CNSNews.com - President and First Lady Travel 4,000 Miles -- on Separate Planes -- to Lobby for Olympics
Posted using ShareThis
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Prayer to Obama???
OK... Now I'll be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to some people, but I think that some of them are saying "Hear us Obama" and "Deliver us Obama". It sure does sound like it to me, anyway... Give it a listen and see what you think...
Either way, in my opinion it is questionable at least, and bad either way.
Either way, in my opinion it is questionable at least, and bad either way.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Uncovered Audio: Obama’s ‘Safe Schools Czar’ Encouraged Child Sex With Older Man
OK, like that part of it in and of its self wasn't bad enough, but if you listen to the end of it, he turned that situation into a discussion about gay lifestyle with other high school kids... And this is a "safe school czar"?
Friday, September 25, 2009
DNC Failed to Certify Obama as Eligible in MOST States!
By JB Williams Friday, September 25, 2009
When I first became aware that the Democratic National Committee prepared, signed and notarized two slightly different Certification of Nomination documents for the Obama-Biden ticket in the 2008 election, I was shocked and after verifying both documents as real, I wrote about it in The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don’t Lie released on September 10, 2009.
The question was obvious – Why TWO different DNC Obama certification documents, and why did one have proper certification of constitutional eligibility in it, while the other had that certification deleted?
The Obama camp had been using the defense that the DNC had properly vetted and certified Obama’s eligibility for months. Judge after judge had used that claim and the fact that Obama’s COLB (Certification of Live Birth) had been “Snoped – FactChecked – blogged and twittered” as “legal proof” that Obama was eligible for office, despite the very real fact that Obama has never released any authenticated proof on the subject.
Then we find out that the DNC did NOT certify Obama as eligible under Article II – Section I of the Constitution, in 49 of 50 states. The DNC had only filed such certification in the state of Hawaii, Obama’s alleged birth place. The other 49 states received a Certification of Nomination which did NOT certify Obama as constitutionally eligible for office.
This story caused a firestorm of interest, comment and speculation across the web, leading Bob Unruh at World Net Daily to ask, What does Pelosi know about Obama’s eligibility?
On September 15, I released a follow up report, The Theory is Now a Conspiracy—II in which I was able to provide answers to many of the questions swirling around the two DNC docs.
•Both docs were real and both docs had been filed with Election Commission offices
•Only the doc filed in Hawaii certified Obama as constitutionally eligible
•Nancy Pelosi did in fact sign both documents, indicating awareness
•Both documents had been used before by the DNC, in 2000 and 2004
•Different states have different state statutes on the matter
•But the Constitution is clear, and the DNC ignored it
More interesting however, is the news I got back from a document and handwriting expert, a graphologist, which asserted the following in a detailed analysis of both documents.
In short, the answer to Bob Unruh’s question at WND seems to be yes, Nancy Pelosi knew that she was signing a false statement on behalf of Obama. But she also knew that this false statement of eligibility would only be filed in Hawaii, which has a very specific state statute that requires that each party certify the constitutional eligibility of their candidates, using specific text.
It further appears that this Certification of Nomination which includes text concerning constitutional requirements is the basis for statements made by Hawaii officials, who have proclaimed that Obama is a “natural born citizen” on the basis that Nancy Pelosi said so in her false Certification of Nomination.
After all, NO actual birth certificate has ever been released by Obama. A COLB, which anyone born anywhere in the world could purchase from Hawaii in 1961, in fact at least two different COLB’s from Hawaii, are all that has been offered by Obama.
The Story Continues
After releasing Parts I and II of this ongoing investigative report, literally hundreds of American citizens have taken it upon themselves to call their state Election Commission office and request copies of what the DNC filed in their state. Many of those documents have since been faxed or emailed to me.
In all cases except Hawaii, the DNC form without certification of constitutional eligibility was filed by the DNC. Meanwhile, everywhere we look, the RNC used one universal certification document which included full certification of constitutional eligibility in every state, in 2000, 2004 and 2008.
The following explanations have been offered on the subject.
•Only Hawaii has a state statute requiring such language
•Other states don’t require certification of constitutional standing for office
•The DNC certified Obama during the primary process
•Certification is “implied”
Obviously, while Hawaii’s statute requires that such language be there in the certification of nomination, no state statue requires that such language not appear in the document. So, why didn’t the DNC use one universal doc like the RNC?
Upon further investigation, we did indeed learn that some state primary filings do include language of constitutional eligibility by each candidate. However, that is a statement made by each candidate, not a certification of compliance made by the Party which had vetted the candidate and certified.
And, I can’t believe that anyone needs me to explain the significant difference between “implied” and “certified?” A personal check “implies” that you have money in your account, which may or may not be true. But a “certified” check guarantees that you have that money in your account.
We are talking about the highest office in this land and the most powerful office in the world. “Implied” won’t cut it when the US Constitution itself has very specific requirements for this office, even if Snopes, FactCheck and Obama bloggers don’t care, the rest of America should.
NO DNC Certification in many States
Not only did the DNC NOT certify eligibility in their Certification of Nomination for 49 states, they didn’t certify during the primary process in many states either. In fact, in most states, it appears that the DNC never certified constitutional eligibility for Barack Hussein Obama, despite their many claims of proper vetting and certification, all of which we now know to be false.
While the RNC filed the same proper certifications in all states with 100% consistency, the DNC filed a variety of improper documents which essentially certified nothing. They certainly failed to certify that Barack Hussein Obama met all legal requirements for the office.
There is NO argument about it now.
Barack Hussein Obama fails to meet Article II – Section I requirements for the office of President because he is NOT a “natural born citizen” according to the foundation for that clause, the Law of Nations based upon Natural Law, which requires that one be the natural born child of TWO US citizens, born on US soil.
Whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, he is NOT the natural born citizen of TWO US citizens. He is the natural born son of a father who was at all times, a citizen of Kenya. Just as he adopted by natural law, his fathers name, he also adopted by natural law, his fathers citizenship. The efforts by Obama fans to use “anchor baby” arguments, claiming Hawaii as his birth place, fall short of the actual qualification.
But even more important, we now know that the DNC never certified to the contrary, except in Hawaii. The DNC never “certified” that Obama met all legal requirements for the office of president, like the RNC did for McCain.
Even in the primary filings, Obama filed documents like this one filed in Arkansas, which certifies absolutely nothing and isn’t even dated correctly at the signature line, also received from the Election Commission in Arkansas in November 2007, but allegedly signed by Obama in November 2008.
At no point in the string of documents filed by the DNC or Obama, did anyone certify to the state of Arkansas that Obama was eligible for the office he sought. This is true in many states… though not all 50 states have been reviewed as of this writing.
The US Senate never passed a resolution affirming that Barack Hussein Obama is a “natural born citizen” in accordance with the same definition the Senate used to make just such an affirmation on behalf of John McCain during the 2008 election.
Everyone in America knows who John McCain is, who his parents are, where he was born and that he is a true American war hero. Still, the Senate felt it necessary to pass a resolution affirming McCain’s “natural born citizen” status on the basis that he was the son of TWO US citizens, born on American soil at a US Navy base in Panama where his father was deployed at the time of John’s birth.
But nobody knows who Obama is or where he came from, as even his family in Kenya claim to have been present at his birth in Kenya, and no authenticated proof to the contrary has ever been presented.
Many Americans, at home, in congress and in the media, have assumed that Obama meets all qualifications because the DNC said he did. But in 49 states, they never said it, at least officially!
If you ask Nancy Pelosi, on what basis did she “certify” Obama as eligible under Article II, she would simply state that she never made any such certification, except in Hawaii… and she would be telling the truth!
The language necessary to certify Obama as eligible was omitted from the documents filed at 49 Election Commission offices, and in most of those cases, such certification was also missing in the primary filings.
Now, to be fair, the DNC had been omitting that language from their official filings for years. Refusing to certify their candidates as “constitutionally eligible” has been a practice of the DNC for at least a few election cycles now. Why?
