activities of its citizenry. The population will be neutered with an ever increasing number becoming docile and agreeable dependents of the State. This further facilitates implementation of their far left ideological agenda.
These same politicians, who are acting like an elitist class akin to the politburo of former Soviet Union, will be rewarded with privilege, power and wealth. We have to look no further than Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Charlie Schumer and Barney Frank to see what is transpiring.
We must vociferously and staunchly oppose all these individuals and their policies and do whatever it takes to abrogate their actions and remove them from office.
Our Unelected Rulers
Investor’s Business Daily 04/15/2011
Administrative State: Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi says "elections shouldn't matter as much as they do." Maybe they don't even matter as much as she thinks they do. It seems that bureaucrats are making our laws.
Speaking last week at Tufts University, Pelosi suggested that until recently there was little difference between her party and the Republicans because of "shared values." In her mind, these shared values had rendered elections meaningless in the pre-Tea Party era. But now she fears a true grass-roots uprising has forced a bright line between the parties.
What she and most of the country are missing, though, is the impact of the administrative state. America has become a nation where unelected regulators make law. We should be alarmed.
Recently we learned from U.S. News & World Report that "just six pages" of the 907-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have been turned "into 429 pages of new regulations." That is one page for "every page of (President) Obama's campaign book, 'The Audacity of Hope' — plus another 45 pages."
A few months earlier, the New York Times reported that federal rule makers "suddenly find themselves at the center of power as they scramble to work out details of hundreds of sweeping financial and health care regulations that will ultimately affect most Americans."
According to the Times, "More than 200 health regulators working on complicated insurance rules have taken over three floors of a suburban office building" in Bethesda, Md., "paying almost double the market rate for the space in their rush to get started."
Paul Dennett, senior vice president of the American Benefits Council, a trade group for large employers, is quoted as saying: "There has never been a period like what we are going through now, in terms of the sheer volume and complexity of rule-making."
Issues to be settled by regulators, not elected officials, the Times said, include:
• How much credit-card companies can charge shopkeepers for administrative fees when cards are swiped for purchases.
• Which types of financial companies are so "systemically important" to the economy that they should be subject to greater federal oversight.
• What services must be covered by all insurers as part of the "essential health benefits" package and at what point would premium increases be considered so "unreasonable" that regulators could step in.
This is not a sudden bump in rule making. Regulators have been busy for decades, particularly during Obama's first year in office — which wasn't even a full year. In 2009, the administration published a record-breaking 163,333 pages of rules that affect our daily lives, from the energy we use to the financial decisions we make to the health care we get.
If all this seems inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence's guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without state interference, there's good reason. As Heritage Foundation senior fellow Robert Moffat has written, Americans rightly "feel that they are increasingly being governed by administrators, not legislators. ... The rule of law is being supplanted" by rules and regulations.
The administrative state's disciples believe an army of experts is needed to organize society because they hold special knowledge. In his 1887 essay "Socialism and Democracy," Woodrow Wilson gave fuel to a radical agenda that gnaws at us yet today when he wrote that "men as communities are supreme over men as individuals."
The rise of the administrative state is oxygen for a political left that relishes control of civil society because its members believe they're too smart not to be obeyed. It has a chokehold not only on individual rights, but on the economy as well.
The Phoenix Center in Washington has found that on average, "eliminating the job of a single regulator grows the American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private sector jobs annually."
This would strike most as evidence that the administrative state is counterproductive. Yet there's an absence of a strong effort to reverse it. This isn't inspiring. Elections should mean something, and deconstruction of the body of unelected rule makers would give even more meaning to the pivotal 2012 races.
Print This Post
The shooting of Arizona Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords by a deranged 22 year old gunman has predictably but despicably precipitated a fusillade of culpatory attacks by liberals and Progressives, including politicians and the news media, who blame this tragedy on everyone important who holds conservative views including especially Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Parties. This assignation is reprehensible, irresponsible (particularly the news media and politicians), incorrect and ironic. We suspect that if the victim instead were a Republican, liberals would be insinuating that the individual had it coming to them because of their "Neanderthal" ideological views.
