"John Kerry Supports Gay Blood" declared a column on a pro-homosexual website.

Kerry, Franken and 16 other liberal senators insist they want the blood supply to remain safe and that donated blood must undergo two "highly accurate" tests that make the risk of tainted blood entering the blood supply virtually or nearly zero.

But writer and researcher Dale O'Leary says that male homosexuals, or men who have sex with men (MSM), as the FDA describes them, "expose themselves to such a wide variety of pathogens that medical professionals can never be sure that they have a test to identify every one of them. There could even now be something lurking out there, hidden in the blood of apparently healthy men, waiting."

O'Leary, the author of One Man, One Woman, and The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality, is writing a forthcoming report on the medical and health impact of admitting open and active homosexuals into the U.S. Armed Forces. 

"Senator Kerry argues that this policy is now arcane because we have tests to determine if donated blood carries the HIV, but the problem is not the diseases we know of and have tests for but the diseases which we haven't identified as sexually transmitted and blood borne and don't have tests for," O'Leary points out.

If the ban on gay blood is lifted, she warns, "The lives of all those who receive blood products are at risk. Hemophiliacs have every right to be worried, in the 1980's they saw their community virtually destroyed by contaminated blood. We simply can't be too careful. MSM are not at risk because they can't donate blood. In fact, the prohibition may serve as a warning to them and others that certain behaviors carry an unacceptable risk."

Tom Fahey, a man with hemophilia and HIV, formed an organization called the Committee of Ten Thousand to represent the estimated ten thousand people in the U.S. with HIV as a result of the blood transfusions needed to ensure clotting. In the past, this group, as well as the National Hemophilia Foundation, have defended the ban on gay men donating blood.

The proposed policy change is being driven by Senators Kerry and Franken and supported by Kirsten Gillibrand, Dick Durbin, Daniel Akaka, Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, Frank Lautenberg, Bob Casey, Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold,
Mark Udall, Maria Cantwell, Carl Levin, Tom Harkin, Mark Begich, Roland Burris, and Michael Bennet.

They urged FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg in a March 4 letter to review and modify the current law banning men who have had any homosexual sex since 1977 from donating blood. In response, the FDA released a statement to the press defending the ban.

"Our decision to maintain the deferral policy is based on current science and data," the agency said.

Angry over the restatement of official and long-standing policy and apparently willing to manipulate science for political purposes, Kerry then fired off another letter on March 9, once again demanding a review of the ban in order to accommodate the homosexual rights lobby. On March 12, last Friday, federal officials caved to Kerry's demand. The FDA said it would reexamine the issue, taking into account whether the current body of scientific information would allow "alternative strategies that maintain blood safety."

The liberal political pressure worked because FDA commissioner Margaret "Peggy" Hamburg is a physician with "progressive" connections who served as Senior Scientist at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a foundation funded by left-wing crackpot Ted Turner. She is also a former board member of the Drug Strategies group, which is supported by the Open Society Institute of billionaire George Soros and other liberal-left foundations.

The liberal campaign to lift the ban on gay blood comes only three years after the federal agency reaffirmed the ban after reviewing the scientific data. The FDA states that, "Male to male sex has been associated with an increased risk of HIV infection at least since 1977. Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that men who have sex with men and would be likely to donate have a HIV prevalence that is at present over 15 fold higher than the general population, and over 2000 fold higher than current repeat blood donors (i.e., those who have been negatively screened and tested) in the USA. MSM continue to account for the largest number of people newly infected with HIV. Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion."

The Family Research Council argues that Kerry and his fellow liberals "care more about the homosexual agenda than American safety..." For his part, Kerry in 2008 received a score of 100% on a scorecard issued by the Human Rights Campaign, a major homosexual rights lobbying group.

At the same time that Kerry called on the FDA commissioner to lift the ban, he wrote a column for a homosexual paper in Massachusetts called "Bay Windows" arguing that changing the policy "won't be easy" but that current law is "discriminatory" against homosexuals.

Kerry's move has been praised by the media, especially the homosexual press, with even Fox News running a story failing to quote any critics of the proposed change in policy.

However, Cheryl Wetzstein of The Washington Times wrote a story about Kerry's push for gay blood in which she quoted Mark Skinner, president of the World Federation of Hemophilia, as saying that "Blood-donor rules are discriminatory by design" but that the rules are grounded in science and intended to protect the end users, not target a group.

According to federal government information, "To date, no other population has been so greatly targeted by the AIDS epidemic as Americans with hemophilia, who have the highest infection rate of any population world-wide. Between the years 1978-1985 the blood supply and therefore much of the clotting factor hemophiliacs use to treat bleeding episodes became contaminated with HIV; as a result more than 5.0% of the estimated 20,000 hemophiliacs in the United States are HIV+ and as many as 90% of people with severe hemophilia are infected with HIV according to the Federal Centers for Disease Control."

Senator Kerry was also behind the congressional decision to authorize the lifting of the ban on foreigners infected with HIV/AIDS from traveling to and living in the United States, despite the increased federal costs associated with that change in policy. The Obama Administration officially lifted the ban last October.

"While the AIDS epidemic no longer has media attention," O'Leary argues, "the fact is that the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases among MSM continues unabated. In the 1980's HIV infection was a death sentence and many MSM modified their behavior, but with the introduction of antiretrovirals HIV became a chronic disease. MSM experienced condom fatigue and returned to sex with multiple partners. They seek sexual partners on Internet sites like Manhunt. They attend circuit parties, at which thousands of men engage in 3-day orgies of music, sex and drugs. The epidemic is fueled by drugs and alcohol, including crystal meth, poppers, ecstasy and Viagra. In spite of the risks, MSM openly solicit partners interested in bare-backing-unprotected anal sex."

O'Leary said that lifting the ban on gay blood could return us to what happened in the late 1970's when men who have sex with men "were allowed to donate blood even though public health officials knew that the gay male community was in the midst of an ongoing epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including syphilis, gonorrhea, Chlamydia tra­chomatis, herpes, hepatitis, Shigella sonnei, Shi­gella flexneri, Campylobacter enteritis, Campy­lobacter jejuni, Salmonella enteritis; Giardia lamblia, Enta­moeba histo­lytica (amebic dysentery), and Entamoeba coli."

Currently, she noted, "HIV infection rates among MSM continue to rise, particularly among young MSM. Other STDs are rampant among both those who are HIV positive and those who are HIV negative. An outbreak of syphilis was traced to men seeking sex on the Internet. There was an epidemic of MRSA-the so-called flesh-eating bacteria among MSM. There have been outbreaks of Shigella in several urban areas."

