A LADY educates U.S. Senators on The 2nd Amendment

I've long thought that many of the gun control enacted purported with the intent of making us all "safer" in fact do the opposite and are simply part of a liberal strategy to eviscerate the 2nd Amendment, bit by bit taking away from us the right it guarantees to us as U.S. citizens. This woman's testimony before a committee of the U.S. Senate perfectly illustrates this point and further shows how illogical the "gun control" argument is as applied to the current target -- so-called "assault weapons."

Watch and share this video with your friends and colleagues. /SL

Illegal Immigration Affects Healthcare Costs

Examples of how illegal immigration affects our healthcare costs. This was sent to me by a former sheriff in the Southwest who says that he has seen similar examples first hand. /SL

Keep an Eye on This One: S. 2433: Global Poverty Act of 2007

According to some reports, passage of the Global Poverty Act will be among the top priorities for President-Elect Obama when he takes office in January.

About S. 2433: The "Global Poverty Act of 2007"

A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

Last Action: Apr 24, 2008: Pl

aced on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 718

Read SUMMARY

Read FULL TEXT of S. 2433: Global Poverty Act of 2007

_________________________________________________________________

An article that appeared in World Net Daily on February 14 of this year received little or no attention in the major media. According to World Net Daily's reporter, this Obama sponsored bill would potentially allocate

"$845 billion more for global poverty" which  [and] would cost 0.7% of gross national product.

"Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.

"The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, 'We can – and must – make … a priority,' said Obama, a co-sponsor.

"It would demand that the president develop 'and implement' a policy to 'cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief' and other programs.

"When word about what appears to be a massive new spending program started getting out, the reaction was immediate.

" 'It's not our job to cut global poverty,' said one commenter on a Yahoo news forum. 'These people need to learn how to fish [for] themselves. If we keep throwing them fish, the fish will rot.' "

_________________________________________________________________

Also see the article "Obama's Poverty Bill" (Right Truth, February 15, 2008):

"A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

"The bill, which is item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body."

U.N. Treaty on Children's Rights - A Challenge to Parental Rights

'Narcissistic Sovereignty' Has Kept U.S. from Ratifying U.N. Treaty on Children's Rights

Monday, November 24, 2008

By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

Howard Davidson, director of the American Bar Association Center for Children and the Law (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

Washington, D.C. (CNSNews.com) – Advocates for a United Nations treaty on children's rights blamed American arrogance for it not being ratified by the United States, but critics charge signing onto the Convention on the Rights of the Child could mean international law trumping U.S. state and federal laws and the rights of parents to make decisions about raising and educating their children.

NOTE: "Children's Rights" may sound very nice and high-minded, but the flip side is that that this U.N. Treaty on Children's Rights is a challenge to the traditional rights of parents and would further intrude on the family structure, as to one extent or another state and U.S. federal laws have already done. In addition, it sets up the U.N. as an arbiter of what should remain the domain of local, state and Congressional legislation. The United States has not, to date, ratified this U.N. Treaty. We should be vigilant that it does not.  /S Lane

Obama's Dangerous Alignments

Obama's Dangerous Alignments

Thursday, October 30, 2008

by Ken Blackwell

The original article appeared at TownHall

Last week an enemy of the United States spoke out and endorsed an American presidential candidate - Senator Barack Obama. Taken with other recent developments, voters should be deeply disturbed with this embrace of Mr. Obama's campaign to become the U.S. commander- in-chief.

Ali Larijani is the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, and was Iran's representative to the United Nations who kept that international body from taking action regarding Iran's program to expand its nuclear capabilities. On October 22, Speaker Larijani said that the regime in Iran would like to see Mr. Obama elected president.

Mr. Larijani is not the first hostile foreign leader to endorse or be aligned with Mr. Obama. In April, top Hamas advisor Ahmed Yousef also endorsed Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama's long-time associate and self-described Marxist, Bill Ayers, actively backs him. Mr. Obama's mentor and two-decade long spiritual leader, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, traveled to Libya to meet with the controversial Moammar Gadhafi. His church published a pro-Hamas piece on Rev. Wright's "Pastor's Page." The article defended terrorism against Israel and denied Israel's right to exist.

Mr. Obama's political alignments are alarming.

Terrorist leaders never endorsed Bill Clinton, or Al Gore, or John Kerry. And to the best of my knowledge, terrorist leaders have never publicly supported a major party presidential nominee--until now.

There's more. The L.A. Times has video of Barack Obama toasting an anti-Israel activist associated with the Palestinians, and standing by as an anti-Semitic poem was read. We don't know the details, because the L.A. Times--which has endorsed Mr. Obama--refuses to allow anyone to see the video.