What we do know is that the perpetrator had clinically evident mental illness, possibly paranoid schizophrenia, was a pot head and heavy drinker of alcohol and a liberal with radical political views. The politician he shot was a Democrat and liberal. Thus, there is no conservative or right wing factor here though the Democratic politicians and the liberal Netroots and news media would have you believe that such was irrefutably the case.
The list of these contemptuous, disgraceful perpetrators is too long to list. Included among these are some of the anticipated suspects: Keith Olberman, Paul Krugman, Wolf Blitzer, Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos, (Hanoi) Jane Fonda, Sen. Dick Durbin, former Sec. of the Defense William Cohen, Rep. James Clayburn (3rd highest ranking Democrat in the House) CNN and MSNBC.
In fact, in his NY Times blog, Paul Krugman wrote:
"You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers."
Where were all these individuals while the Left was relentlessly threatening President Bush and V.P. Cheney in some of the vilest ways and continue to do so particularly against Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh? We didn’t hear them complaining or calling for the cessation of such inflammatory attacks and language. Actually, they were among those who were spewing the Left’s incessant incendiary rhetoric. We also didn’t hear them complain about the film “The Death of a President” which was a depiction of the assassination of President George Bush and which won the International Film Critics Award (as a far left political statement) or even when he was depicted with Nazi symbols. There were no condemnations when John Kerry stated regarding President Bush that “I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.” They also didn’t complain that Obama was inciting violence when he declared at a Philadelphia fundraiser in 2008 regarding Republicans: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”, a statement which he has often repeated.
Such is the irony of their present, unfounded accusations which the American public has been able to easily discern. For several reasons based on their corrupt moral algorithm, they don’t consider these blatant improprieties and transgressions to be as such. However, to rational and neutral observers, this is incontrovertibly a double standard.
Exacerbating the situation are the immediate attempts by the Left’s to use this tragedy in order to gain support for their liberal agenda of gun control and the restriction of free speech - prohibiting what they deem to be provocative (according to their double standards). As Rahm Emanuel famously posited:
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
These are a continuation of relentless attempts to provide the government with ever increasing power over its citizenry while concomitantly abridging and restricting our rights, freedoms and ability to protect ourselves as explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.
We must remain vigilant if we want to remain free.
Print This Post
The following creative factitious letter to “president” Obama from Mephistopheles (the devil or other evil person’s name associated with this letter) sardonically lauds him for his brilliance in implementing his policies in whatever illegal, shady or unconstitutional way possible and doing so by circumventing the electorate and Congress.
For us to successfully reclaim our country we must neutralize, exorcise and remove the “devil” (Obama) from power ... as well as his cronies.
New Year's Advice From Your Sponsor
From the desk of D. Mephistopheles, Attorney-at-Law:
Dear President Obama,
I must say, I am quite impressed. Following the unfortunate turn of events in your country's mid-term elections, many of the lower downs to whom I answer in this Great Firm were fully convinced that we had "bet on the weak horse", so to speak. There was a growing sense that you were out of time and out of ideas. But lo and behold, you had aces up both sleeves! Your mastery at mustering your forces through the "lame duck" session of Congress was simply brilliant to behold. Truly, our side was amazed, having not seen such tactical brilliance since our man from Austria launched his lightning campaign seven decades ago. In just a few short weeks you gained enormous swaths of territory from our common enemy, simultaneously weakening the resolve of your country's fighting forces and legitimizing the previously stigmatized wretches who dare not speak their love's name. Likewise, your ability to convince your own domestic opposition to lie down before the threat of a renewed menace from Comrade Putin was simply brilliant.