While liberals like Kerry and Franken insist that diseases will be picked up by blood screening, O'Leary says that a new strain of Chlamydia that was not picked up by standard tests emerged in Sweden, "a warning that given the way epidemics of STDs spread we cannot be sure we have an accurate test for everything that is out there."

            Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

So, what you are about to read, I am afraid, is something you are unlikely to find in any other place.

Suppose the government nationalizes the school system and makes schooling available for free. Without knowing any institutional details, could you predict in advance which students will end up in the classroom of the best teacher? How about the worst teacher? And how will the other students be sorted in between?

I certainly could not predict with any accuracy. But I can almost guarantee you the students will not be distributed randomly. I can also almost guarantee you that the distribution will not be independent of the parents' income, wealth and social status.

Similarly, suppose the government nationalizes the health care system and makes medical services available for free. Without knowing any institutional details, could you predict in advance which patients will be seeing the best doctors and entering the best facilities? How about the worst doctors and the worst facilities?

Again, I can virtually guarantee you that the patients will not be distributed randomly and that the distribution will not be independent of income and social status.

 Brother Can You Spare a Dime

What brings all this to mind is a post by Uwe Reinhardt at the Health Affairs blog the other day:

In the ideal world envisaged by the policy-making elite left of center of the ideological spectrum, the individual's health care experience is independent of that individual's socio-economic class... Access to needed and locally available health care is viewed as an individual's inherent right... Rationing health care by income class has no place in this picture. Heavy government involvement to enforce the implied redistribution of income does.

Now, this is interesting on several levels, so let me make four quick points. (1) I am not aware of any serious proposal (as opposed to, say, daydreaming) made by anyone, anytime, anywhere, to make health care available to people in a way that is truly independent of socio-economic class; (2) I do not believe it is possible to design a system in which access to care is independent of socio-economic class; but even if I'm wrong about that (3) I am fairly confident that no country in the world is seriously trying to do it; and (4) there is nothing in the science of public choice which would lead me to believe that any country ever will do it.

Health care is a complex system in which 300 million potential patients, 800,000 doctors and countless other paramedical personnel interact in complicated ways. Government cannot possibly control, or even observe, most of what goes on. The best it can do is change a few parameters. But after they adjust, people will mainly pursue their own self interests just as they did before the change.

Economists have spent 200 years developing tools that enhance our ability to understand the complex system we call "the economy." But we have very few tools to understand complex bureaucratic systems - especially the health care system. So with humility, I will cautiously propose three principles:

1. On the demand side, the same skills and attributes that allow people to do well in the marketplace also allow people to do well in bureaucratic systems. (The idea that the market favors one group of people and bureaucratic systems favor a completely different group is an illusion.)
2. On the supply side, if providers cannot ration based on price, they will ration based on other considerations and these other considerations almost always will favor consumers with higher socio-economic status.
3. Provided they have the money (or can make sacrifices to get the money) the price system is almost always better than bureaucratic systems for consumers with low socio-economic status.

Take the market for restaurants. A poor person in Dallas can have dinner at any of thousands of restaurants in the city without any bureaucratic hassle. Granted, he could drop a week's pay at some of the pricier establishments. But if he is willing to make the sacrifice, no bureaucratic obstacle stands in the way. Yet this same poor person is probably trapped in a Medicaid system in which about his only option is the Parkland Hospital emergency room or one of its satellite clinics. And his children are probably trapped in poor-performing public schools without any avenue of escape.

Think about that. In the capitalist restaurant sector, the individual has easy access to everything the market has to offer. But in the socialistic health and education systems (defended on the grounds that poor people need them), the individual has almost no choice whatsoever.

Here is the little understood (and surprising) bottom line: Markets do not empower rich people; they empower poor people. In a bureaucratic system, the rich person will find his way to top-notch doctors and he will find a way to enroll his children in one of the best schools. But a poor person almost never can be assured of these results unless he can pay with money.

Before I move to a consideration of the evidence, consider one more assertion Prof. Reinhardt makes about other developed countries:

All these nations have an escape valve for a small, moneyed minority who either buy private insurance or, in the case of the UK and Canada, travel outside their countries' borders to get health care either not available to them at all in their country or for which they must wait in a queue. But for the great bulk of the population in these countries - 90 percent or so - the health care experience of the individual is largely independent of their socio-economic status.

Now, if I had read only the literature on why there should be public education and had never taken a close look at how it actually works, I would be tempted to say the same thing about America's public schools. After all, about 10% buy private education and everybody else is part of the free system. Yet (as I hope everyone knows), public schools do not offer equal opportunities to all children. Nor does socialized medicine.

My foreign language limitations have constrained my ability to delve deeply into what's happening in a lot of European health systems. What I know most about are the English-speaking countries - Britain, Canada, New Zealand (socialist systems) and Australia (a mixed system).

Of these, Britain has made the greatest effort to find out who gets what from the health care system and why. In fact, contrary to my earlier assertion that socialists generally have very little interest in understanding how socialism actually works, the Brits seem to have an obsession about studying inequality of access to care. Here's what I wrote in Lives at Risk:

Britain's ministers of health have long assured Britons that they were leaving no stone unturned in a relentless quest to root out and eliminate inequalities in health care. But more than thirty years into the program (in the 1980s), an official task force (the Black Report) found little evidence that access to health care was any more equal than when the National Health Service was started. Almost twenty years later, a second task force (the Acheson Report) found evidence that access had become less equal in the years between the two studies.

Across a range of indices, NHS performance figures have consistently shown widening gaps between the best-performing and worst-performing hospitals and health authorities, as well as vastly different survival rates for different types of illness, depending on where patients live. The problem of unequal access is so well known in Britain that the press refers to the NHS as a "postcode lottery" in which a person's chances for timely, high-quality treatment depend on the neighborhood or "postcode" in which he or she lives.

"Generally speaking, the poorer you are and the more socially deprived your area, the worse your care and access is likely to be," says The Guardian, a staunch defender of socialized medicine. Scholarly studies of the issue have come to similar conclusions.

Now if I substituted "education" terms for "health" terms, I could leave all the other words pretty much the same and I believe I would have a very accurate description of the public school system in the United States and in the other four countries as well.

C'est la vie.

