Conservative Sugar

And the stimulus goes to....picnic tables! yay!

brookrene — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:35:39 -0800

Story from Big Government here: http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/19/obama-to-taxpayers-america-needs-mor...

the main thing i got from this story (besides the fact that the stimulus is crap, which we know!) is that there is a website called stimuluswatch.org where you can view and VOTE on whether you're happy with the money being spent that way. Some of the bigger wastes of course are the picnic tables.

I found it informative. You can browse by state and many other options. Have fun voting, if you can stomach the outrage you feel!

Liberal Dems Are Elitists and Fat Cats

samantha999 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:17:34 -0800

Sept. 20, 2009

Stein: Democrats Are Elitists and Fat Cats

Says Party's Contempt for Tea Party Protesters is Un-American, and Not Helpful at Polling Booths

Just who are the Democrats now? Ben Stein says they're the party of fat cat elitists who mock elderly, non-minorities with homes in the sticks. (CBS)
(CBS) Politics has become more rough-and-tumble in recent months, and our contributor Ben Stein doesn't appreciate some of what he's been hearing:

I know James Carville and I like him. He and I have been on many talk shows together and he's always friendly, funny, and knowledgeable. He's also compelling, because he seems to reflect in his comments the thoughts of the inner circles of the Democratic Party's ruling elite.
That's why I was a bit surprised when I read that Mr. Carville had recently blasted the men and women at the anti-Obama "Tea Parties" as so - quote - "classless" that they shocked him.
Wait a minute! I thought the Democrats were the party of the little guys and those who aren't classy or well-born.
Now, the political enemies are the ones without social class ?
So, now the Democrats are admitting they're the party of the rich?
They have been getting the lion's share of very large political gifts for years now. The truth is that the Democrats are the fat cats.
I am impressed that Mr. Carville admitted it. I like him more than ever now.
I was also interested to see that Mr. Carville, a mere lad of 64 (same as I am), has made fun of the age of the Tea Party attendees. He mockingly noted that their average age was - quote - "what, like 72.4 years?"
So, now the Democrats don't think the opinions of senior citizens are worth anything more than ridicule? That's a change, too. Not a good one.
I have seen other Democratic commentators making mock of the fact that the people at the Tea Parties were overwhelmingly white.
So, are we back to saying people's political views only count if you have skin of a certain color or are of a certain race? I don't like the sound of that.
There is also some scorn because many of the Tea Partiers are from small towns. Don't like that too much, either.
Look, some of what is coming out of the Tea Parties baffles me and I don't care for it. But a lot of it does make sense.
What's really amazed me is how the elitist anger of the liberal Democrats is boiling over as some ordinary citizens show they don't like being pushed around.

The liberal Democrats might want to rethink this. Contempt for the ordinary citizen is just not American. And it does not win elections.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/20/sunday/main5324270.shtml

The American People Return to Personal Responsibility and Honesty

Eleuthera — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:05:44 -0800

by Newt Gingrich
Posted 11/18/2009

As the Senate prepares to take up health reform, senators should take note of the tremendous shift underway in the thinking of the American people.Historians may record that the Obama Administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were the wake-up call which led Americans to recommit themselves to the core values of American civilization.

The net result of the Obama presidential campaign and a ten month campaign for government control of health care has been a decisive shift away from reliance on government and toward personal responsibility.

A Stunning 22-Point Shift Away From Government Responsibilty for Health Care

Polling data released last week by Gallup show a startling shift in public opinion: President Obama and Speaker Pelosi are actually convincing the country to rethink their attitudes and move toward the right and away from government solutions in health care (the same seems to be happening on spending, taxes, and how to create jobs, but that will be a future newsletter).
Gallup’s annual poll on health issues (taken every November) shows public opinion shifting against the values of the Left and in favor of the personal responsibility, limited government model which has defined America for 240 years (since the founding decade of the 1770s).
Gallup reports a stunning shift of 22% of all Americans who have moved from believing government is responsible for health care to believing health care is a personal responsibility.

One Out of Every Four Americans Have Changed Their Minds on Health Care

That means nearly one out of every four Americans have changed their minds on a fundamental question of who is responsible for health care. This is one of the largest shifts of its kind in such a short period in modern history.
The survey shows that even after the 2008 presidential campaign and the Obama Administration’s concerted effort to sell government health care, support for non-government responsibility is at an all-time high. In fact, for the first time in the decade that Gallup has asked the question, the survey found that more Americans (50%) favor non-government responsibility than believe it is a government responsibility (47%).
The high watermark for the Left’s belief in collective responsibility through government was in November 2006 when by a 69-to-28 margin Americans said health care was a government responsibility (the choice is actually worded government versus non-government responsibility).
Thus in November 2006, partially in reaction to Republican failures and the absence of a coherent conservative message, nearly 7 out of every 10 Americans had chosen government responsibility for health care.