Also last week, someone said that electing Barack Obama would provoke America's enemies to create an international crisis. If a Republican had made the charge, the media would be apoplectic. But they're in a terrible bind because it was said by Mr. Obama's running mate, Joe Biden.

Senator Biden said if Mr. Obama is elected, within six months there will be an internationally "generated crisis," with the sole purpose of testing Mr. Obama. "Mark my words," he ominously added, "I guarantee you, it's going to happen."

Mr. Biden is of the opinion that electing Mr. Obama would invite aggression from our enemies. That can only mean that Mr. Obama is seen as unready, indecisive and naive. He says he didn't mean that. But what other explanation is there? Mr. Biden mentioned Mr. Obama's age. Why he would say that? It infers Mr. Obama is too inexperienced and untested to stand against foreign threats.

 

This perception is understandable. Mr. Obama would be only the second president to never serve in uniform. He attended a church for twenty years where the pastor howls, "God damn American!" and worked with an unrepentant terrorist who bombed U.S. buildings.

Add to that Mr. Obama's promises. He pledges to de-fund our weapon development programs like missile defense, to cut defense spending on programs that he (with no military expertise) deems unwarranted, and seems to be appalling deferential to foreign opinions.

When Mr. Obama's inexperience and defense cutting promises are taken with his arresting plan to meet with the despots of Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba and Syria without preconditions, you have an invitation for Geo-political mischief.

The highest priority for a U.S. president is safeguarding our nation as commander-in-chief.

Mr. Barack Obama is the most untested presidential candidate in a century, if not ever. Even Mr. Biden said several months ago that he should not be elected because he is not ready to be president. Mr. Biden condemned Mr. Obama's vote to cut off funding for our troops currently in combat.

These are devastating indictments from Mr. Obama's running mate. It is equally devastating that terrorists are actively endorsing Mr. Obama, while the L.A. Times protects him. Americans should expect more and demand more.

Coalition for a Conservative Majority (CCM) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and advocacy organization under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions are not tax deductible as charitable gifts.

 

From Gold Standard to Debt Standard to Global Reserve Currency

Glenn Beck today reported on a very important meeting of world economic leaders that could affect us all and change our monetary system. This went virtually unreported by most of the mainstream media, but it's important and we should all be following this closely.  /S Lane

Glenn Beck: Bretton Woods 3 -- November 17, 2008 - 13:28 ET

"Glenn: I wanted to get some sense, does anybody really have an idea of how deep and how this is just destroying the Constitution and nobody did. "

Bretton Woods 1:

"One of the stories about a year and a half ago or two years ago mentioned something called Bretton Woods 1. I didn't know what it meant. . . . That was actually where the world got together after World War II and the United States said, Do you know what guys? This is going to be a hassle. Do you know what it's like to carry gold bars? It's going to get heavy and then you have to go to the bank and make it into coins. Why don't we just keep all the gold and then you guys just keep our dollar? It was the exchange currency. It was the -- it was the -- it's the global currency and we promised them at Bretton Woods 1 that we would hold the gold and we would never go off the gold standard. So, if you held a dollar, it would mean a dollar's worth of gold. . . ."

The road to the "debt standard" and Bretton Woods 2:

"Then we started the great society and we were first told debt doesn't matter. . . . Debt? What debt? Oh. We're and doing that war thing. Don't worry about it. We have plenty of money. We didn't have enough gold. . . . So, what we decided to do was go off of the gold standard and onto the debt standard. This is sounding like it's going to work out well! Well, that's what the rest of the world thought. So, they called Bretton Woods 2, another summit where the world got together and said, Hey, remember when you guys said you would never go off of gold and we bought all of your dollars and so now we have them sitting in your bank? You guys are devaluing that and so it hurts us? And we went, no, no, no, no, no. First of all, we'll never be irresponsible with our debt. (Laugher.) We're Americans. And, you know what? It's only going to help you because we're going to change gears and become a consumer society."

Fast forward to this last weekend - Bretton Woods 3:

"Well, now we're at the top of our debt limit and it's not a self-imposed limit.. . . . You can carry debt, but not an irresponsible debt because in the end it all comes raining down like giant Steinways. Right? Well, that's where we are now. And so the world call together another summit, only in a couple of news stories have I heard it called what it really was and, that is, Bretton Woods 3. . . . The rest of the world  . . . they want a global reserve currency. . . . They're looking for a global reserve currency. They were talking about there is no franc, there is no mark, there is no yen, there is no dollar. . . . That's what happened this weekend. Was anybody giving you that story on television or radio? . . . That's what was happening this weekend, not the boring stuff that they all reported on, the context, the meaning of it, but you only know that if you know history."