John C. Goodman is president and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis. The Wall Street Journal and the National Journal, among other publications, have called him the "Father of Health Savings Accounts," and the Media Research Center credits him, along with former Sen. Phil Gramm and columnist Bill Kristol with playing the pivotal role in the defeat of the Clinton Administration's plan to overhaul the U.S. health care system. He is also the Kellye Wright Fellow in health care. The mission of the Wright Fellowship is to promote a more patient-centered, consumer-driven health care system.

Dr. Goodman's health policy blog is the only right-of-center health care blog on the Internet. It is the only place where pro-free enterprise, private sector solutions to health care problems are routinely examined and debated by top health policy experts throughout the country-conservative, moderate and liberal.

NINTH AMENDMENT to the US Constitution: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

TENTH AMENDMENT to the US Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As I have observed over the past few months the "State Sovereignty Movement" continues to sweep the nation with well over three-quarters of the fifty states taking action, through their respective state legislatures, re-establishing their "sovereignty".

It is being reported that there are over 40 states with state sovereignty declarations as of this writing.   If true, that is heartening.  There is no doubt the states have been relegated to second-class citizenship in the US.  That is just WRONG and must be corrected!

We found reports on the Internet stating that THERE ARE 12 NEW STATE SOVEREIGNTY DECLARATIONS IN PROGRESS, RIGHT NOW!! THEY INCLUDE ALABAMA. NEBRASKA, Rhode Island, WYOMING, WASHINGTON, INDIANA, KENTUCKY, GEORGIA, KANSAS, MISSOURI, MISSISSIPPI, AND MARYLAND!

WYOMING is the newest constitutionally sovereign state. The bill was signed into law on March 8^th, 2010.  Utah did the same on the 25^th of February 2010.  The debate continues in my home state of South Carolina, but my guess is it will pass the state legislature and be signed into law by the "Sandlappers" very soon now.  

Here in North Carolina, House Bill H849 "supporting the state's right to claim sovereignty over certain powers under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States" has been filed.

Here's the full text:

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people;" and

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

Whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

Whereas, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

Whereas, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

Whereas, Section 4 of Article IV of the Constitution of the United States says, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government," and the Ninth Amendment states that "The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" and

Whereas, the United States Supreme Court ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

Whereas, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States; Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

SECTION 1.  The North Carolina House of Representatives supports the State's right to claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government or reserved to the people by the Constitution of the United States.

SECTION 2.  The North Carolina House of Representatives urges the federal government, as the agent of the State, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of any constitutionally delegated powers.

SECTION 3.  The North Carolina House of Representatives further urges that compulsory federal legislation which directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

SECTION 4.  The Principal Clerk shall transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and each member of the North Carolina Congressional Delegation.

SECTION 5.  This resolution is effective upon adoption.

Read more on North Carolina's efforts to re-establish its sovereignty HERE.

I took a look in my crystal ball and, for the life of me; I could see no indication of the effect the sovereignty movement will have on future relations between the states and their "agent"... the federal government. Only time will tell.

However, I must tell you, it does this old southern boy's heart good to see "State's Rights" again brought to the fore in the United States.

James Madison, The Founder we refer to as "The Father of the Constitution," wrote the following: "To preserve the Republic, it is in the hands of the people. We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments"

As with all Americans we "Southerners" get a lot of things wrong.  But we have been right on the issue of "State's Rights" all along.  See, southerners had a bit more than just a signature invested in the creation of the Constitution, itself. There was never any doubt, in our minds, about who "the greater" and who "the lesser" was/is in this association of states and federal government.  I must tell you, I am more than a little pleased to find the names of several northern and western states, and even northeastern states, included in the list of the names of the states involved in the State Sovereignty Movement.

Washington would do well to take notice, serious notice, of this movement. The Congress and the President may have forgotten, but it is "the boss" filing this complaint. It is very easy to sit in Washington and spend North Carolina's money, or the money of the folks from Texas or Oklahoma.  But, believe me when I tell you that we have been paying attention and we do not like having our state's treasuries looted by a heavy-handed federal government.

The current Congress would also do well to read up on the "Ordinance of Nullification" passed by my home state of South Carolina in 1828.  You can read it for yourself HERE.  Suffice it to say State Sovereignty is NOT a NEW issue in this country.  It appears we will have to visit it -- yet again.

J. D. Longstreet

*******************

J. D. Longstreet blogs daily at INSIGHT on Freedom at:  http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/

During his campaign for the presidency, Barack Obama asked voters to judge him by the people he surrounded himself with. To ease concerns that he is a far-left ideologue, he cited a list of prominent, mainstream individuals whose advice he would seek if elected. Not mentioned were less well-known people with extreme far-left views who are now helping him fundamentally transform America:

VAN JONES

The self-avowed communist and radical black nationalist was forced to resign as White House Green Jobs Czar after his incendiary views were revealed on Fox News.

ANITA DUNN

White House Communications Director told a high school graduating class that Mao Tse-Tung, history's most violent communist dictator, is one of her most admired political philosophers.

RON BLOOM

White House czar who oversees all U.S. manufacturing said that free-market capitalism is "nonsense", and that he agrees with Mao that "political power comes largely at the barrel of a gun".

MARK LLOYD

Chief Diversity Officer at the FCC expressed glowing admiration of communist strongman Hugo Chavez's crackdown on opposition media in Venezuela.

ANDY STERN

The militant labor leader who was the most frequent visitor to the White House during 2009 frequently quotes the slogan "Workers of the world unite", a rallying cry for world communism.

Shortly after taking office, President Obama called The New York Times to deny that he is a socialist, a claim that might be believable had he not chosen to surround himself with so many key advisors whose own words reveal a fervent solidarity with socialist, communist and Marxist views.....

Why progressives fear being revealed for what they are: hardened socialists

The progressive left knows that Americans will never knowingly accept the intentional destruction of the free-enterprise system that created the most prosperous nation in history, and that the act of transforming America into a socialist state must therefore be accomplished by stealth and deceit, as advocated by Saul Alinsky, the foremost hero of the progressive socialists who dominate the modern Democratic Party.

Related Video Follows

I've been incommunicado for the past week, for which I apologize. This last week has been the most distressing and alarming period of my adult life, so much so, that it has left me depressed beyond description, with feelings of hopelessness that have been difficult to combat. I am simply in stunned disbelief as I watch the avalanche of doom descend upon this great nation and I am wondering whether this country can be salvaged.

The Hopey Changey dictatorship and this rogue Congress are working feverishly to enslave the citizens on so many fronts, it is impossible to keep up with.