What has struck me as even more brilliant, however, is your determination to accomplish our mutual goals without regard to the outcomes of these ever-so-annoying elections. We saw the Republicans manage to block net neutrality, cap and trade, and death panels being enacted into law. Yet you brilliantly retorted "so what" and simply instituted all of these policies through executive direct action, proving once again that you are just the man we've been looking for. Even Bill Clinton didn't have the chutzpah to pull that kind of thing off! Truly, to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat as quickly and deftly as you have these last few weeks is breathtaking.
That being said, I think there are some lessons to be learned here. First of all, don't put too much stock in the outcomes of elections. Let's face it, our people lost the vote big time in November. Yet you simply stood your ground and took it to the enemy! And what did you learn? That you don't need to pay any attention to election outcomes or Congressional votes. You don't have to worry about the petty legalists who want to see policies enacted into law before you put them in place. All you need to do is take direct regulatory action and leave Congress out of it altogether. You did it, and what price have you paid? None at all, that's what. So why not keep it up?
Just think of it. You know the old saying "the devil is in the details"? Well I can tell you for a fact that is absolutely true. And who knows more about details than your vast army of Washington bureaucrats? What you need to do is simply enact every piece of our agenda that you can think of immediately through executive directives and agency regulation. After all, even if the Republicans try to block you, how many hearings can they hold at one time? You have thousands upon thousands of bureaucrats at your command for every Republican Congressman. They may try to take out a few of our initiatives, but there is no way they can even begin to address all of them. Truly our name is Legion!
Now about this "election" business. Here's a thought: You lost the election, but you still enacted your agenda. So why bother with this ridiculous election business to begin with? You know Chavez, Castro, the Royal House of Saud and so many other heroes of yours don't worry about this sort of thing. Are you less of a man than any of them? Certainly not! So why worry about the outcome in 2012? Just take command and cancel the whole thing. I know our mutual friend Bill Ayers has already spoken with you about this. The New York Times is ready to support you on this, along with the rest of your traditional media giants. The people need a Leader, someone who isn't afraid to do what has to be done, regardless of who stands in his way! You can be this Leader! All you have to do is take the full reigns of power. They are yours for the taking, just do it!
Okay, that's enough for now. Tell Michelle I said hi, and give my best to the kids. By the way, I'd really like to talk to you later about a book deal. Something about your goals and how you'll get there, maybe "My Struggle" or something like that. I'll have my people get with your people.
Your friend and admirer,
D. Mephistopheles, Attorney-at-Law
Print This Post
Attorney General Eric Holder has brought the regard, presitge and position that he holds to a new, immeasurably low level. This is an amazing feat given that the honor had been previously held by the abysmally incompetent Janet Reno. In fact, his job performance, or lack thereof, makes her accomplishments and management appear respectable.
Holder shows a total lack of understanding and appreciation of his position, responsibilities and the U.S. Constitution which he is charged with adhering to. In fact, he openly and egregiously flouts the basic principles of this document which he clearly despises and finds it to be an obstacle to his Progressive and racist agenda.
On innumerably occasions, he has displayed a lack of regard for equal rights and treatments. Some, minorities and especially blacks in particular, he feels should be accorded greater rights, privileges and entitlements especially at the expense of others, notably whites. The racist bias that has suffused the Dept. of Justice under his watch and which has been countenanced by him, are well known (see The New Black Panther Party issue as but one example).
He also panders to special interest groups and those that are openly hostile to our country and intolerant of our culture. His actions seem to be intentionally aimed at undermining and weakening America – an agenda that is consistent with a far left Progressive. In his view, rights are not truly equal – the Constitution be damned.
We staunchly and relentlessly continue to call for either his resignation or firing which would be in the best interests of this country and its citizens.
Holder's Dept. Of (Social) Justice
Investor’s Business Daily 12/15/2010
Politics: This Justice Department's social activism knows no bounds. First it meddled in a border state's right to protect itself.
Now it's trying to rewrite school policy to pander to Muslim law.