Glenn's warning to bloggers and e-mailers:

". . . you've got to be careful. You have to second source everything. With everything that is going on in the world today, all of these rumors, all of these things, the truth is bad enough, gang. The truth is bad enough. You don't need to go to some, you know, i'minmybasement.org. You don't need to do that. The truth is scary enough and you don't -- what we cannot afford is more half truths, more lies. We're not -- we don't have a dollar shortage. We have a trust shortage. And so be that person that people can trust."

Read the entire program transcript: CLICK HERE

Protect and Preserve Your Free Speech Rights

The following was posted at americac2c.org November 14, 2008

Barack Obama's transition team has tapped Henry Rivera as the new FCC transition czar. A longtime radical leftist, lawyer and former FCC commissioner, Rivera strongly supports the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" and could become the "angel of death" to conservative talk radio by supporting liberal leadership in a move to quickly reinstate it.

According to MRC's Media Reality Check "It's another troubling sign that Democrats are serious about trying to reinstate the
long-defunct FCC regulation, which can more aptly be describedas the "Censorship Doctrine" because of its chilling effect on
free speech." Read the complete story by clicking here:

http://www.mrcaction.org/517/petition.asp?Ref_ID=1942&RID=17771278

The “Fairness Doctrine” is The Censorship Doctrine

Media Research Center's Free Speech Alliance is a fast-growing coalition of organizations and individuals, who, like you, cherish free speech and who have proactively joined to ensure the misnamed “Fairness Doctrine” never returns to silence the conservative voice in America.

First enacted by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine required radio stations give equal time to all sides on political issues. However, the result wasn’t equal time, it was zero time – as stations simply avoided topics that would fall under FCC equal time rules.

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan rescinded the Fairness Doctrine and since then, talk radio has flourished. Conservatives dominate it, and liberals can’t stand it. By re-instating the Fairness Doctrine, liberals would effectively silence the conservative leaders of the day including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and others, and would essentially take control of all forms of media.

In recent months, the groundswell for reinstatement is intensifying. In fact, a growing number of liberal leaders in Washington, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have openly stated their intent to do so.

As Americans, we cannot sit idly by while this gag order on conservative speech is resuscitated. The time to act is now—so when the time comes, we are mobilized and prepared to defend our Free Speech Rights.

Mainstream Media "Blackout" of Coverage on Push to Reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine"

Once again mainstream media is not telling us about a liberal backed issue that could affect us all. Gosh, talk about fairness!!

See what's said on this subject at Media Reality Check today. /Kit

ABC, CBS and NBC Provide Zero Coverage of Effort to Control Media Content and Extinguish Talk Radio

Blackout of Left’s “Fairness” Doctrine Push

Barack Obama’s transition team has tapped former FCC Commissioner Henry Rivera, a longtime proponent of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” to head the team looking for the man or woman who will soon give Democrats a 3-to-2 advantage on the Federal Communications Commission.
It’s another troubling sign that Democrats are serious about trying to reinstate the long-defunct FCC regulation, which can more aptly be described as the “Censorship Doctrine” because of its chilling effect on free speech. In effect from 1949 to 1987, the Fairness Doctrine was an obstacle to open discussion of public policy issues on the radio; its removal in the Reagan years spawned the robust talk radio marketplace of ideas now enjoyed by millions.

While talk radio hosts often warned during the campaign that free speech could be trampled by an all-Democratic majority, the broadcast networks have failed to react to this dangerous threat to the First Amendment. A review shows the broadcast networks — whose affiliates could also be regulated — have failed to run even a single story mentioning the push for a new Fairness Doctrine. The most recent mention of the Fairness Doctrine was on May 30, 2007, when in an interview on CBS’s The Early Show, Al Gore bizarrely called it a “protection” that was removed during the Reagan years.

But there has been news to report, as Democrats have been more than candid about their plans. On Election Day, for example, New York Senator Charles Schumer justified regulating political speech. “The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air,” Schumer told the Fox News Channel. “You can’t say, ‘government hands off in one area’ to a commercial enterprise, but you’re allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

In late October, Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman told a New Mexico radio station how he “hopes” the Fairness Doctrine returns so radio will be more to his liking: “For many, many years, we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country. I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since.”

Democrats have launched various attempts to control of broadcast content since the Fairness Doctrine’s demise in 1987, but the push has become more insistent in the past couple of years. After the failure of a liberal immigration bill in 2007, Senator Dianne Feinstein told Fox News Sunday that she was “looking at” a new Fairness Doctrine because “talk radio tends to be one-sided....It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information.” As with Schumer and Bingaman recently, none of the broadcast networks thought Feinstein’s threats worth reporting.