The House of Representatives are now considering a blatantly unconstitutional parliamentary move, appropriately named the Slaughter Rule, which would abolish the unambiguous requirement that both houses of Congress have a vote on the same bill in order to legally pass legislation and would simply deem the Senate Health Care bill to have passed. This procedure is defined in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution.

But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.

In the meanwhile, under the radar, by Executive Orders, a massive land grab of 10 million acres is under way, the regulation of all bodies of water under Marine Spatial Planning is being considered which would severely restrict the people access to our waterways, bays and oceans, and nobody really knows what other surprises are in store for us by the schemers that now control the strings of power.

Let's recap, shall we? In a little over a year this government has seized control of:

a major segment of the auto industry, banking industry, mortgage industry, financial industry, and are working towards controlling the student loan industry all while dictating salaries and bonuses for employees of private companies.

They want to regulate carbon emissions, all waterways, grab massive tracts of land, have plunged us into unrecoverable debt, are raiding the Treasury and doling out our assets to their henchmen and professional societal parasites, and have caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs while massively growing the federal workforce, hoping to legalize illegal aliens, have loaded the justice department with lawyers sympathetic to terrorists, and the list goes on and on and on.

Pretty soon they will have total control over the land, the water, the air, and this week they want to seize control of your body through the Health Care bill. What's left to regulate? I'd say nothing. What remains to be stolen? Stay tuned.

My friends, we are now living in something that can only be described as TYRANNY and the tyrants disregard for the people is willful, blatant and quite simply, criminal.

And what are we doing about it? Next to nothing, from what I can tell. While the Tea Parties are squabbling, planning galas, and artificial events based upon their calendars, tyranny is using its own calendar, to which we appear to be paying little or no attention.

THIS IS THE TIME TO ACT!!

Everything up until now, although worthwhile, will be meaningless unless we go up to DC on Tuesday to remind them that we will not stand idly by while they steal our liberties.

Or will we? Have we grown weary of the fight? Are we willing to allow ourselves to be made into chattel of the state because it was too inconvenient to do our duty as citizens? Believe me, I am as sick of fighting my own government every single day as the next guy, but this is the OK Corral. Or the Alamo. Pick your own analogy.

Everybody who is capable needs to get to Washington ON TUESDAY with a brand new message for our Congress.

If you vote for this healthcare bill against our will, not only will you be defeated in your next election, We, the people, are going to demand investigations regarding the back room deals, bribes, kickbacks and the other activities that went on in this Congress and will bring you up on charges, if appropriate. Treason may be difficult to prove, but each and everyone one of you have violated your oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

We are at war with an internal enemy that plays by a different set of rules, the Alinsky/SEIU/ACORN rules. They will stop at nothing, will break any law, use subterfuge, outright lies, intimidation and threats. Obama has delayed his trip to Asia in anticipation of a signing ceremony this week.

The time for respectful discussion, courteousness and measured political discourse needs to be abandoned and true anger needs to be displayed, outrage be expressed and we need to start making threats of our own.

This is absolutely our last chance to preserve our liberty.

I am not alone in my sentiments. Go read Dan Riehl's post, If you prick them they will bleed.

But the Left's political arguments must be confronted forcefully, even outrageously at times if that's what it takes to get through. Think of it in terms of what Andrew Breitbart is doing in the world of media activism today.

He is calling them out, confronting them, exposing them for what they are and what they believe. And when you prick them like that, they do bleed. Figuratively speaking, if we don't make them bleed, we will lose. We have been playing politely for decades now. And America has only continued its slide to the Left. And in the face of a pending vote on Obama Care, there is no more room left to give.

I'm not advocating violence. But I am advocating confrontation. Otherwise, most especially now, this one in the White House and his Congressional colleagues seem content to ignore you - to shine you on and you will get only what they choose to give you in the end. That is not the lot of the free man, or woman. It is the lot of the slave, the serf, if you prefer.

Steadfast and loyal,
Jim Smyers

Related Video:

Related Video: 

An entire generation or more of Americans who did not live through the Cold War waged against the former Soviet Union or saw the rise of communism in China are unaware of the toll it took on humanity. In a 1997 book, "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression", published by Harvard University, it set the death tolls at 65 million in China, 20 million in the Soviet Union, and so on. The total worldwide exceeded 100 million.

This week Americans will see if their system of government works to represent their will. When it controls the provision of health care, the government will literally have life and death authority over people.

Those who voted for Obama, giving him a fairly slim margin of victory, and those who instinctively sensed something terribly wrong in the man have now had their worst fears confirmed.

If our system of government works, it will reject Obamacare because that is what it was designed to do. The Constitution is structured to slow down the passage of a really bad law and to create obstacles to bringing it to a vote.

Only an administration with a totalitarian inclination would go to the lengths we've seen to pass a law that 75% of the people reject.

Obama is driven entirely by ideology and it's the same one that motivated Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and the other dictators of the last century.

Ideologically, Obama is a communist whose views were shaped by a communist mentor in his youth. He is a true believer in the economic and social views of communism that government must control all aspects of the individual's life and owns the fruits of his labors and earnings.

Over the years the voters have elected representatives and senators who subscribe to socialism since its introduction during the FDR era. Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not have to concern herself with the nearly 80 members of the Progressive Caucus. She has no Republican votes. It's the other Democrats who are giving her fits.

Beyond Obamacare, there are other issues that are directly affected by his ideology and at the top of the list is the belief that the economy must be destroyed in order that a new set of governing principles be imposed. It is astonishing how the power of the executive and a highly centralized government facilitates this.

No element of government rule is safe from Obama's clique of leftist "czars" installed to direct the various departments of government. From attempting to seize large portions of land for federal control to threats to regulate carbon dioxide, the heavy hand of socialist goals can be seen.

The administration moved swiftly to acquire control over General Motors and Chrysler instead of allowing them to go through bankruptcy for restructuring. Its "stimulus" program not only isn't producing jobs, the number of jobless grows with every passing month.

Obama's most troubling ideological threat to the nation is in the area of national security. In his book, "Courting Disaster", Marc Theissen documents "how Barack Obama has exposed (CIA) secrets to the enemy, unilaterally disarmed us in the face of terror, and invited the next attack." Another attack would be the opportunity to declare a national emergency and impose martial law.

Regarding the CIA interrogation program that produced invaluable intelligence about the structure of al Qaeda as well as its plans for more attacks, Theissen notes that "in his first forty-eight hours in office, President Obama shut the program down." That is not the act of a man whose very oath of office requires that he swear to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and, by doing so, protect its citizens.