On Monday, Justice sued an Illinois school district for rejecting a Muslim teacher's request to take a three-week leave of absence to travel to Mecca. The suit claims that the Berkeley School District discriminated against middle-school instructor Safoorah Khan, whose religion "required" her to perform the hajj, and is seeking damages for this so-called victim.
But it's not stopping there. It seeks an order mandating school officials adopt policies accommodating all Muslim customs, no matter how unreasonable.
Attorney General Eric Holder is fulfilling a promise to pander to the special interests of Muslims. In June 2009, he pledged "a new beginning between the United States and the Muslim community" that includes "robust enforcement" of "religious freedoms."
"We are committed to using criminal and civil rights laws to protect Muslim Americans" in the workplace, housing market and schools, he said, adding that he was making it "a top priority."
Earlier this month, Holder spoke in San Francisco at the annual dinner of an anti-FBI group called the Muslim Advocates, whom he described as "partners in our work to promote tolerance."
He told Muslims gathered there that all 94 U.S. attorney's offices were partnering with the department's Civil Rights Division to act as "force multipliers" in helping to protect the Muslim community. He informed them that he'd brought a third of the nation's U.S. attorneys to Washington for an unprecedented meeting to work on being more "sensitive" toward Muslims.
"Last year," moreover, "I established an Arab-American and Muslim Engagement Advisory Group to help identify more effective ways for the Justice Department to foster greater communication and collaboration — as well as a new level of respect and understanding — between law enforcement and Muslim and Arab-American communities," Holder said.
This attorney general's many speeches reveal an agenda more radical than even his mentor Janet Reno's. It's plain that he's an activist, not an impartial enforcer of the nation's laws.
His audiences are a who's who of progressive causes — all sharing a common goal of obtaining "social justice" and "economic justice," as opposed to just plain equal justice under the law. They include activists not just for Muslim and Arab rights, but also black civil rights, gay rights, transgender rights, Indian tribal rights, housing rights, and on and on. It's a multicultural panderfest.
Here's just a sampling of his speaking engagements over the past two years:
• National Indian Nations Conference.
• African Union Summit.
• Metropolitan Black Bar Association Annual Dinner.
• Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month Program.
• American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee 30th Annual National Convention.
• Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) 50th Annual Conference.
• Legal Services Corp.
• Federal Bar Association's Advancement of Social Justice.
• National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.
• Hispanic National Bar Association Annual Conference.
• National Black Prosecutors Association.
• Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice & Congressional Black Caucus Symposium on Rethinking Federal Sentencing Policy.
Divide-and-pander groupism is the new normal at Justice. At Justice's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month Program last June, Holder announced — in addition to enforcement of special new rights for gays — a new "Diversity Management Plan" that includes the creation of a new department position: Deputy Associate Attorney General for Diversity.
Holder's obsession with race was laid bare in his 2009 Black History Month speech in which he called Americans "cowards" for not doing more to speak out against racism. The disconnect of bad-mouthing America as racist in the wake of its electing a black president (and his own appointment as the first black attorney general) was lost on him.
Still, he slammed "socially segregated" whites who live in "electronically padlocked suburbs" and schools that are "too willing to segregate the study of black history."
"We must endeavor to integrate black history into our culture and into our curriculums in ways in which it has never occurred before," he lectured, giving it equal weight with "so-called 'real' American history."
Such demagoguery explains why, over the past 22 months, Justice has "reinvigorated" its civil rights enforcement activities. When it comes to combating hate crimes, however, it's still a one-way street.
"Our message is simple: If you engage in violence fueled by bigotry — no matter the object or nature of your hate — we will bring you to justice," Holder claims. Unless, of course you're club-wielding New Black Panthers and the object of your hate is white voters.
Then you get a pass.
Print This Post
Despite the historic drubbing that the Democrats suffered in the midterm elections, the Left either doesn’t “get it” or refuses to submit to the will of the voters whose attitudes are the antithetical to its own. Clearly, Obama mentally won’t acknowledge this fact and may even be mentally incapable of doing so. He and his radical far left cronies are bent on changing America to fit their ideologies and not the desires of the American public.