The Shift Away from Government Health Care was Actually Fueled By the Campaign

But November 2006 was when support for government health care peaked.
The shift away from government and towards non-government responsibility was actually fueled by the presidential campaign.
In the November 2008 survey, Gallup found support for government responsibility had already dropped to 54% and support for non-government responsibility had risen to 41%. That meant there had been a 7% drop in support for government and a 9% increase in support for non-government responsibility in health care even during the presidential campaign – a campaign in which we were told candidate Obama was very articulate and charismatic and candidate McCain was not very effective. Yet the power of the culture seemed to be outweighing the articulateness of the candidate who was advocating the wrong position.
As President, Barack Obama’s effort to articulate the case for government responsibility has seen support for government erode another 7% and support for a non-governmental responsibility rise another 9%.
At this rate, after another year of the health debate, the American people will have decisively rejected government as a system for solutions.

Why Democrats Don’t Understand the Shift

Within the Gallup data there are very important clues as to why President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid do not understand what is happening.
Whereas 22% of the country has shifted from government to non-government responsibility in health care, among Democrats support for government remains strong.
Democrats’ belief in government responsibility peaked at 87% in 2007. That meant there was virtually no opposition among Democrats to government run health care.
Even today, when 22% of the American people have shifted away from government, Democrats remain firmly in favor with 74% favoring government responsibility and only 23% favoring non-government responsibility (among Republicans the numbers are now reversed at 21% government and 77% non-government).
So even today three out of four Democrats would reinforce what is now a declining position among the American people.

Keep the Current System or Replace It

A similar shift in public opinion is underway on the question of whether to keep the current health system or replace it.Today a vast majority (61 to 32) favor keeping the current system rather than replacing it.
The margin among the two parties again reflects this schizophrenia about policies and values. While 86% of Republicans favor maintaining the current system and only 11% favor replacing it, among Democrats the results are very different. Democrats favor replacing the current system by 56 to 35.
Losing Independents, Losing the Country, Losing the Next Election
What these data show is that the Obama Administration and the congressional Democrats are losing the argument with independents, eroding support among their own party and consolidating Republicans into a firmly anti-government position.
This trend suggests that another year of debate over the Left’s values, plans and policies will consolidate the center-right majority and lead to a crushing defeat for the Democratic Congress.
Two more years of debate on this pattern would make President Obama a one-term President.It will be interesting to see if anyone in the White House reads Gallup data.It will be interesting to see if anyone in the White House listens to the American people.
Americans Are Probably Going to Become Even More Critical of Government and Supportive of Non-government SolutionsAs the country learns more about government incompetence as a delivery system (read Jim Frogue’s Stop Paying the Crooks), the H1N1 flu vaccine fiasco and other failures, people will continue to move away from reliance on government.
As Americans think through the economic crisis (10.2% unemployment and growing), the Chinese ownership of $2 trillion in United States debt, the rising state government deficit (going up from $112 billion in 2009 to $134 billion in 2010), and the reactionary unwillingness to reform many of the public employee unions, they will become even more skeptical of turning problems over to government.
The final result of the debates President Obama is sparking may be a nation which polarizes 75 to 25 in favor of non-governmental responsibility, turning to personal, corporate, nonprofit or faith-based institutions instead of government for solutions.
This would be a grand irony. But the Gallup data show an underlying pattern that should hearten conservatives and demoralize liberals.

Rise of conservative women

cine_lover — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:55:27 -0800

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/15/michele-bachmann-president-s...

She is much more Religious Right then I like in Conservative politicians, but I still found her interesting.

The new wave of female firebrands striking fear into liberal America

Right-wing radicals are already pinning presidential ambitions on a mother-of-five from Minnesota who calls herself a 'fool for Christ' and condemns Obama as a socialist at the head of a gangster regime

- Paul Harris in New York
- The Observer, Sunday 15 November 2009
- Article history

Michele Bachmann gestures as she speaks at the Republican National Convention in 2008. Photograph: Paul Sancya/AP