The President's ideology and that of his Attorney General blinded both to the obvious idiocy of extending Constitutional rights to enemy combatants, men not even protected by the Geneva Convention rules of warfare. The announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be tried in New York City produced instant and widespread outrage.

Outrage has also been demonstrated by the thousand and more TEA Party (Taxed Enough Already) groups that have sprung up around the nation. Their protests are being heard despite the effort of the mainstream media to marginalize them.

The best thing Barack Obama could do for his nation would be to submit his letter of resignation as President. He's not likely to do that because he is too busy trying to destroy America.

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

Within that broader category, there are two flavors of tyranny. The honest tyrant and the dishonest tyrant. The  honest tyrant is a Will to Power type who asserts that he is master because he wields the biggest swords, commands the largest number of troops and will kill anyone who says otherwise. He may be a savage and a monster, but at least he is an honest one. He does not pretend to care for the people or what they think. His rule is not based on propaganda, only naked force.

But like the honest politician, the honest tyrant is a rare creature. Because most tyrants are cowardly and weak. Or at least cunning enough not to waste resources putting down rebellions by force, that they can preemptively disarm with propaganda. And so they disguise what they are behind propaganda. Propaganda that claims that they rule only for the benefit of the people.

Where the honest tyrant openly loots the people for his own enrichment, the dishonest tyrant claims to loot the people for their own benefit. The honest tyrant's answer to rebellion is naked force. The dishonest tyrant's answer is, "But just try to imagine what you would do without me." That is because the dishonest tyrant thrives by fostering the people's dependency on him, through a campaign of propaganda that convinces them that without him society would break down and nothing could function any more.

The monarchies of Europe responded to the American revolution by insisting that the entire thing would collapse because people could not govern themselves. No, they needed a king. The American Experiment demonstrated not only that people could govern themselves, but that people were better off governing themselves. But the French revolution that followed did not heed this message. Instead the idea that they took hold of was that reactionary outmoded tyrants who did not care about the people's welfare needed to be traded in for progressive enlightened tyrannical committees who would care about their welfare. And so honest tyranny was exchanged for dishonest tyranny. And that dishonest tyranny has crept its way into the United States under the banner of reform and social welfare.

The American Revolution was fought in order to create a government of the people and by the people. A state in which the people were the masters and government their servant. But through the trojan horse of progressive politics, the dishonest tyrants who claimed to be the protectors of the people wormed their way in and turned the government into the master, and the people into its servants.

Such a transformation requires a fundamental shift in the thinking of the people. It requires that the people come to think of themselves as incompetent to manage their own affairs, so that they must instead put their faith in the omnipotence of big government. And so every transfer of power from the American people to the government has been accompanied by a major crisis which made the people feel incompetent to manage their own affairs. The Great Depression remains the ultimate example of how an economic downturn was transformed into an opportunity for a radical assault on the Constitution by a dishonest tyrant who encouraged the people to think of him as a paternalistic representative of an omnipotent government whose power was to be unlimited. And Obama's present day takeover follows a similar pattern with a massive propaganda campaign exploiting a crisis in order to seize more power from the people and turn it against them.

Where the honest tyrant relies in the main on force, the dishonest tyrant takes refuge in deceit. He is not averse to force, but he also knows that his real power is over the minds of men. Like the honest tyrant, he wants power. But unlike him, he is much less willing to pay the price and take his chances. Instead he plays divide and conquer, amassing grievances, exploiting fifth columns, and proclaiming at every turn that his way is the only way... because he is the only one who truly cares about the people. The dishonest tyrant does this because his goal is to tie the people's sense of self-preservation to his own welfare by convincing them that they have no alternative but to put their faith in him.

The dishonest tyrant has nothing but a low contempt for the people, and he shows this in his tactics. His benevolent facade is there to cover up the ugliness of his deeds. He never does anything benevolent unless it is staged for the benefit of the crowd. And the uglier his tactics get, the more benevolent scenes he stages to convince the people of his goodness and virtue. To leverage himself one step closer to godhood in their minds.

He expects the people to trust him, but he has no trust in anyone. He will betray and destroy those closest to him, as long it keeps his feet secure on the ladder. And the higher he climbs, the more detached from any ordinary human morals and mores he becomes. Yet this very detachment lends him a mystique, an inhuman air which allows him to set forth his omnipotent image. But what his followers mistake for superiority and enlightenment, is actually the otherness of the sociopath who not view other people as truly human in the same sense as himself.

And so the process continues. The more the dishonest tyrant does "for the people", the more benevolent he seems. Yet in reality each "benevolence" weakens the people and places them further under his power. Each handout from the tyrant not only comes at the expense of the people's wealth, but at the expense of their freedoms and their faith in their own abilities. And thus the ruled becomes the ruler, and the rulers become the ruled.

Like the wooden horse of the trojans, each social welfare program of the dishonest tyrant is a booby trapped  gift. Except instead of an army of soldiers, an army of bureaucrats lurks within each one. As the people unwrap their gifts, grumbling occasionally over the price tag, they are unaware of the bureaucrats swarming them, tying them down and subjugating them. Until it is too late. Because the gifts of the tyrant are always meant for his benefit, never for yours. The dishonest tyrant in particular never gives any gift that does not have one string or a dozen attached to it. To open it, is to tangle yourself in his trap.

Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts, and We're From the Government and We're Here to Help, essentially mean the same thing. The Constitution was written with the understanding of the inevitable tug of war between the people and their leaders. To prevent tyranny, the people may not relax their grip, or accept gifts from the government, or the balance of power will be changed. As it has been changed. And as it is being changed right now, every day.

The dishonest tyrant does not need an army to rule the people. All he needs is their own complicity in their own oppression. Their willingness to be robbed and beaten down in the name of their own welfare. And it is only by bringing the people to such a state, that he can hope to rule over them.

----------------------------------------

From NY to Jerusalem, Daniel Greenfield Covers the Stories Behind the News

   .

Yet few of them have even heard of another document that I would say might be the second most important declaration he ever wrote: The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. He drafted them secretly while he was serving as vice president. It was written in response to the hated Alien and Sedition Acts which were passed under the Adams administration during an undeclared war with France.

The acts authorized the president to deport any resident alien considered dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States, and criminalized any speech which might defame Congress, the President, or bring either of them into contempt or disrepute. You could compare it to the Patriot Act, but really it was much worse. Either way, The Alien and Sedition Acts were probably Thomas Jefferson's worst nightmare.