Journalists aren’t known for turning a blind eye to free speech issues. In 2003, ABC, CBS and NBC ran 33 stories on criticism of the Dixie Chicks for speaking out against President Bush and the Iraq war. ABC’s Jim Wooten darkly warned: “All this has reminded some of the McCarthy Era's blacklists that barred those even accused of communist sympathies for working in films or on television.”

When Democrats first pushed to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in 1987-88, both the New York Times and Washington Post (see box) came down strongly on the side of free speech. Now that the Left is gearing up to suffocate talk radio, the media’s First Amendment solidarity seems to have been eclipsed by their loyalty to the would-be censors of the Democratic Party. — Rich Noyes

HR2905: RE The "Fairness Doctrine"

HR2905: RE The "Fairness Doctrine"
This is important information about the controversial so-called "fairness doctrine," re-imposition of which actually threatens the ability of broadcast media, especially talk radio to present views other than the one sided views of the mainstream media. /KW

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Myths vs. Facts on the Fairness Doctrine

HR 2905 – The Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007
Congressman Mike Pence (IN-06) and Congressman Greg Walden (OR-02)

H.R.2905 is a bipartisan piece of legislation that prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from prescribing rules, regulations or policies that will reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. The so-called Fairness Doctrine is a regulation from the 1940s that required broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues to avoid revocation of their broadcasting license.


MYTH: The Fairness Doctrine is needed in order for talk radio listeners to hear both sides of a controversial issue.

FACT: When the Fairness Doctrine was in place, broadcasters actually minimized programming that could be considered controversial to avoid the substantial dangers associated with the Fairness Doctrine such as government sanction and administrative and legal expenses.

MYTH: The Fairness Doctrine is needed due to consolidated ownership of media outlets.

FACT: The Fairness Doctrine is a holdover from the days of scarce media outlets. When the FCC issued the Fairness Doctrine in the 1940s, it justified the regulation on the grounds that there were only a scarce number of broadcast stations across the country. Today there are over 14,000 broadcast radio stations, numerous satellite radio stations and internet radio streams, over 10 million blogs, internet video websites like YouTube, and podcasts. The scarcity justification that once was used to validate the need for the Fairness Doctrine does not hold true in today’s 24-hour news environment.

MYTH: The Fairness Doctrine only applies to political talk radio programs hosted by radio personalities, such as Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken.

FACT: The FCC applied the Fairness Doctrine to discussion of “controversial issues of public importance.” Since the FCC’s guidance on the Fairness Doctrine lacked clarity, the breadth of what could be considered a controversial issue today is significant. Therefore, religious broadcasters could very well be prevented from presenting their views over the airwaves without federal interference. In America’s increasingly polarized society, traditional religious and ethical principles are considered as controversial as ever. If the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated, complaints could be filed with the FCC against religious broadcasters that examined conventional Christian and Jewish teachings relating to sexuality, marriage, parental responsibility and the sanctity of human life by those with differing beliefs.


MYTH: The FCC has repealed the Fairness Doctrine, so there is not a need for HR 2905, the Broadcaster Freedom Act.

FACT: The FCC could reinstate the Fairness Doctrine at any time through a rule making. Clearly, there are concerns this could occur because more than 300 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted to prohibit the FCC from using appropriated funds for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine during FY 2008 (Roll Call 599, June 28, 2007).

A future presidential administration could direct the FCC to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Only an act of Congress can protect the free speech rights of broadcasters.

MYTH: Only conservative talk radio hosts and broadcasters think the Fairness Doctrine is troublesome.

FACT: In a 2003 interview on PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, well-known liberal talk show host, Alan Colmes, said:
Modern day talk radio would not thrive if there were a Fairness Doctrine and the bureaucratic nightmare that’s involved in the kind of paperwork you need to do that. The free market should be the arbiter of what flies on talk radio. … That’s where I want to make it, and not because I have government help to do so.

In 2007, on his own program, Hannity and Colmes, Mr. Colmes wholeheartedly agreed with a guest’s comment that radio hosts simply chose not to talk about controversial issues on the air when the Fairness Doctrine was in place.

As managing editor and anchor of CBS News, Dan Rather said:

"I can recall newsroom conversations about what the FCC implications of broadcasting a particular report would be. Once a newsperson has to stop and consider what a government agency will think of something he or she wants to put on the air, an invaluable element of freedom has been lost."

MYTH: If the Fairness Doctrine is about First Amendment freedom of speech protection, its fate should be decided by our nation’s court system.
FACT: In 1974, the United States Supreme Court concluded that the Fairness Doctrine inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate in Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Torino. Twenty-three years ago, in FCC v. League of Women Voters, the Court went further and concluded the Fairness Doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate and, as a result, the FCC overturned it.

posted by Pence Press Office # 2:51 PM

Introductory Post

Created for the purpose of sharing information and observations on government, the current political scene and related topics.