The Final Questions
1.Why did the DNC certify Obama’s eligibility only in Hawaii?
2.Why did no state DNC office, DNC elector, or Election Commission office catch it?
3.Since the DNC made no such certification, on what basis do we assume Obama to be eligible?
4.Without any such certification, isn’t it more important than ever to see the actual birth certificate and ask the courts to make an official ruling on the definition of “natural born citizen?”
5.Why did the DNC use TWO different docs, one incomplete, when the RNC used the same complete doc nationwide?
6.On what basis will the media continue to claim that Obama is eligible?
7.Why did Nancy Pelosi show signs of stress in her Hawaii certification of Obama?
8.When will every American demand answers to these and many more questions?
After four weeks of investigation, we certainly know a lot more than we did four weeks ago. Still, this three part report raises more questions than answers.
At the end of the day, we clearly have a political Party currently in power which gained that power by ignoring or intentionally subverting the US Constitution. At a minimum, they were very sloppy and derelict in their duty. At worst, they are complicit in a crime of monumental proportions.
Article II requirements exist, they are quite clear, the parties are obligated to vet and certify their candidates, and yet the DNC failed miserably in all categories. Still, the nation assumes that all was above board. On what basis do we now make that assumption?
This is the last in this three part report. If any more answers are to be found, the American citizens will have to demand them, the courts will have to agree to allow discovery in the matter and Obama will have to become the transparent president he promised so many Americans he would be.
Armed with this information, it is now up to the American people to decide what to do with this information. But one thing is vividly clear, nobody in the DNC wants to address any of these questions and Obama’s Department of Justice is too busy running interference for their Messiah to be bothered with such minor details as the rule of constitutional law.
It’s all in the hands of the people now! I hope you choose wisely!
(3) Reader Feedback | Subscribe
JB Williams Most recent columns
JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. JB Williams’ website is jb-williams.com/
JB Williams can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com
NATIONAL SHU POLL FINDS ONLY ONE-QUARTER OF AMERICANS BELIEVE ‘ALL’ OR ‘MOST’ OF NEWS MEDIA REPORTING AND DECLARE OLD –STYLE JOURNALISM IS DEAD
Just in case you are wondering... This news release is available on their web site here...
SHU National Poll.
Ø Fox News Trusted Most – and Least
Ø Large Majorities See Media Attempts to Influence Public Opinion and Policies
Ø Americans Provide News Media with Dismal Satisfaction Ratings
Ø Little Support Found for Tax Dollar Bailout of Newspapers
The Sacred Heart University Polling Institute released its third survey on "Trust and Satisfaction with the National News Media." The national survey of 800 Americans was fielded from Sept. 8-11 and covered new subjects as well as updating results from 2003 and 2007.
ON MEDIA TRUST, INFLUENCE AND RATINGS…
Respondents were asked if they believed all, most, some, little or none of news media reporting. Just 24.3% indicated they believe all or most news media reporting. While this is up from 19.6% in 2007, it remains lower than the 27.4% recorded in 2003.
Just over half of all respondents, 54.0%, said they believe “some” news media reporting. This is down slightly from 55.3% in 2007. Those believing little or no news media reporting dropped to 20.4% in 2009 from 23.9% in 2007.
According to Sacred Heart University Government and Politics Professor and Chair Dr. Gary Rose, "The low level of trust exhibited by poll respondents towards the media is in some respects a manifestation of the growing resentment and distrust among the American people regarding large and powerful institutions in general. The American people have become increasingly skeptical and suspicious towards institutions which they perceive as distant and manipulative. Small wonder that the media, which is now controlled by a handful of large corporations, is perceived in such a negative light."
In 2009, 86.6% (87.6% in 2007 and 70.3% in 2003) strongly and somewhat agreed that the news media have their own political and public policy positions and attempt to influence public opinion. And, 85.3% (86.0% in 2007 and 76.7% in 2003) strongly and somewhat agreed that the news media have their own political positions and attempt to influence public policies.
"The results suggest that we are witnessing a new era of partisan media with the important difference that current news outlets claim to be offering objective coverage when they often aren’t," says Sacred Heart University Media Studies and Digital Culture Associate Professor, Dr. James Castonguay.
Researchers were asked which national television news organization they trusted most for accurate reporting. Fox News was named by 30.0% of all respondents – up from 19.5% in 2003 and 27.0% in 2007.
Those named most frequently as the television news organization most trusted for accurate reporting in 2009 included: Fox News (30.0%), CNN (19.5%), NBC News (7.5%) and ABC News (7.5%). Fox News was also the television news organization trusted least. Just over one-quarter, 26.2%, named Fox News, followed by NBC News (9.9%), MSNBC (9.4%), CNN (8.5%), CBS News (5.3%) and ABC News (3.7%).
Researchers asked respondents for their perceptions of political leanings of various news sources. The Daily Show/Colbert Report was viewed, by a six-to-one margin, as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative. By nearly five-to-one margins, respondents see “news media journalists and broadcasters,” the New York Times and MSNBC as mostly or somewhat liberal over those that see them as mostly or somewhat conservative.
Fox News is viewed as mostly or somewhat conservative over mostly or somewhat liberal by a four-to-one margin. And, by approximately three-to-one margins, CNN and USA Today are viewed as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative. The Wall Street Journal is viewed as more conservative by a two-to-one margin while National Public Radio is viewed as more liberal by the same margin.
Researchers read the following question to respondents: "Many considered Walter Cronkite, who recently passed away, the most trusted television news anchor. In your view, who is the most trusted news anchor today?" A total of 25 different individuals were named in the open-end format question. The top six mentioned as most trusted were Charles Gibson (19.8%), Brian Williams (17.3%), Katie Couric (9.9%), Bill O’Reilly (9.3%), Tom Brokaw (8.0%) and Jim Lehrer (2.4%).
Over half of all respondents, 56.1%, suggested they trust the electronic and print news media for accurate news and information over blogs (7.8%), the social media such as Facebook (3.4%) and entertainers/celebrities (4.3%). Others, 28.5%, were unsure whom they trusted most.
The average, overall positive rating for the national electronic and print news media across eight service characteristics was 35.9%. Most organizations strive to attain and maintain customer satisfaction ratings in the high 80s and low 90s.
The highest positive ratings were recorded for "quality of reporting" (40.6%) and "meeting expectations" (40.0%). The lowest positive ratings were recorded for "presenting negative and positive news equally" (30.6%), "keeping any personal bias out of stories" (33.0%), "presenting an even balance of news" (33.6%) and "fairness" (33.1%).
More respondents agreed (strongly or somewhat) with the statement "The news media are not as responsive to consumer preferences and market desires as they claim to be" (70.4%), than disagree (25.5%). Some, 4.1%, were unsure.
ON NEWS MEDIA VIEWING HABITS…
Researchers asked respondents which television news organization they turned to most frequently. The top five news organizations were Fox News (28.4% - up from 26.5% in 2007), CNN (14.9% - down from 16.0% in 2007), NBC News (10.6% - down from 11.8% in 2007), ABC News (9.3% - down from 11.0% in 2007), and "local news" (7.6% - down from 8.5% in 2007). Other organizations respondents turned to most frequently included CBS News (7.4%), MSNBC (4.3%), PBS News (1.3%), CNBC (0.6%) and CBN (0.1%).
Respondents were asked if they selected their favorite because they offer objective reporting or because they view the issues as they did. In results that were nearly three-to-one, 59.0% suggested they made their selection based on objective reporting, while 19.0% chose their favorite because they share the same views on issues. Another 21.0% were unsure or didn’t know.
Dr. Castonguay went on to say that "the polarization we are seeing around an issue such as healthcare is being reflected in news media preferences. Those same media outlets are covering, framing, and interpreting the issues for the public, so it becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy."