We must continue to remain vigilant, proactive and united to fight this insidious push to transform America away from the democracy, freedoms, rights and economic system that have made this nation so great.
Obama and his radical ilk must be thwarted, defeated and removed from positions of power and influence every chance possible.
Our future depends on this.
Elected Office Doesn't Come With A Crown
Investor’s Business Daily 11/17/2010
Change: How out of touch with America is the political left? It's convinced it has the authority to reign. But this country was founded on the idea that the governing was to be done by representatives, not rulers.
Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes tells the Daily Beast that President Obama "has a different belief system than most Americans." Nothing new there, but true nonetheless. Traditions of limited government, individual liberty and free markets are foreign to this president. This is a man who said he wanted to transform America and went about doing so as soon as he took office.
The stinging rebuke he suffered two weeks ago at the midterm elections doesn't mean Obama will slow down. He's being encouraged to stay on his big-government agenda by allies including John Podesta, the Clinton chief of staff who ran Obama's transition team.
Podesta, who now heads a "progressive" think tank that carries heavy weight with the White House, told the media this week that the former community organizer still has an opportunity to "push the country to a better place."
Podesta tried to qualify his remarks, saying Obama must work under the "constraint" of law and the "restraint" of wisdom.
But neither law nor wisdom holds back those who believe they're above the former and in sole possession of the latter.
Socialist democrats indeed want to push the U.S. to a place they believe is better, even if most Americans don't want to go along because they know it's not in their best interests.
Examples of the elitists' push abound. There's the health care overhaul, the takeover of General Motors and a failed stimulus, all of which are now law, and proposals to change Americans' lifestyle through the forced reduction of carbon emissions.
Richard Wolffe, author of "Revival: Struggle for Survival Inside the Obama White House," saw up close how the left thinks when he had access to the president and his senior staff. Obama, says Wolffe, "goes around telling people that he would rather do big stuff and be a one-term president than small stuff and be a second-term."
Wolffe likened Obama to George W. Bush in that both would say they are in office "to do big stuff" and aren't concerned with the price. But it's a mistake to think that tax cuts, which promote economic liberty, are in any way related to taking over the health care system or an automaker. Yes, Bush had some big-government ideas. But his goal was not to shove America off its moorings.
Obama, of course, isn't the only one who thinks America leaves something to be desired. George Soros, the billionaire progressive, believes China "has a better functioning government than the U.S." New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman also has a China fetish, contending "a reasonably enlightened group of people" are running that country better than U.S. lawmakers are managing our federal system.
Both seem fed up with the American style of government, with its meddlesome checks, balances, constitutional limits and gridlock, and would prefer to live under a kind and wise monarchy that can simply force its agenda on an unwilling citizenry too backward to look after itself. In Friedman's world, it's even OK for an enlightened autocracy to take "things away from people" if it needs to.
Liberals' shaky connection with the rest of the country was strained even further Wednesday when Nancy Pelosi was elected House minority leader. As speaker, she pursued far-left policies that led to the Democrats' midterm rout and loss of House control.
In keeping her on, Democrats have demonstrated how much they are wedded to a radical agenda that voters have repudiated.
Americans don't need a push from those who imagine themselves to be their superiors. What they want is more room to live their lives without state interference.
It's inspiring to see them begin to take back what the left has been snatching away for years.
Print This Post
It appears that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with the blessings of the Obama Administration will seek to impose “net neutrality” policies using the Thanksgiving and Christmas recesses when Congress is out of session to facilitate this. Encouraged by the far left and aided with financial assistance from George Soros, this change will provide the federal government with much greater control of various aspects of the internet as opposed to the companies that spent billions of dollars constructing and operating the networks and fiberoptic lines.
“Net neutrality” is a euphemism for legislated government control of internet communications with the pernicious ability to affect free speech. This legislation has been fervently supported by progressives in order to have the ability to silence conservatives and the opposition who use this avenue such as Fox New, Rush Limbaugh, etc.