Some people are surprised to learn that in response to these acts, Jefferson did not hold up the First Amendment in protest. Rather he invoked the Tenth Amendment, which states that:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Essentially, he argued that by passing and enforcing the Alien and Sedition Acts, the federal government had over stepped its bounds and was exercising powers which belonged to the states.

In other words, the Alien and Sedition Acts were acts of usurpation.

James Madison corresponded with Jefferson about these issues, (they suspected that their mail was being secretly opened and read by the way). As a result of their correspondence, James Madison penned another series of resolutions against the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were passed by the Virginia legislature in 1798 and 1799.

As important as these resolutions were in objecting to the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts, their lasting importance was due to the the fact that they were strong statements in defense of federalism, the sovereignty of the people of the several states, and the authority of state governments to check or resist the tyrannical proclivities of the federal government.

Jefferson began the Kentucky Resolutions by explaining the exact nature of the relationship between the new federal, or general government and the states that predated it:

"Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes - delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

These resolutions, authored by Jefferson and Madison, and passed by the Kentucky and Virginia Legislatures, came to be known as the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, or Resolves, of 1798. The ideas they expressed were later referred to as "The Principles of '98″.

Over time, "The Principles of '98″ would be invoked by many states, for a variety of issues. States invoked them to oppose everything from unconstitutional embargoes in 1807-1809, to the misuse of their militias during The War of 1812, the Second Bank of the United States in 1825, and the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1850.

Even today, The Principles of '98 have been rediscovered and are being used by both Republicans and Democrats to address unconstitutional federal laws such as federal firearms regulations, Cap and Trade, REAL ID, Obamacare and Congressional "commerce clause" abuse in general.

The Principles of '98, as expressed in Thomas Jefferson's other declaration, The Kentucky Resolutions, are non-partisan in nature and are just as relevant today in 2010 as they were in 1798. All we have to do is rediscover and reassert them! Start talking to your state legislators about the Principles of '98 today!

CLICK HERE - To read or listen to an audio presentation of Thomas Jefferson's OTHER declaration - the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798!

CLICK HERE - To read more about how the Principles of '98 were used by states throughout American history.

This article was originally featured on the website of United We Stand For Americans.

Derek J. Sheriff [send him email] is the state chapter coordinator for the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center.

His blog and podcast "Principles of '98″ can be found at www.PrinciplesOfNinetyEight.Com

Copyright 2010 by the author, Derek J. Sheriff.

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

* An exemption of Bill Nelson's Florida constituents from the Medicare Advantage cuts applicable to everyone else?

* A threat to take away Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman's committee chairmanship unless he falls into line?

And, lest we forget, remember the Senate ObamaCare bill which still allows the ATF to troll a health/gun database in order to take away firearms from tens of millions of Americans?

Well, that's the bill that Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now trying to cram down the throats of conservative House Democrats, who are being told they have to pass this bill that is filled with bribes and corruption --- WITHOUT A SINGLE CHANGE.

Not a single bribe will come out of the bill which Pelosi and Obama are now DEMANDING that the House pass by March 18.

Sure, there will be a companion package --- dubbed "ObamaCare Helper" --- which will be "passed" by the House at the same time.

But once ObamaCare is passed, what motivation do either Obama or Senate Democrats have to pass a clean-up bill for House Democratic suckers once they've gotten the trillion dollar Senate bill they want?

So -- how does Pelosi get the votes for ObamaCare Helper? Answer: More bribes, threats and corruption.

ACTION: Write your representative one final time. Tell him to oppose the Senate-passed ObamaCare bill that is full of bribes and corruption. Remind him that, once Obama and Senate Democrats have gotten what they want, there is no incentive to ignore the Senate rules in order to bail out House Democratic suckers.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center

at http://gunowners.org/activism.htm

to send a pre-written message.


-----Pre-written letter -----

Dear Representative:

The Senate's anti-gun ObamaCare bill is crammed full of billions of dollar of bribes:

* The Cornhusker Kickback.

* $300,000,000 of bribes to Louisiana's Senator Mary Landrieu.

* A new hospital in Connecticut for morally challenged Senator Chris Dodd.

* Roughly ten billion in community health centers to buy off Vermont's Bernie Sanders.

* An exemption of Bill Nelson's Florida constituents from the Medicare Advantage cuts applicable to everyone else.

* A threat to take away Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman's committee chairmanship unless he falls into line.

And, of course, the Senate ObamaCare bill still allows the ATF to troll a health/gun database in order to take away firearms from tens of millions of Americans.

Well, now, you are being told you have to pass this bill that is filled with bribes and corruption --- and to pass it WITHOUT A SINGLE CHANGE.

Not a single bribe will come out of the bill which Pelosi and Obama are now DEMANDING that the House pass by March 18.

Sure, there will be a companion package --- dubbed "ObamaCare Helper" --- which will be "passed" by the House at the same time.

But once ObamaCare is passed, what motivation do either Obama or Senate Democrats have to pass a clean-up bill for House Democratic suckers once they've gotten the trillion dollar Senate bill they want?

We understand that Pelosi will now attempt to shower you with bribes and threats. But believe me, your political career is more important than any bribe Pelosi can offer you.

Please, resist the bribes and extortion from Pelosi. Vote against the bribe-filled Senate bill and against the bribe-filled ObamaCare Helper bill.

Sincerely,

The American Citizen, which is Jeff Baird on this letter

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place Suite 102
Springfield VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://gunowners.org

The income tax is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the United States in the last century because it was always punitive and regressive. It punishes saving.  It deters economic growth through investment. It takes the wage earner's money before he or she receives their paycheck.

There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come and you can read all about it in Ken Hoagland's "The Fair Tax Solution: Financial Justice for All Americans" ($19.95, Sentinel, Penguin Group USA). With notes and index, this book is a mere 151 pages and is small enough to fit into anyone's pocket or purse. You will learn more about taxation in America from this little book than from several volumes of tax code.

Let me put the Fair Tax is perspective. In early March, The Washington Post reported that "President Obama's proposed budget would add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, congressional budget analysts said Friday."  As most people know by now, you can never trust any estimate of costs that the government puts forth unless you multiply it by a factor of two or three.

The U.S. is facing a financial Armageddon.

The projected deficit of $1.5 trillion "would force the Treasury to continue borrowing at prodigious rates, sending the national debt soaring to 90 percent of the economy by 2020." Someone wants America to collapse and someone is doing everything in his power to ensure that happens.

Real limits on how much the government can borrow must be imposed. Limits on how much it can spend are needed. The claim that taxes only "soak the rich" is false because income tax laws are now destroying the middle class while most of the officially "poor" pay no taxes at all.