Nearly three-quarters of all respondents, 73.3%, indicated they did not have a personal page on a social network such as Facebook or MySpace. Another 25.5% said they did.
ON THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE…
While strong majorities of survey respondents (73.4%) believed the news media (newspapers, radio, TV and the internet) should provide equal time and space for multiple sides of issues, a similar percentage (70.9%) said the same media should be free from government involvement and allow the market to determine programming demand.
"The results once again show that Americans are not getting what they expect from the major news outlets, yet they don’t trust the government to fix the problem," says Dr. Castonguay.
ON MEDIA OWNERSHIP…
Nearly three-quarters, 71.0%, believed it is very (31.8%) or somewhat (39.3%) important that limits be placed on how many media outlets one company should own. Another 24.7% believe such limits are somewhat unimportant (8.4%) or not at all important (16.3%). Some, 4.4%, were unsure.
Over half of all respondents, 56.7%, believed it’s "bad for democracy" that six companies currently own almost all the major media outlets in the United States. Another 30.4% suggested it does not matter while 7.8% indicated it was good for democracy.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans surveyed, 62.9%, suggested that these media ownership companies provide news that mostly generates ratings and advertising income over those (22.3%) who suggested these companies provide news that mostly informs the public about issues and policies.
Dr. Castonguay suggests that "many Americans feel that the news media are not giving them what they want as consumers or citizens, and are concerned about the effects of media ownership on the health of our democracy."
ON THE FUTURE…
Nearly two-fifths of all respondents, 38.1%, said they are reading newspapers less often than they did five years ago. And, nearly half, 45.0%, agreed that the internet is adequately covering for failing newspapers, while 35.6% disagreed.
More than three-quarters, 77.9%, disagreed with a statement suggesting tax dollars be used to prop up failing newspapers.
Two-thirds, 64.1%, agreed that the health of our democracy is directly tied to the health of journalism. And, 67.9% agreed with a statement that read: "Old-style, traditionally objective and fair journalism is dead." Just one quarter, 26.5%, disagreed while 5.6% were unsure.
ON MEDIA BIAS…
Poll results found 83.6% saw national news media organizations as very or somewhat biased while just 14.1% viewed them as somewhat unbiased or not at all biased. Some, 2.4%, were unsure.
A large majority, 89.3%, suggested the national media played a very or somewhat strong role in helping to elect President Obama. Just 10.0% suggested the national media played little or no role. Further, 69.9% agreed the national news media are intent on promoting the Obama presidency while 26.5% disagreed. Some, 3.6% were unsure.
Over half of Americans surveyed, 56.4%, said they agreed that the news media are promoting President Obama’s healthcare reform without objective criticism. Another 39.3% disagreed and 4.3% were unsure. Further, a majority, 57.6% of those surveyed agreed that the news media appear to be coordinating efforts to diminish the record of former Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin. One third, 34.6%, disagreed and 7.9% were unsure.
“It is sad,” suggested Jerry C. Lindsley, director of the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute, “when we find that only 55.9% say they expect the media to tell them the truth today.” He added, “This perception of bias will eventually catch up with the news media outlets – we found 45.9% have permanently stopped watching a news media organization, print or electronic, because of perceived bias.”
ON THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA…
A large majority, 85.3%, of those polled suggested they were very or somewhat aware of the term “mainstream media.” Respondents saw the members of the mainstream media as: NBC (37.6%), CBS (32.6%), ABC (29.5%), CNN (27.8%), Fox News (19.9%), and MSNBC (12.6%). Over half of those surveyed, 56.1%, suggested the “mainstream media” are mostly or somewhat liberal while 16.7% suggested somewhat or mostly conservative. Some, 19.7%, saw the “mainstream media” as neutral and 7.7% were unsure.
ON LT. BRADSHAW AND THE WARS…
The poll found that, by a six-to-one margin, Americans would prefer to have their national news media cover the life of 1st Lieutenant Brian Bradshaw who was killed fighting in Afghanistan than that of entertainer Michael Jackson following their deaths on June 25, 2009. Another 14.6% suggested they would have preferred an even balance of coverage and 8.0% were unsure.
“The overwhelming result is not at all surprising,” Lindsley suggested. “We found 70.4% agreeing that the national news media are not as responsive to consumer preferences and market desires as they claim to be. Just 25.5% disagreed.”
The poll of 800 Americans also found 57.4% saw too little news about the men and women fighting the wars while 7.3% saw too much and 31.3% suggested there was about the right amount. Overall, 45.1% saw too little news on the wars while 9.8% saw too much and 41.3% suggested war coverage was about right. Negative news on war development was too much for 31.3% and too little for 33.5% while 30.3% said there was about the right amount.
And, majorities saw too little truthful reporting on the wars (59.6%), news on successes (60.8%), and objective/unbiased news reporting (57.0%).
EXPERTS AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT
•Dr. James Castonguay, associate professor, Media Studies and Digital Culture
•Jerry C. Lindsley, director, Sacred Heart University Polling Institute
•Dr. Gary Rose, professor and chair of Government and Politics
To speak with these experts, please contact Funda Alp at 203-396-8241 or alpf@sacredheart.edu or Tracy Deer-Mirek at 203-371-7751 or deer-mirekt@sacredheart.edu.
How the Poll Was Conducted
The Sacred Heart University Polling Institute completed 800 surveys nationally. All telephone interviews were conducted between September 8 and September 11, 2009. One survey instrument was used to elicit information from all respondents. Statistically, a sample of 800 completed telephone interviews represents a margin for error of +/-3.5% at a 95% confidence level.
# # #
SHU National Poll.
Ø Fox News Trusted Most – and Least
Ø Large Majorities See Media Attempts to Influence Public Opinion and Policies
Ø Americans Provide News Media with Dismal Satisfaction Ratings
Ø Little Support Found for Tax Dollar Bailout of Newspapers
The Sacred Heart University Polling Institute released its third survey on "Trust and Satisfaction with the National News Media." The national survey of 800 Americans was fielded from Sept. 8-11 and covered new subjects as well as updating results from 2003 and 2007.
ON MEDIA TRUST, INFLUENCE AND RATINGS…
Respondents were asked if they believed all, most, some, little or none of news media reporting. Just 24.3% indicated they believe all or most news media reporting. While this is up from 19.6% in 2007, it remains lower than the 27.4% recorded in 2003.
Just over half of all respondents, 54.0%, said they believe “some” news media reporting. This is down slightly from 55.3% in 2007. Those believing little or no news media reporting dropped to 20.4% in 2009 from 23.9% in 2007.
According to Sacred Heart University Government and Politics Professor and Chair Dr. Gary Rose, "The low level of trust exhibited by poll respondents towards the media is in some respects a manifestation of the growing resentment and distrust among the American people regarding large and powerful institutions in general. The American people have become increasingly skeptical and suspicious towards institutions which they perceive as distant and manipulative. Small wonder that the media, which is now controlled by a handful of large corporations, is perceived in such a negative light."
In 2009, 86.6% (87.6% in 2007 and 70.3% in 2003) strongly and somewhat agreed that the news media have their own political and public policy positions and attempt to influence public opinion. And, 85.3% (86.0% in 2007 and 76.7% in 2003) strongly and somewhat agreed that the news media have their own political positions and attempt to influence public policies.
"The results suggest that we are witnessing a new era of partisan media with the important difference that current news outlets claim to be offering objective coverage when they often aren’t," says Sacred Heart University Media Studies and Digital Culture Associate Professor, Dr. James Castonguay.
Researchers were asked which national television news organization they trusted most for accurate reporting. Fox News was named by 30.0% of all respondents – up from 19.5% in 2003 and 27.0% in 2007.
Those named most frequently as the television news organization most trusted for accurate reporting in 2009 included: Fox News (30.0%), CNN (19.5%), NBC News (7.5%) and ABC News (7.5%). Fox News was also the television news organization trusted least. Just over one-quarter, 26.2%, named Fox News, followed by NBC News (9.9%), MSNBC (9.4%), CNN (8.5%), CBS News (5.3%) and ABC News (3.7%).