This is another attack on our rights and freedoms that is supported by the Obama Administration, progressives and communists and funded in part by Soros.
“Net neutrality” laws and regulations must be stopped or reversed if implemented!
Seizing the Internet
The Prowler 11/24/10
Staffers at the Federal Communications Commission with ties to the commission's chairman, Julius Genachowski, coordinated media and strategy planning with senior Free Press and MoveOn.org officials in the run up to Genachowski's announcement that he would be seeking an FCC vote on imposing so-called "net neutrality" rules on broadband and the Internet, and doing so when Congress is out of session during the Thanksgiving and Christmas recesses.
"Net neutrality" is a policy proposal that would essentially strip the control and traffic management of broadband networks from those companies that deployed them and make them run properly, and transfer much of that oversight to the federal government. Under the proposal rumored to be under consideration by the FCC, network operators such as AT&T and Comcast would not be allowed to offer consumers prioritized service or quality of service guarantees for such things as movie downloads and video streaming.
"It essentially turns the networks into dumb pipes, so you have billions of people going online and no one is really managing the traffic in a way so that consumers have a good experience," says an FCC staffer for a Republican commission member. "People don't realize how much video and communications comes over their broadband lines. This is the left's attempt to rein in things like Fox News, Pajamas Media, Internet radio broadcasts for Limbaugh and Levin -- anything that is data-related or video-related that requires some high-tech network management would be degraded or limited by the imposition of net neutrality."
Congressional Republicans (and even some Democrats) have stated that they do not believe the FCC has the statutory standing to impose such rules -- which would reclassify broadband and Internet services as "telecommunications services" and bring them under rules that were developed for the rotary phone back in the 1930s -- without guidance from Congress. More than 100 members from both parties formally requested that the FCC take no action until the House and Senate had had a chance to weigh in on the matter.
But with the Obama Administration quickly losing its own standing with its radical base as it prepares to surrender to Republicans on the Bush tax cut renewals and possible budget cuts, "We need to give our people a win, and right now, [net neutrality] is the only win we will probably be able to give them for at least the next six to eight months," says a White House official.
About a week ago it appeared that nothing would be done at the FCC, and Free Press, the leftist group founded by Marxist Robert McChesney and financed by George Soros, was due to host a media call to demand FCC action. But that call was canceled without explanation and rescheduled for Monday, November 22, at which point Free Press was able to tout news to its membership that the FCC appeared prepared to act on the neutrality policy.
"We were told [last week] to hold our fire and reschedule our call," says a Free Press media aide, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisals. "We have friends inside the FCC and they told us that if we just waited a few days, there would be good news for us to announce to our membership. More senior people knew what was happening over there and even had the dates for the ruling circulation and the FCC meeting schedule so we could plan events to support Genachowski and the Democratic commissioners."
Speaking with outside public interest groups or industry officials is not forbidden at the FCC, though in the case of an issue like "net neutrality," FCC staff involved at any level with the decision making process are required to publicly file an ex parte notice about any discussions related to the policy issue they have with outside groups. To date, no ex parte filings have been filed related to any contact a senior FCC official might have had with senior officials at Free Press. A number of current FCC officials have ties to Free Press, including Jen Howard, currently spokesperson for Genachowski, who formerly was a spokesperson for Free Press.
In the past year, Free Press has been caught in several ethics missteps related to its claims of not lobbying Democrats on Capitol Hill or at the FCC. In one instance, the group was caught drafting letters to be published under the names of liberal Democrats addressed to the FCC and intended to influence that decision-making body. Republicans on Capitol Hill have already made it clear that oversight of the FCC will be a priority for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
As it stands, the FCC will release the planned rulemaking for net neutrality while Congress is out of town on Thanksgiving recess, and would vote on the rules on December 21, when Congress is on Christmas recess. "In short, they are doing this in such a way that it is rubbing our noses in it," says a Republican staffer on House Energy and Commerce. "Unless folks just rise up and make noise about this, there isn't much we can do until after the new year when we get back and have control of the committee."