Hoagland is the Communications Director of Americans for Fair Taxation, the sponsoring organization for Fair Tax legislation. What he does not know about taxation is not worth knowing and what he does know he imparts with breathtaking simplicity and directness.

"Today we tax the very thing our economy needs to grow-income and that which produces income. We take money from savings, from returns on investment, and from what we are paid for our labor."

The Fair Tax, which would replace only federal taxation, is based on what we individually consume. It is paid at the point of sale and it does not take earnings from one's paycheck, nor punish you for having a savings account or for capital gains as the result of investing wisely. A Fair Tax says your money is your money.

The current tax system actually punishes corporations for being headquartered here. The U.S. levies the second highest (after Japan) corporate tax in the world. The result makes doing business in American far less competitive than in other nations. It forces corporations to collectively spend billions on compliance.

"According to the Tax Foundation, small businesses spend an astounding $724 in compliance costs for every $100 they pay in income tax." Most people have to hire people to prepare their tax returns for them because of their complexity.

Enacted in 1912, over "almost one hundred years of congressional amendments, court decisions, and taxpayer/IRS disputes (the tax code) has swelled to more than 2.1 million words" and in fiscal year 2006 it was 16,845 pages.

When an earlier version of the income tax was proposed, it was repealed in 1872 and a later 1894 version was rejected by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in 1895 because the income tax violated the Constitution's prohibition against direct taxation (article 1, section 9). It took a Constitutional amendment, the sixteenth, ratified February 12, 1913, to permit it.

After that, Congress had an enormous source of revenue with which to swell the federal government.

"The cost of compliance, the hours and money spent on preparing tax forms, totaled close to $300 billion in 2008," writes Hoagland. "That's twice as much as the total of all the taxpayer stimulus checks mailed out in 2008."

The result of the income tax has been "destructive, as politicians from both parties have taken us down a path of unsustainable spending."

Despite what you will be told, the Fair Tax will collect the same amount of revenue as the income tax, but it will spread the burden more equitably and transparently.

It would literally eliminate any need for the Internal Revenue Service because it is a tax of 23% of what consumers spend "instead of an average of 30% of all the money they earn."

No more gigantic, impenetrable tax code.

No more prying into the private transactions and earnings of citizens.

No more deductions for withholding and payroll taxes from your paycheck before you are paid.

No more punishment for saving or investing.

No more incentives for corporations to artificially keep salaries low or to move out of the nation to avoid harsh taxation.

Your earnings are your earnings. They do not belong to the federal or state government. With a Fair Tax, the more you earn, the more you keep, depending on how much you decide to spend.

That's why it is called a Fair Tax and that is why the time has come to enact it.

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center

© Alan Caruba, 2010

So, since they seem to want us to believe that they hate "astroturf," will the left-wing press get all upset that this "coffee party" effort really IS Astroturf? Will the Old Media explode in calls of "astroturf" as it did during the early phases of the tea party movement? Or will they pretend that this coffee party business is real grass roots and report on the effort based on that false assumption. Already it seems as though the coffee party effort is not meeting any real scrutiny and I just got an email that proves the essential "top-down" style upon which this effort is built.

Of course, we know the charge that the tea party movement is astroturf is untrue. While groups like Dick Armey's Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity, and a few others did rush to add their voices to the tea party events held all across the county last year (and continue to today) they neither originated the movement, nor did they invent the scope of events, nor did they control the message in any way. In fact they had to scramble to have any part in it at all. Even the big group's efforts were ad hoc early on.

I know this because I was there in Chicago as the whole thing began and I saw when, where and how the larger national organizations arrived on the scene and it was later not earlier that it happened. I have, for instance, known Eric Odom, one of the early organizers of a large Chicago tea party event, since 2006. I watched as he staged the first big Chicago tea party and helped him build the effort in my own small way. (Odom now runs American Liberty Alliance.) I also have ties to AFP and Americans for Tax Reform and others and watched as they all began to line up behind the tea party movement. The big groups were late comers, for sure.

But all that aside, we can also discount this "astroturf" accusation by looking at the tea party groups today. Even still there is no national tea party group and the various local tea parties are not united as one. Each group across the land is autonomous and operate at various levels of effectiveness and organization. Some are deeply involved in their local politics, others are barely hanging together as a web-based communication tool.

Now comes this coffee party USA group claiming to be non-partisan. Frank Ross of BigGovernment.com did a great job proving that the creator of this "coffee party" business was really a big Obama operative. No thanks to the Old Media we quickly found out that Annabel Park, the coffee party originator, is an Obama operative and works for The New York Times as a "strategy analyst." So, it was created by an Obama operative and member of the Old Media, but this was conveniently absent from early reporting on the coffee party phenomenon.

And now comes the first nationwide effort of this coffee party thingamajig and, surprise, surprise, it is also run by perpetual out-of-towners. Here in Chicago the coffee party is not being run by anyone here meaning it is being floated by outsiders, astroturfers, not grass roots locals like the tea party groups are.

Today I received this email alerting me to a "coffee party" kick-off event being held in Chicago where a local Chicagoan that stumbled upon the thing even admits openly that it isn't being run by anyone local. In his personal email meant to drum up local support for this astroturf effort, the emailer (whose name I will not release) says, "Clearly, this organization is not led by someone from Chicago." Why? Because the first event was planned to be held during the Chicago St. Patrick's Day Parade one of City's biggest local party days. As the emailer scoffs, "Otherwise they would know that we'd all be at a huge parade on this day and instead of drinking coffee we'd be drinking green beer."

As the emailer says, it is plain that no one from Chicago is actually part of this faux grass roots "coffee party" business or they'd have chosen a different day to try to kick-off their thingamajig. Chicago's St. Patrick's Day Parade is one of the biggest city wide party days of the year and no one will be much interested in politics that day, for sure!

In all this is a classic example of outsiders, a perfect example of astroturf. Will the Old Media take notice?

Text of the email:

From: XXX XXX
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 01:43 PM
To: 'XXX XXX'
Subject: Coffee Party USA Kick-Off - Saturday, March 13

Friends and Colleagues (some of you may receive this email twice - my apologies),

I hope you all can join me at the Coffee Party USA kick-off on Saturday, March 13 at Charmers Cafe, 1500 W. Jarvis in Rogers Park - 10:30 AM. Clearly, this organization is not led by someone from Chicago. Otherwise they would know that we'd all be at a huge parade on this day and instead of drinking coffee we'd be drinking green beer.