Researchers asked respondents for their perceptions of political leanings of various news sources. The Daily Show/Colbert Report was viewed, by a six-to-one margin, as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative. By nearly five-to-one margins, respondents see “news media journalists and broadcasters,” the New York Times and MSNBC as mostly or somewhat liberal over those that see them as mostly or somewhat conservative.
Fox News is viewed as mostly or somewhat conservative over mostly or somewhat liberal by a four-to-one margin. And, by approximately three-to-one margins, CNN and USA Today are viewed as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative. The Wall Street Journal is viewed as more conservative by a two-to-one margin while National Public Radio is viewed as more liberal by the same margin.
Researchers read the following question to respondents: "Many considered Walter Cronkite, who recently passed away, the most trusted television news anchor. In your view, who is the most trusted news anchor today?" A total of 25 different individuals were named in the open-end format question. The top six mentioned as most trusted were Charles Gibson (19.8%), Brian Williams (17.3%), Katie Couric (9.9%), Bill O’Reilly (9.3%), Tom Brokaw (8.0%) and Jim Lehrer (2.4%).
Over half of all respondents, 56.1%, suggested they trust the electronic and print news media for accurate news and information over blogs (7.8%), the social media such as Facebook (3.4%) and entertainers/celebrities (4.3%). Others, 28.5%, were unsure whom they trusted most.
The average, overall positive rating for the national electronic and print news media across eight service characteristics was 35.9%. Most organizations strive to attain and maintain customer satisfaction ratings in the high 80s and low 90s.
The highest positive ratings were recorded for "quality of reporting" (40.6%) and "meeting expectations" (40.0%). The lowest positive ratings were recorded for "presenting negative and positive news equally" (30.6%), "keeping any personal bias out of stories" (33.0%), "presenting an even balance of news" (33.6%) and "fairness" (33.1%).
More respondents agreed (strongly or somewhat) with the statement "The news media are not as responsive to consumer preferences and market desires as they claim to be" (70.4%), than disagree (25.5%). Some, 4.1%, were unsure.
ON NEWS MEDIA VIEWING HABITS…
Researchers asked respondents which television news organization they turned to most frequently. The top five news organizations were Fox News (28.4% - up from 26.5% in 2007), CNN (14.9% - down from 16.0% in 2007), NBC News (10.6% - down from 11.8% in 2007), ABC News (9.3% - down from 11.0% in 2007), and "local news" (7.6% - down from 8.5% in 2007). Other organizations respondents turned to most frequently included CBS News (7.4%), MSNBC (4.3%), PBS News (1.3%), CNBC (0.6%) and CBN (0.1%).
Respondents were asked if they selected their favorite because they offer objective reporting or because they view the issues as they did. In results that were nearly three-to-one, 59.0% suggested they made their selection based on objective reporting, while 19.0% chose their favorite because they share the same views on issues. Another 21.0% were unsure or didn’t know.
Dr. Castonguay went on to say that "the polarization we are seeing around an issue such as healthcare is being reflected in news media preferences. Those same media outlets are covering, framing, and interpreting the issues for the public, so it becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy."
Nearly three-quarters of all respondents, 73.3%, indicated they did not have a personal page on a social network such as Facebook or MySpace. Another 25.5% said they did.
ON THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE…
While strong majorities of survey respondents (73.4%) believed the news media (newspapers, radio, TV and the internet) should provide equal time and space for multiple sides of issues, a similar percentage (70.9%) said the same media should be free from government involvement and allow the market to determine programming demand.
"The results once again show that Americans are not getting what they expect from the major news outlets, yet they don’t trust the government to fix the problem," says Dr. Castonguay.
ON MEDIA OWNERSHIP…
Nearly three-quarters, 71.0%, believed it is very (31.8%) or somewhat (39.3%) important that limits be placed on how many media outlets one company should own. Another 24.7% believe such limits are somewhat unimportant (8.4%) or not at all important (16.3%). Some, 4.4%, were unsure.
Over half of all respondents, 56.7%, believed it’s "bad for democracy" that six companies currently own almost all the major media outlets in the United States. Another 30.4% suggested it does not matter while 7.8% indicated it was good for democracy.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans surveyed, 62.9%, suggested that these media ownership companies provide news that mostly generates ratings and advertising income over those (22.3%) who suggested these companies provide news that mostly informs the public about issues and policies.
Dr. Castonguay suggests that "many Americans feel that the news media are not giving them what they want as consumers or citizens, and are concerned about the effects of media ownership on the health of our democracy."
ON THE FUTURE…
Nearly two-fifths of all respondents, 38.1%, said they are reading newspapers less often than they did five years ago. And, nearly half, 45.0%, agreed that the internet is adequately covering for failing newspapers, while 35.6% disagreed.
More than three-quarters, 77.9%, disagreed with a statement suggesting tax dollars be used to prop up failing newspapers.
Two-thirds, 64.1%, agreed that the health of our democracy is directly tied to the health of journalism. And, 67.9% agreed with a statement that read: "Old-style, traditionally objective and fair journalism is dead." Just one quarter, 26.5%, disagreed while 5.6% were unsure.
ON MEDIA BIAS…
Poll results found 83.6% saw national news media organizations as very or somewhat biased while just 14.1% viewed them as somewhat unbiased or not at all biased. Some, 2.4%, were unsure.
A large majority, 89.3%, suggested the national media played a very or somewhat strong role in helping to elect President Obama. Just 10.0% suggested the national media played little or no role. Further, 69.9% agreed the national news media are intent on promoting the Obama presidency while 26.5% disagreed. Some, 3.6% were unsure.
Over half of Americans surveyed, 56.4%, said they agreed that the news media are promoting President Obama’s healthcare reform without objective criticism. Another 39.3% disagreed and 4.3% were unsure. Further, a majority, 57.6% of those surveyed agreed that the news media appear to be coordinating efforts to diminish the record of former Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin. One third, 34.6%, disagreed and 7.9% were unsure.
“It is sad,” suggested Jerry C. Lindsley, director of the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute, “when we find that only 55.9% say they expect the media to tell them the truth today.” He added, “This perception of bias will eventually catch up with the news media outlets – we found 45.9% have permanently stopped watching a news media organization, print or electronic, because of perceived bias.”
ON THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA…
A large majority, 85.3%, of those polled suggested they were very or somewhat aware of the term “mainstream media.” Respondents saw the members of the mainstream media as: NBC (37.6%), CBS (32.6%), ABC (29.5%), CNN (27.8%), Fox News (19.9%), and MSNBC (12.6%). Over half of those surveyed, 56.1%, suggested the “mainstream media” are mostly or somewhat liberal while 16.7% suggested somewhat or mostly conservative. Some, 19.7%, saw the “mainstream media” as neutral and 7.7% were unsure.
ON LT. BRADSHAW AND THE WARS…
The poll found that, by a six-to-one margin, Americans would prefer to have their national news media cover the life of 1st Lieutenant Brian Bradshaw who was killed fighting in Afghanistan than that of entertainer Michael Jackson following their deaths on June 25, 2009. Another 14.6% suggested they would have preferred an even balance of coverage and 8.0% were unsure.
“The overwhelming result is not at all surprising,” Lindsley suggested. “We found 70.4% agreeing that the national news media are not as responsive to consumer preferences and market desires as they claim to be. Just 25.5% disagreed.”
The poll of 800 Americans also found 57.4% saw too little news about the men and women fighting the wars while 7.3% saw too much and 31.3% suggested there was about the right amount. Overall, 45.1% saw too little news on the wars while 9.8% saw too much and 41.3% suggested war coverage was about right. Negative news on war development was too much for 31.3% and too little for 33.5% while 30.3% said there was about the right amount.