Print This Post
Given the arrogance, corruption and contempt that have been egregiously displayed by Harry Reid, Obama, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats of their ilk, it does not come as a shock that Reid’s “re-election” may have been a result of such actions. Furthermore, with stories coming out of ballots pre-selected for him and union involvement in the election, we would not be surprised if this election was illegally manipulated to guarantee him a victory.
Adding further suspicion to this was the 9 point swing in support where he was down at least 3 points immediately prior to the election yet won by a margin of 6 points over Sharron Angle.
This must be investigated in light of the already known innumerable coordinated attempts across the country by the left of massive voter fraud – many involving groups associated with ACORN and George Soros.
Harry Reid should not be above the law
Washington Examiner Editorial November 5, 2010
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid looked like toast a few days before the Nov. 2 election, trailing his Republican challenger Sharron Angle by three or more points in the campaign's concluding polls, according to RealClearPolitics. But when ballots were counted, Reid had somehow converted that deficit to a nearly six-point margin of victory. Most observers attributed the phenomenal success of Reid's last-ditch comeback to the Nevada Democratic Party's highly polished get-out-the-vote "ground game." But an internal e-mail from a Reid campaign operative to a Harrah's executive strongly suggests the Reid ground game depended at least in part on breaking the law.
As former Federal Election Commissioner Hans A. von Spakovsky explained Friday in The Examiner, federal law makes it illegal for officials with a Senate campaign to coordinate with corporate or union officials: "Both the Reid campaign and Harrah's may have violated federal campaign finance law that prohibits in-kind corporate and union contributions to, and coordination with, political campaigns. Corporations and unions may spend money to run ads in support of or opposing a candidate, but they are not allowed to make direct or in-kind contributions to federal candidates. Federal criminal law also prohibits intimidation and coercion of a person exercising his or her right to vote (or not to vote)."
According to the e-mail, which was first made public by National Review Online's Elizabeth Crum, the Reid staffer pleaded with Marybel Batjer, Harrah's vice president for government relations, to do everything possible to get the firm's thousands of employees and their families in Nevada's largest county to the polls to vote for the Senate majority leader, including putting a "headlock" on recalcitrant supervisors "to get them to follow through." In response, Batjer instructed her fellow Harrah's executives that they were to "do whatever we need to do to get the supervisors to know that there is NOTHING more important than to get employees out to vote. Waking up to a defeat of Harry Reid Nov 3rd will be devastating for our industry's future."
It is clear that the pro-Reid effort by Harrah's executive met with some level of resistance within the company, as one of the e-mails obtained by Crum referred to problems encountered by the Reid backers with midlevel supervisors in the company's culinary department. "They simply are not cooperating and listening with upper management" in the companywide get-out-the-Reid vote campaign, a Harrah's executive complained in one of the e-mails. Because intimidation and coercion were apparently involved, this matter requires the attention of the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section. Attorney General Eric Holder can be sure that the House Judiciary Committee will be closely watching his actions on this matter.
Print This Post
Why are people and politicians in particular so fearful of being P.C.? Are they so afraid of the media and liberals that they don’t have the backbone to stand up for what they believe?
Furthermore, these politically correct “standards” are opinions only … and those borne of liberal ideology. They are not factual. It is only because the media is so far-left, still somewhat influential and shrill that “violations” of their diaphanous tenets garner high decibel effects.
Why can’t conservatives fight more vociferously for their convictions and not succumb to or be apologetic to liberal attacks? It is not a matter of being nice. Their yielding to political correctness just further weakens our social fabric, economic conditions and even national security.
This leads us to the “quandary” of Islam. Is it a religion of peace with only a few radicals who are giving the religion a cosmetic blemish as believed by and vocalized liberals including the news media, liberals and most Democratic politicians? Or, is it an inherently intolerant, brutal “religion” that subjugates and abuses women and non-believers and calls for wanton violence against and death to those who refuse to succumb to its authoritarian, restrictive and all encompassing tenets and mandates and rewards those who commit such heinous acts in the name of their religion? This is largely the position of conservatives and many independents.