So, let's compromise... after a cup of coffee and civil dialogue on the important political issues in our communities we will go next door for one of those beers at the Poitin Stil - a quaint Irish Bar.

If you can't make the coffee party at Charmers Cafe, join us for beers at xxxxxxxx.(ed: I excise this bit so as not to help them advertise their coffee party event)

The Mission of Coffee Party USA is to give voice to Americans who want cooperation in government and bring civility and open discussion to the national political debates that are dividing our communities and our country.

I have attached the press release and poster for this event. Below is an excerpt from the press release:

The Coffee Party movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government, and welcomes everyone to the table. "We are purely grassroots movement, independent of any party, corporation, or lobbying organization. That is our strength and we plan to use it to facilitate a collaborative process that would encourage people to come together as a community, checking party affiliation at the door," said Annabel Park, the founder of Coffee Party USA.

Call if you have questions:
(xxx) xxx.xxx

Yep, classic astroturf.

(H/T Chicago News Bench)

**Here is John Ruberry of Marathon Pundit's take on the issue.

Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, StoptheACLU.com, TheRealityCheck.org, RedState.com, Human Events Magazine, AmericanDailyReview.com, and the New Media Journal, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events and is currently the co-host of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Conservatism" heard on BlogTalkRadio. Warner is also the editor of the Cook County Page for RedCounty.com.

He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions : EMAIL Warner Todd Huston

Liberals that struggle to understand why man is often so cruel to his fellows seem always to have assumed that poverty is a key factor in violence and crime, but rarely it is the factor that liberals assume it to be. Poverty is no picnic, but it is not the cause of crime and violence. It is more likely a symptom itself rather than a catalyst.

It's a chicken and egg question, of course. What came first, the poverty or the crime? But the simple fact of the matter is that poverty is seen in every corner of the Earth, yet crime rates vary wildly from area to area and era to era. So, if poverty is constant and is the catalyst for crime, why doesn't crime hold at a fairly constant rate? It seems pretty obvious that crime is not directly caused by poverty.

Poverty is caused by a myriad of factors. A lack of education, racism, government oppression, social factors and the like all create poverty. But these same factors also mitigate crime in some parts of the world.

Typically, however, the AP has decided that "poverty" has caused the religious-based violence in Nigeria. While poverty most certainly is a problem in Nigeria, it has changed so little for generations that I find it hard to believe that it could be a cause of this newest wave of violence.

The real cause is both religious and cultural. That poverty abounds in the region is of little difference to the cause of the violence. The clash is between Muslims from the north and Christians in the south. It's a fight for cultural supremacy. Poverty doesn't figure into it very much, when all is said and done.

Yet here is the AP presenting "poverty" as a "cause" of the violence as if it is fact. The truth is that "poverty" being a catalyst for crime is a pop psychology trope, not a fact.

It is not fact.

Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, StoptheACLU.com, TheRealityCheck.org, RedState.com, Human Events Magazine, AmericanDailyReview.com, and the New Media Journal, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events and is currently the co-host of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Conservatism" heard on BlogTalkRadio. Warner is also the editor of the Cook County Page for RedCounty.com.

Radio talk show host and best-selling author Mark Levin delivered remarks at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on Friday, March 5, 2010. In front of a sold-out crowd, Mr. Levin provided a philosophical, historical, and practical framework for revitalizing the conservative vision and ensuring the preservation of American Society.

During an exclusive interview with the Reagan Foundation's executive director, Mr. Levin, in response to a being asked what formed his thinking process, said, "The first thing that formed my thinking wasn't from a book, but from going to Independence Hall and the Pennsylvania Assembly Room where they debated, wrote and ratified the Declaration of Independence, and several years later, the Constitution of the United States. They didn't do that to create a big government, they did it for liberty."

=================

UVA was in Tallahassee for its second annual event, entitled Muslim Capitol Day.

According to the lieutenant in charge of the Capitol Police, the perpetrator of the attacks, Profesor Bassem Alhalabi, was charged with simple battery for each incident. The two assaults happened on two separate occasions, both on the same day.

Alhalabi is a professor at Florida Atlantic University (FAU), a director and co-founder of the Islamic Center of Boca Raton (ICBR), and a former associate of convicted terrorist Sami al-Arian.

In June 2003, Alhalabi was found guilty of illegally shipping a $13,000 military-grade thermal imaging device to Syria.

United Voices for America (UVA) is headed by Ahmed Bedier, the former Executive Director of CAIR-Tampa and the former unofficial spokesman for Sami al-Arian. Bedier was present, during the attack on Campbell.

In May 2007, Rafiq Sabir, a member of Alhalabis Islamic center was convicted of material support for al-Qaeda.

A more detailed investigation of these assaults and who the real Professor Alhalabi is will follow shortly.

-------------------------------------

Joe Kaufman is the Chairman of Americans Against Hate, the founder of CAIR Watch, and an investigative journalist for FrontPage Magazine.

In September of 2003, Joe was invited by Florida Speaker of the House Johnnie Byrd to give expert testimony in front of law enforcement and government representatives at a forum on terrorism and homeland security held in Punta Gorda, Florida.

Amongst other accomplishments, in December of 2006, Joe convinced U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer to rescind an award her office had given to a leader of the Hamas-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Joe has spoken at the conferences of the Middle East Forum, the Intelligence Summit, America's Truth Forum and Hadassah, and he was the keynote speaker for Islamofascism Awareness Week at UCLA in October of 2007. Joe has been featured on Fox News, CNN and MSNBC and has appeared on numerous local and national television and radio talk shows.

Founded in August of 1998, Americans Against Hate (AAH) is a civil rights organization and terrorism watchdog group, whose goal is to be an active voice against those who spread bigotry and violence.

There is no question that our focus has changed, since the events that occurred on September 11, 2001. Now, more than ever, there is a need for an organization such as ours -- to speak out against hatred, even when it is politically incorrect to do so, even when it entails criticisms aimed at certain religious sects.

For far too long the free world has sat back and ignored the violent hatred that was growing within undemocratic (and even certain democratic) nations. We therefore unequivocally support our government's -- and any other willing government's -- war on terrorism.

AAH welcomes the participation of individuals from all ethnic and religious backgrounds, who come together for one common cause -- to fight against those who advocate and/or are affiliated with groups involved in White Supremacy, Radical Islam and other violent movements.

While we understand that hate has been around since early in man's existence, we look forward to the day when our organization will be unnecessary and irrelevant, when the world's inhabitants can truly live in peace with one another. Until then, we will do our best to live up to our name, as Americans Against Hate.