And, majorities saw too little truthful reporting on the wars (59.6%), news on successes (60.8%), and objective/unbiased news reporting (57.0%).
EXPERTS AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT
•Dr. James Castonguay, associate professor, Media Studies and Digital Culture
•Jerry C. Lindsley, director, Sacred Heart University Polling Institute
•Dr. Gary Rose, professor and chair of Government and Politics
To speak with these experts, please contact Funda Alp at 203-396-8241 or alpf@sacredheart.edu or Tracy Deer-Mirek at 203-371-7751 or deer-mirekt@sacredheart.edu.
How the Poll Was Conducted
The Sacred Heart University Polling Institute completed 800 surveys nationally. All telephone interviews were conducted between September 8 and September 11, 2009. One survey instrument was used to elicit information from all respondents. Statistically, a sample of 800 completed telephone interviews represents a margin for error of +/-3.5% at a 95% confidence level.
# # #
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Where is Your America?
From "Where is Your America" by Libor Brom
http://www.marianland.com/marx01.html
The fact is that we live in a time of fateful challenges. As a people and a nation we are under test.
This challenge is, of course, Marxism-Leninism. There is no mystery in its strategies and tactics. It has always been concrete and spelled out in black and white. It has also been openly and actively tested in the economic, political, and ideological struggle for control around globe.
Lenin, the founder of the first Communist state, put it simply: "First we will take Eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia. We will encircle the last bastion of capitalism, the United States of America. We will not need to fight. It will fall as a ripe fruit into our hands." (This first quote seems to be misattributied, rather than Lenin, it seems to have come from Mao Zedong's "On Practice"-Wingman) And, "We must practice coexistence with other nations, until we are strong enough to take over by means of world revolution.... We are not pacifists. Conflict is inevitable. Great political questions can be solved only through violence.... It is inconceivable that Communism and capitalism can exist side by side. Inevitably one must perish.''
Rykov, Lenin's successor in the Council of Soviet Commissars, corroborated: "It is our duty to inculcate in the minds of nations the theories of international friendship, pacifism, and disarmament, encouraging their resistance to military appropriations and training, without ever relaxing our own efforts in building our military equipment.''
Manuilsky, a prominent Soviet professor at the School of Political Warfare, said: "The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. We shall begln by Launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends."
And Khrushchev, a more contemporary Soviet prime minister, said: "We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find out they have Communism.''
Today, Marxism-Leninism represents a most complex and powerful doctrine developed by Communist theoreticians and practitioners in every corner of the world. 'Its universal library offers dynamic political weapons and comprehensive theories, diversified approaches and seductive slogans. On one side of the globe, there is the Yugoslav moderate theory of reformed Communism and participative economy which lures masses into socialism. On the other side of the earth there are Chinese slogans which are more productive in inflaming a Communist revolution.
Marxism-Leninism is particularly effective on the semantic level where it exhibits a devastating duality. It lulls its adversaries to sleep, while at the same time it mobilizes its followers to revolutionary action. The Communist International's Seventh Congress concluded that open use of revolutionary terminology does not promote the Marxist-Leninist drive for world domination. Therefore, "revolution" has been changed into "liberation," "world conquest by the proletariat" has speen changed into "peace and socialism," "armed seizure of power and liquidation of the bourgeoisie" has been rephrased to read "peaceful and gradual transition to socialism.''
Even the word "Communism," which every revolutionary is so proud of, has been changed into "progressive, "anti-Fascist" or "liberal." Further, to confuse their adversaries, the Marxist-Leninists have devised a new language which uses old words in the basic vocabulary. When they say "imperialism arouses the wrath of the people and digs its own grave," they mean "through our manipulation of the local Communist parties, and with a vast auxiliary corps of dupes ; and sympathizers, we so arrange matters that the free enterprise system and democracy are destroyed from within. All we need to do is push it into the grave."
http://www.marianland.com/marx01.html
The fact is that we live in a time of fateful challenges. As a people and a nation we are under test.
This challenge is, of course, Marxism-Leninism. There is no mystery in its strategies and tactics. It has always been concrete and spelled out in black and white. It has also been openly and actively tested in the economic, political, and ideological struggle for control around globe.
Lenin, the founder of the first Communist state, put it simply: "First we will take Eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia. We will encircle the last bastion of capitalism, the United States of America. We will not need to fight. It will fall as a ripe fruit into our hands." (This first quote seems to be misattributied, rather than Lenin, it seems to have come from Mao Zedong's "On Practice"-Wingman) And, "We must practice coexistence with other nations, until we are strong enough to take over by means of world revolution.... We are not pacifists. Conflict is inevitable. Great political questions can be solved only through violence.... It is inconceivable that Communism and capitalism can exist side by side. Inevitably one must perish.''
Rykov, Lenin's successor in the Council of Soviet Commissars, corroborated: "It is our duty to inculcate in the minds of nations the theories of international friendship, pacifism, and disarmament, encouraging their resistance to military appropriations and training, without ever relaxing our own efforts in building our military equipment.''
Manuilsky, a prominent Soviet professor at the School of Political Warfare, said: "The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. We shall begln by Launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends."
And Khrushchev, a more contemporary Soviet prime minister, said: "We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find out they have Communism.''
Today, Marxism-Leninism represents a most complex and powerful doctrine developed by Communist theoreticians and practitioners in every corner of the world. 'Its universal library offers dynamic political weapons and comprehensive theories, diversified approaches and seductive slogans. On one side of the globe, there is the Yugoslav moderate theory of reformed Communism and participative economy which lures masses into socialism. On the other side of the earth there are Chinese slogans which are more productive in inflaming a Communist revolution.
Marxism-Leninism is particularly effective on the semantic level where it exhibits a devastating duality. It lulls its adversaries to sleep, while at the same time it mobilizes its followers to revolutionary action. The Communist International's Seventh Congress concluded that open use of revolutionary terminology does not promote the Marxist-Leninist drive for world domination. Therefore, "revolution" has been changed into "liberation," "world conquest by the proletariat" has speen changed into "peace and socialism," "armed seizure of power and liquidation of the bourgeoisie" has been rephrased to read "peaceful and gradual transition to socialism.''
Even the word "Communism," which every revolutionary is so proud of, has been changed into "progressive, "anti-Fascist" or "liberal." Further, to confuse their adversaries, the Marxist-Leninists have devised a new language which uses old words in the basic vocabulary. When they say "imperialism arouses the wrath of the people and digs its own grave," they mean "through our manipulation of the local Communist parties, and with a vast auxiliary corps of dupes ; and sympathizers, we so arrange matters that the free enterprise system and democracy are destroyed from within. All we need to do is push it into the grave."
Illegal's being promised to be made legal?
Well... It sure does sound like it to me... Read and watch for yourself and see what you think...
Obama: Immigration Reform Will Allow Illegal Immigrants to Become Legal and Get Health Care Coverage
Friday, September 18, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter
(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI) on Wednesday evening that illegal immigrants would not get government funded health insurance under his health care reform, but said the debate over that plan underscores the need to legalize illegal immigrants so they can get that coverage.
“As you know there’s been a little controversy about who exactly will be covered under reform,” said Obama. “I want to be clear: If someone is here illegally, they won’t be covered under this plan. That’s a commitment I’ve made.
“But I also want to make this clear: Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken," the president said.
"That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else,” he added. “And we certainly should not let this debate on health care--one that’s so essential to Hispanic Americans and all Americans--get side tracked by those looking to exploit division and kill reform at any cost. That’s what they always try to do.
"If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all," Obama said. "That's what I've said from the start. That's what I say tonight."
Last month in Guadalajara, Mexico, President Obama said that he was "confident" he would get Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform that included a "pathway to citizenship" for illegal aliens.
Obama was speaking Wednesday night at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s 32nd Annual Awards Gala.