We believe the latter is the absolute irrefutable truth as evidenced by the writings of the Koran, the actions of tens of thousands of terrorists, and the tacit and overt support of their actions and proclamations by tens of millions of Muslims worldwide.
If we want to protect America and our country from terrorist attacks and even thwart the slow and insidious loss of our rights and freedoms as a consequence of our being too politically correct in order to avoid offending Islamic “sensibilities” (quite an oxymoron), we must recognize this inherent violent and intolerant nature of Islam.
We also must be relentlessly intransigent in defending our position and acting accordingly.
Perfect Muslim Soldiers
Investor’s Business Daily 10/25/2010
Islamofascism: O'Reilly, Whoopi and Joy are all wrong. The 9/11 terrorists weren't "Muslim extremists" or just plain "Muslims." A liberal newspaper reporter says they were model Muslims.
More precisely, they were "perfect soldiers" for Allah, says Los Angeles Times national correspondent Terry McDermott.
He would know. After traveling to the hometowns of the Muslim hijackers and investigating their family backgrounds, McDermott discovered they were not heretics or even "extremists," but in fact good, pious Muslims.
And their families and communities encouraged them to join the never-ending Islamic holy war, or jihad, against us.
The lefties at NPR who fired analyst Juan Williams and the cackling hens on "The View" who walked out on his Fox colleague Bill O'Reilly would benefit enormously from reading his book, "Perfect Soldiers: The Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It." It would open their PC-encrusted eyes to a truth that is already self-evident to most Americans.
The detail-rich book — which is endorsed by anti-war gadfly Seymour Hersh, no less — reveals that the 19 hijackers did not "hijack Islam," as conventional East Coast wisdom would have it. They weren't career criminals using the religion as an excuse to wantonly murder people. Nor were they misled into martyrdom by Osama bin Laden or other Svengali personalities.
On the contrary, they were deeply religious Muslims following the tenets of their faith, McDermott found. Most of them were from well-off families.
"Several were described as among the best boys — bright, respectful — in their towns," he reports in his book. "Many had gone to university," he adds. "Three had studied Islamic law." At least one, Ahmed al-Haznawi, had memorized the Quran, a sign of deep devotion much respected by Muslim elders. In fact, he earned the honorary religious title of "hafiz" at a young age.
McDermott describes how another hijacker, Wail al-Shehri left home to train for jihad in Afghanistan after a long period of recitation of Quranic verses. He had the approval of a local imam.
But he wasn't the only one who knew what they were planning. "Two-thirds of them told their families they were leaving to join the jihad," McDermott writes, adding that their families did not discourage them. "They went where they were called by their religion."
That's not the story we heard after 9/11. In media interviews, the parents of the hijackers expressed shock about the deeds of their sons. We must have the wrong men, they insisted. Their boys could never do such a thing. Jihad? What jihad?
Take Egyptian Mohamed el-Amir, father of 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta. Right after 9/11, he denied knowing anything about his son's activities. Then in 2005, after the London bombings, he confided to a CNN producer in his apartment in the upper-class Cairo suburb of Giza that his son had done a good thing and that the London suicide bombers were following in his footsteps. He said all this was just the start of a 50-year religious war, and that there would be many more fighters like his son.
El-Amir, a "skilled lawyer" by McDermott's account, declared that terror cells around the world were a "nuclear bomb that has now been activated and is ticking." He passionately vowed that he would do anything within his power to encourage more attacks.
Instead of mouthing tolerant-sounding platitudes and misleading their audiences about the true nature of the threat we still face, Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar and NPR's executives should educate themselves. They can start with McDermott's "Perfect Soldiers," which punctures the politically correct mythology surrounding 9/11.
Print This Post