Obama: Immigration Reform Will Allow Illegal Immigrants to Become Legal and Get Health Care Coverage
Friday, September 18, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter
(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI) on Wednesday evening that illegal immigrants would not get government funded health insurance under his health care reform, but said the debate over that plan underscores the need to legalize illegal immigrants so they can get that coverage.
“As you know there’s been a little controversy about who exactly will be covered under reform,” said Obama. “I want to be clear: If someone is here illegally, they won’t be covered under this plan. That’s a commitment I’ve made.
“But I also want to make this clear: Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken," the president said.
"That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else,” he added. “And we certainly should not let this debate on health care--one that’s so essential to Hispanic Americans and all Americans--get side tracked by those looking to exploit division and kill reform at any cost. That’s what they always try to do.
"If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all," Obama said. "That's what I've said from the start. That's what I say tonight."
Last month in Guadalajara, Mexico, President Obama said that he was "confident" he would get Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform that included a "pathway to citizenship" for illegal aliens.
Obama was speaking Wednesday night at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s 32nd Annual Awards Gala.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Go Get Em Mr. Rogers!!!
From the House... Noce to see someone else who is standing up for what is right!
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Health Care, what is it?
(I will firstly admit that I have "borrowed" this from another, some modifications made, to fit me... But why reinvent the wheel when someone else has already written it up.)
I have discussed health care before, a lot, but not in this aspect of it until now. I don't see it as the most crucial issue facing us today, however, I can no longer stand by while Americans are brainwashed into believing that health care is a right. This is just another ploy from Uncle Sugah to dupe Americans into letting him get in their pockets.
Clearly, to any rational person, health care is not a right. It is a privilege, and here's why:
A right is something you possess that does not involve, affect or rely on the assistance, kindness or permission of any other person in any manner.
A right is, in fact, not even predicated by the existence of another human being.
Think about it, name any right you would lose if you were the only person left on Earth. You can't, because you would still have them. The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, to bear arms, to speak freely, practice your religion and so on - regardless of whether you were alone on the planet you would still possess all of these rights. They cannot be taken away from you; this is not to be confused with limitations on your ability to exercise your rights, which is referred to as oppression.
On the other hand, a privilege is something you a) are granted by another person or entity and b) rely on at least one other person or entity to provide you with the means to accomplish a given act. Furthermore, a privilege, unlike a right, is something that can be taken away from you, along with the ability to exercise such privilege.
Now, using these two definitions, let's assess "health care" as we define it in America, that being: professionally-based services and goods including highly specialized diagnosis and treatments.
1. Can you receive health care if you are the only person on Earth? No.
2. Does your health care involve, affect or rely on others? Yes.
3. Do certain procedures, treatments or drugs require the permission of a person or entity to be administered? Yes.
4. Can health care be withheld from you based on the actions of others? Yes.
5. Can you reasonably provide yourself with health care if it is not made available to you through private or public offerings? No.
So, where do we stand?
You cannot exercise health care (as you would a right) without the permission of and assistance of other human beings.
You can be equally be provided with and later denied health care.
Therefore, health care stands in stark contrast to all other rights (which you were born with and will die with, whether you can exercise them or not), and therefore must be a privilege. It cannot be otherwise.
Lastly, in the event I am wrong and health care is a right, why should the insurance companies, doctors, hospitals and government be able to charge you money to exercise it when all the other rights are free?
Just my two cents on it. Thanks to Pete at WBT for the thoughts.
I have discussed health care before, a lot, but not in this aspect of it until now. I don't see it as the most crucial issue facing us today, however, I can no longer stand by while Americans are brainwashed into believing that health care is a right. This is just another ploy from Uncle Sugah to dupe Americans into letting him get in their pockets.
Clearly, to any rational person, health care is not a right. It is a privilege, and here's why:
A right is something you possess that does not involve, affect or rely on the assistance, kindness or permission of any other person in any manner.
A right is, in fact, not even predicated by the existence of another human being.
Think about it, name any right you would lose if you were the only person left on Earth. You can't, because you would still have them. The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, to bear arms, to speak freely, practice your religion and so on - regardless of whether you were alone on the planet you would still possess all of these rights. They cannot be taken away from you; this is not to be confused with limitations on your ability to exercise your rights, which is referred to as oppression.
On the other hand, a privilege is something you a) are granted by another person or entity and b) rely on at least one other person or entity to provide you with the means to accomplish a given act. Furthermore, a privilege, unlike a right, is something that can be taken away from you, along with the ability to exercise such privilege.
Now, using these two definitions, let's assess "health care" as we define it in America, that being: professionally-based services and goods including highly specialized diagnosis and treatments.
1. Can you receive health care if you are the only person on Earth? No.
2. Does your health care involve, affect or rely on others? Yes.
3. Do certain procedures, treatments or drugs require the permission of a person or entity to be administered? Yes.
4. Can health care be withheld from you based on the actions of others? Yes.
5. Can you reasonably provide yourself with health care if it is not made available to you through private or public offerings? No.
So, where do we stand?
You cannot exercise health care (as you would a right) without the permission of and assistance of other human beings.
You can be equally be provided with and later denied health care.
Therefore, health care stands in stark contrast to all other rights (which you were born with and will die with, whether you can exercise them or not), and therefore must be a privilege. It cannot be otherwise.
Lastly, in the event I am wrong and health care is a right, why should the insurance companies, doctors, hospitals and government be able to charge you money to exercise it when all the other rights are free?
Just my two cents on it. Thanks to Pete at WBT for the thoughts.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
How to end (lose) a war
This is copied from the Marine Corps News Room...
DAHANEH, Afghanistan — The British jet called in by U.S. Marines had the Taliban position in sight, but the pilot refused to fire, a decision that frustrated Marines on the ground but was in line with new orders by the top U.S. commander to protect civilians.
http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/08/ap_marines_dahaneh_081309/
Click above link for four photos.
By Alfred de Montesquiou - The Associated Press
Posted : Thursday Aug 13, 2009 9:01:47 EDT
The Marines themselves didn’t attack militants shooting at them from a compound Wednesday during the same battle because women and children were there, an approach meant to avoid civilian casualties at all costs.
“They did that on purpose,” sniper platoon leader 1st Lt. Joseph Cull, 28, of Delafield, Wis., said of the Taliban. “They are trying to bait us.”
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has made protecting Afghan civilians his top priority. The approach is a shift away from a military mindset whose traditional first response has been to kill as many militants as possible. By holding fire McChrystal hopes to avoid the massive civilian casualty cases of past months and years and help win over Afghan villagers.
Marines have been locked in battle with insurgents in Dahaneh in Helmand province after they stormed into the Taliban-held town early Wednesday. Militants have been lobbing rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and heavy machine gun fire at the U.S. troops.
The troops hope to break the Taliban grip in Dahaneh, sever smuggling routes and protect civilians from Taliban reprisals so Afghans can vote here during the Aug. 20 presidential election, which the Taliban have vowed to disrupt.
The Marines locked in on a Taliban position Wednesday in a cave in a nearby mountain, from which militants were firing heavy weapons. The troops called for an airstrike against the position, but the British Harrier jet that responded refused to fire its missiles because British rules of engagement require the pilot himself to identify the target, not just troops on the ground.
Each country in the more than 40-nation NATO-led coalition in Afghanistan has its own rules of engagement that apply to specific battle situations, but McChrystal’s order to protect civilians applies to all forces in the country.
“Sure, that’s frustrating, but we’ve got to deal with it,” said Capt. Zachary Martin, commander of Golf Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marines.
Some 400 Marines and 100 Afghan troops moved into Dahaneh early Wednesday by helicopter and ground convoy. The troops took heavy fire from insurgents for most of the day, killing up to 10 militants after calling in an airstrike on an insurgent position.
But even that airstrike was carried out with great care.
Militants first started firing from the position about 5 a.m. Ground commanders wanted an airstrike called in on the position to help protect Marines receiving fire. But superior officers wanted to be certain there were no civilians there. Once Martin had established with near certainty that there were not, an airstrike hit the compound — hours after the Marines first received fire.
The Marines say they can avoid civilian casualties with the help of the sophisticated surveillance technology they have. Strict orders have also been issued for the Marines to use proportional response when attacked.
But many of the riflemen voiced frustration at the limited options they were left with when trying to expand control of the town on Wednesday. The orders to hold fire appeared to have slowed their advance in Dahaneh, where after a full day they held only a small foothold outpost.
On Thursday the Marines expected another day of intense combat as they pushed deeper into the town. Insurgents seemed unwilling to fight overnight, when they can’t match the Marines’ night vision capabilities. But after the sun came up early Thursday, the first rounds of fire erupted.
“Right on cue!” shouted Sgt. Ryan Kelsey, of Pittsburgh as the first shots rang out.
Elsewhere in Afghanistan, two separate roadside blasts in southern Afghanistan killed 14 civilians, including three children, underscoring the high price paid by ordinary people in the conflict with the Taliban, officials said Thursday.
Officials blamed the blasts on Taliban militants, who have made roadside bombings their primary weapons.
A blast Wednesday on a road in the Gereshk district of Helmand province ripped through a vehicle carrying a family, killing 11 people, including two women and nine men, said Daud Ahmadi, the spokesman for the provincial governor.
In neighboring Kandahar province, three children were killed after they started playing with another bomb which they had found on the side of the road west of the provincial capital, police official Mohammad Shah Khan said. The victims were between 8 and 12 years old.
Southern Afghanistan is the center of the Taliban-led insurgency, where thousands of additional U.S. troops were deployed this year to try to reverse the militants’ gains and create conditions for next week’s presidential election.
According to figures from the U.S.-based Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, the number of incidents from IEDs soared to 828 last month, the highest level of the war and more than twice as many as in July 2008. The majority of the victims in such attacks have been civilians.
Posted by sr on August 13, 2009 10:50 PM |
DAHANEH, Afghanistan — The British jet called in by U.S. Marines had the Taliban position in sight, but the pilot refused to fire, a decision that frustrated Marines on the ground but was in line with new orders by the top U.S. commander to protect civilians.
http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/08/ap_marines_dahaneh_081309/
Click above link for four photos.
By Alfred de Montesquiou - The Associated Press
Posted : Thursday Aug 13, 2009 9:01:47 EDT
The Marines themselves didn’t attack militants shooting at them from a compound Wednesday during the same battle because women and children were there, an approach meant to avoid civilian casualties at all costs.
“They did that on purpose,” sniper platoon leader 1st Lt. Joseph Cull, 28, of Delafield, Wis., said of the Taliban. “They are trying to bait us.”
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has made protecting Afghan civilians his top priority. The approach is a shift away from a military mindset whose traditional first response has been to kill as many militants as possible. By holding fire McChrystal hopes to avoid the massive civilian casualty cases of past months and years and help win over Afghan villagers.
Marines have been locked in battle with insurgents in Dahaneh in Helmand province after they stormed into the Taliban-held town early Wednesday. Militants have been lobbing rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and heavy machine gun fire at the U.S. troops.
The troops hope to break the Taliban grip in Dahaneh, sever smuggling routes and protect civilians from Taliban reprisals so Afghans can vote here during the Aug. 20 presidential election, which the Taliban have vowed to disrupt.
The Marines locked in on a Taliban position Wednesday in a cave in a nearby mountain, from which militants were firing heavy weapons. The troops called for an airstrike against the position, but the British Harrier jet that responded refused to fire its missiles because British rules of engagement require the pilot himself to identify the target, not just troops on the ground.
Each country in the more than 40-nation NATO-led coalition in Afghanistan has its own rules of engagement that apply to specific battle situations, but McChrystal’s order to protect civilians applies to all forces in the country.
“Sure, that’s frustrating, but we’ve got to deal with it,” said Capt. Zachary Martin, commander of Golf Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marines.
Some 400 Marines and 100 Afghan troops moved into Dahaneh early Wednesday by helicopter and ground convoy. The troops took heavy fire from insurgents for most of the day, killing up to 10 militants after calling in an airstrike on an insurgent position.
But even that airstrike was carried out with great care.
Militants first started firing from the position about 5 a.m. Ground commanders wanted an airstrike called in on the position to help protect Marines receiving fire. But superior officers wanted to be certain there were no civilians there. Once Martin had established with near certainty that there were not, an airstrike hit the compound — hours after the Marines first received fire.
The Marines say they can avoid civilian casualties with the help of the sophisticated surveillance technology they have. Strict orders have also been issued for the Marines to use proportional response when attacked.
But many of the riflemen voiced frustration at the limited options they were left with when trying to expand control of the town on Wednesday. The orders to hold fire appeared to have slowed their advance in Dahaneh, where after a full day they held only a small foothold outpost.
On Thursday the Marines expected another day of intense combat as they pushed deeper into the town. Insurgents seemed unwilling to fight overnight, when they can’t match the Marines’ night vision capabilities. But after the sun came up early Thursday, the first rounds of fire erupted.
“Right on cue!” shouted Sgt. Ryan Kelsey, of Pittsburgh as the first shots rang out.
Elsewhere in Afghanistan, two separate roadside blasts in southern Afghanistan killed 14 civilians, including three children, underscoring the high price paid by ordinary people in the conflict with the Taliban, officials said Thursday.
Officials blamed the blasts on Taliban militants, who have made roadside bombings their primary weapons.
A blast Wednesday on a road in the Gereshk district of Helmand province ripped through a vehicle carrying a family, killing 11 people, including two women and nine men, said Daud Ahmadi, the spokesman for the provincial governor.
In neighboring Kandahar province, three children were killed after they started playing with another bomb which they had found on the side of the road west of the provincial capital, police official Mohammad Shah Khan said. The victims were between 8 and 12 years old.
Southern Afghanistan is the center of the Taliban-led insurgency, where thousands of additional U.S. troops were deployed this year to try to reverse the militants’ gains and create conditions for next week’s presidential election.
According to figures from the U.S.-based Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, the number of incidents from IEDs soared to 828 last month, the highest level of the war and more than twice as many as in July 2008. The majority of the victims in such attacks have been civilians.
Posted by sr on August 13, 2009 10:50 PM |
Chaos for Glory: My Time With ACORN
Chaos for Glory: My Time With ACORN
Shared via AddThis
A young man, did some undercover investigative journalism reporting with the ACORN group in Baltimore, MD, this is the video he shot of it. Be prepared to be shocked at the content.
Shared via AddThis
A young man, did some undercover investigative journalism reporting with the ACORN group in Baltimore, MD, this is the video he shot of it. Be prepared to be shocked at the content.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Republican, Democrat, Other? You may not be what you think!!
I received this from a friend... and thought that it was very well done, very smart, and VERY useful. So I thought that I would share it with everyone. Take a little bit of time, copy this and print or write it down, spend the time going over it, and really think about the issues, and why you have the opinions that you do. Figure out what the reasons are, and see where you stand on the issues. THEN when you have the opportunity to engage someone in a political discussion, you have the "ammo" to be able to really discuss the issue with them and why you have the opinions that you do.
(Donate to Dave's Effort here.)
I get told a lot that I should run for office. That's not something I'm interested in, but it did spur me recently to put together a list of recognizable "hot topic" political issues just to see where I would fall in the spectrum based on my beliefs. The results surprised me.
Here are some of the things I hadn't thought of before:
1. There are a lot more issues than I thought that today's politicians must deal with.
2. If you fill out how you stand on every issue here, you'll realize you're probably more or less liberal or conservative than you think.
3. If you fill out how you stand on every issue here, and your answers fall 100% to one "side" or the other, then you're suffering from blind party loyalty and need to reassess your thinking.
4. Completing this exercise proves to me that the popular definitions/labels of "Republican" and "Democrat" are a fallacy. We are Americans, and as a Free People we should be intelligent enough to think for ourselves and not fall prey to the constraints of a label or allow ourselves to get caught up in the divisiveness that government seeks to wedge between us.
Here's the list. It's worth the time to struggle through actually thinking about and writing down what you believe. I bet you'll surprise yourself too!
Abortion
Affirmative Action
Agricultural, Farm Policy, Genetically Modified Food
American Flag Desecration
Animal Rights and Wildlife Issues
Arts and Humanities
Campaign Finance Reform
Censorship
Civil Liberties
College Affordability
Congressional Term Limits
Constitutionality of the "Pledge of Allegiance"
Consumer Protection Laws
Continued US Presence in Iraq
Crime, Corporate
Crime, Individual
Death Penalty
Disaster Reponse
Drugs, Medical Marijuana
Economy
Education
Energy Issues / Policy / Dependence on Foreign Oil / Peak Oil
Environment, Cap and Trade, Kyoto, etc.
Equal Opportunity
Ethnic Cleansing
Euthanasia
Family and Children Issues
Federal Budget, Spending vs. Balance
Federal Reserve & Banking
Federal, State, and Local Relations
Foreign Aid
Foreign Policy
Gambling and Gaming
Gay Marriage / Rights
Gays in the Military (Don't Ask Don't Tell)
Global AIDS Crisis
Global Role of the U.S.
Global Warming / Climate Change
Government Sponsored Assassinations
Gun Control (See also Second Amendment Rights)
Health Care, Insurance, Malpractice Law, Patient Rights, etc.
Housing and Property Issues
Immigration
Indecency
Infrastructure
International Trade / Free Trade / Globalization
Iran's Nuclear Energy Program
Iraqi Prisoner Abuse
Israel
Justice System
Labor / Unions
Language, English as National Language
Law Enforcement
Legal System
Media Bias
Medical Research (See also Stem Cell Research)
Medicare, Medicaid
Middle East Crisis
Military / National Defense Spending
Military / National Defense Strategy
Minimum Wage (See Workers' Rights)
Moral & Ethical Values
National Debt
National Security Issues
Net Neutrality
North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Program
Nuclear Testing
Offshoring
Political Corruption
Poverty - US and World
Presidential Line Item Veto
Prison Reform
Privacy
Race Relations
Racial Profiling
Retirement Age
School Uniforms
School Vouchers
Scientific Research
Second Amendment Rights (See also Gun Control)
Separation of Church and State, School Prayer
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Social Issues
Social Security
Space Exploration
Stem Cell Research (See also Medical Research)
Tax Cuts
Tax Reform
Taxes
Technology and Communication (FCC)
Teenage Pregnancy
Terrorism
Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection
Tort Reform
Torture
Transparency in Government
Transportation Issues
Unemployment
Veterans Issues
Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Welfare, Corporate
Welfare, Individual
Women's Issues
Workers' Rights, Minimum Wage / Hours / Abuses
World Hunger
WTO, IMF, UN, World Bank, Doha Round
(Donate to Dave's Effort here.)
I get told a lot that I should run for office. That's not something I'm interested in, but it did spur me recently to put together a list of recognizable "hot topic" political issues just to see where I would fall in the spectrum based on my beliefs. The results surprised me.
Here are some of the things I hadn't thought of before:
1. There are a lot more issues than I thought that today's politicians must deal with.
2. If you fill out how you stand on every issue here, you'll realize you're probably more or less liberal or conservative than you think.
3. If you fill out how you stand on every issue here, and your answers fall 100% to one "side" or the other, then you're suffering from blind party loyalty and need to reassess your thinking.
4. Completing this exercise proves to me that the popular definitions/labels of "Republican" and "Democrat" are a fallacy. We are Americans, and as a Free People we should be intelligent enough to think for ourselves and not fall prey to the constraints of a label or allow ourselves to get caught up in the divisiveness that government seeks to wedge between us.
Here's the list. It's worth the time to struggle through actually thinking about and writing down what you believe. I bet you'll surprise yourself too!
Abortion
Affirmative Action
Agricultural, Farm Policy, Genetically Modified Food
American Flag Desecration
Animal Rights and Wildlife Issues
Arts and Humanities
Campaign Finance Reform
Censorship
Civil Liberties
College Affordability
Congressional Term Limits
Constitutionality of the "Pledge of Allegiance"
Consumer Protection Laws
Continued US Presence in Iraq
Crime, Corporate
Crime, Individual
Death Penalty
Disaster Reponse
Drugs, Medical Marijuana
Economy
Education
Energy Issues / Policy / Dependence on Foreign Oil / Peak Oil
Environment, Cap and Trade, Kyoto, etc.
Equal Opportunity
Ethnic Cleansing
Euthanasia
Family and Children Issues
Federal Budget, Spending vs. Balance
Federal Reserve & Banking
Federal, State, and Local Relations
Foreign Aid
Foreign Policy
Gambling and Gaming
Gay Marriage / Rights
Gays in the Military (Don't Ask Don't Tell)
Global AIDS Crisis
Global Role of the U.S.
Global Warming / Climate Change
Government Sponsored Assassinations
Gun Control (See also Second Amendment Rights)
Health Care, Insurance, Malpractice Law, Patient Rights, etc.
Housing and Property Issues
Immigration
Indecency
Infrastructure
International Trade / Free Trade / Globalization
Iran's Nuclear Energy Program
Iraqi Prisoner Abuse
Israel
Justice System
Labor / Unions
Language, English as National Language
Law Enforcement
Legal System
Media Bias
Medical Research (See also Stem Cell Research)
Medicare, Medicaid
Middle East Crisis
Military / National Defense Spending
Military / National Defense Strategy
Minimum Wage (See Workers' Rights)
Moral & Ethical Values
National Debt
National Security Issues
Net Neutrality
North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Program
Nuclear Testing
Offshoring
Political Corruption
Poverty - US and World
Presidential Line Item Veto
Prison Reform
Privacy
Race Relations
Racial Profiling
Retirement Age
School Uniforms
School Vouchers
Scientific Research
Second Amendment Rights (See also Gun Control)
Separation of Church and State, School Prayer
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Social Issues
Social Security
Space Exploration
Stem Cell Research (See also Medical Research)
Tax Cuts
Tax Reform
Taxes
Technology and Communication (FCC)
Teenage Pregnancy
Terrorism
Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection
Tort Reform
Torture
Transparency in Government
Transportation Issues
Unemployment
Veterans Issues
Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Welfare, Corporate
Welfare, Individual
Women's Issues
Workers' Rights, Minimum Wage / Hours / Abuses
World Hunger
WTO, IMF, UN, World Bank, Doha Round
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Ben Stein's Diary
We've Figured Him Out
By Ben Stein on 7.24.09 @ 9:45AM
Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed?
Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:
The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008. They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.
They ignored his anti-white writings in his books. They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.
They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student. They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.
The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.
Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth. Barack Obama is a super likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East, way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future.
The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill -- a great idea in theory -- was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way an effort to help all Americans.
Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do.
The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never will be -- a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society. Either the costs go up or the free society goes away.
These are perilous times. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State, has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation. Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care. It will be joined by controls on our lives to "protect us" from global warming, itself largely a fraud if believed to be caused by man.
Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms.
There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America.
Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes "Ben Stein's Diary" for every issue of The American Spectator.
By Ben Stein on 7.24.09 @ 9:45AM
Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed?
Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:
The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008. They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.
They ignored his anti-white writings in his books. They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.
They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student. They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.
The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.
Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth. Barack Obama is a super likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East, way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future.
The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill -- a great idea in theory -- was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way an effort to help all Americans.
Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do.
The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never will be -- a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society. Either the costs go up or the free society goes away.
These are perilous times. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State, has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation. Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care. It will be joined by controls on our lives to "protect us" from global warming, itself largely a fraud if believed to be caused by man.
Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms.
There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America.
Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes "Ben Stein's Diary" for every issue of The American Spectator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