She is a striking brunette with a decidedly outspoken attitude. She lambasts President Barack Obama as a socialist and has become the darling of America's right-wing activists who flock to her appearances. She is hated by liberals and loved by conservatives.
Sarah Palin? Not quite. Meet Michele Bachmann, a Republican congresswoman from Minnesota who is being hailed as a new and increasingly powerful voice in American politics.
Bachmann, at 53, is a darling of the so-called Tea Party movement, which has campaigned vociferously against healthcare reform, the economic stimulus package and legislation to combat climate change. Her followers have been behind mass rallies in Washington and smaller ones all over the country. She has emerged as one of the most visible politicians in America, frequently appearing on the conservative Fox News channel, whose hosts often champion her causes.
She is part of an increasingly visible "female brand" of conservatism that is rising in America in the wake of the election of Obama. They include notable syndicated commentators such as Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter, whose dislike for liberals has grown ever more shrill in recent months. And, of course, Palin herself. She is still a giant of the political and media landscape and next week embarks on a book tour to sell her autobiography. It has already sparked a media frenzy, with a heavily hyped appearance on Oprah Winfrey's show, and become a huge bestseller on pre-orders alone.
All these women express a mood of conservative discontent that is becoming increasingly vocal and, some experts warn, extreme. TheRepublicans have been kicked out of power in the White House and Congress. The party is becoming more white and southern at the same time as national demographic changes give power to other regions and minorities. Many Americans are also suffering in the recession. That is a grim picture but one that also makes many voters vulnerable to a talented rabble-rouser. "They are tapping into grassroots frustration... they are charging up an already highly charged group of people," said Shaun Bowler, a political scientist at the University of California at Riverside.
The politics espoused by Bachmann, Palin and others on the far right of the conservative movement warn darkly of Obama's intentions. They paint a picture of an America that is under threat from its own president. Bachmann has spoken of the possibility of the White House setting up "re-education camps" for America's youth. Palin once accused Obama of "palling around" with terrorists. To the many critics of this new breed of conservatism, people such as Bachmann and Palin are putting an attractive female face to a very ugly brand of politics.
The crowd gathered in Washington DC on 5 November had answered Bachmann's call. Using Fox News and her own press announcements, Bachmann had demanded that conservative activists descend on the nation's capital to invade the corridors of Congress and demand that politicians stop healthcare reform. Thousands of people did just that, showing up for a mass rally. They chanted: "We want Michele!"
Many liberals criticised the protest as a failure. But from Bachmann's point of view that was hard to see. The move catapulted her to the front of the Republican party as politician after politician showed up to address the crowd. She was a fixture on cable news all day. In the short space of a couple of years Bachmann had gone from obscure congresswoman to national media figure.
But out in the crowd the ugly face of some modern conservatives was not hard to find. There were 12 arrests. One protester wore a mask of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with handfuls of bloody foetuses. Another protester held up a picture of piles of Jewish corpses from Dachau concentration camp. "National Socialist Healthcare", the sign read.
Bachmann later condemned those who had made Holocaust references at the rally. But even a cursory glance at her career reveals that this rising star has long trafficked in some extreme positions. In October last year Bachmann called some of her fellow congressmen anti-American. She has said Obama holds socialist views. She has attacked global warming by saying that carbon dioxide emissions are a natural part of the atmosphere. "Carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas," she said. She has fed into fears of a violent backlash against Obama by saying that "having a revolution every now and then is a good thing". She has spoken of "gangster government" in a speech viewed more than two million times on the internet. She has dubbed Obama's plans to increase AmeriCorps – a government volunteer service group – as a plan to forcibly indoctrinate young people. "I believe there is a very strong chance that we will see young people put into mandatory service... there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people," she told an interviewer. Her language in opposing healthcare reform has been bloodcurdling. At a recent event in Colorado she told her audience: "What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn't pass." She is also extremely socially conservative, strongly opposing abortion and gay marriage, and deeply religious. She has described herself as a "fool for Christ".
Such extreme statements and beliefs have made Bachmann a figure of both fun and fear among liberal Americans, especially in her home state of Minnesota. "It is hard to think that people take her seriously. But on a national level it is happening. It scares me," said Aaron Landry, a senior correspondent at MNpublius.com, a Minnesota-based politics blog. But what makes liberal Americans laugh or cry has got the conservative wing of the Republican party extremely excited. In an article that sent shockwaves through America's political classes, top conservative newspaper columnist George Will recently wrote a piece anointing Bachmann as a new star of the movement. "Some of her supposed excesses are... not merely defensible, they are admirable," Will wrote. It is easy to see why Bachmann is being so enthusiastically embraced by conservatives. The high profile of Palin showed the impact a charismatic, young conservative woman could have on the right wing of the Republican party.
"Politics on the right used to be a parlour game played by old, white men," said Bowler. Palin changed that and Bachmann has followed. They have replaced the dulcet tones of grey-haired Washington senators with Midwestern vowels and Alaskan twangs. They have risen swiftly through careers forged a long way from Washington, wearing their outsider label as a badge of pride. They have given conservatism the look of a middle-American suburban soccer mom with first-hand experience of raising a family in tough times.
That is certainly much of Bachmann's appeal. She was born in Iowa and then moved to Minnesota. When her parents divorced, her mother was left to fend for herself. Bachmann has known what it means to scrimp and save to get by. But she made a success of herself. She and her husband now run a small business in mental health and she is the mother of five children. She has also given foster care to a staggering 23 kids. Political legend has it that her career began when she spoke out at a local Republican party meeting after her state senator had shifted his politics in a liberal direction. When asked by others in the crowd if she herself should try to unseat the incumbent, she gave a speech that so excited those assembled that she was plunged into the race, which she went on to win. It was the unlikely start of a career that has now come to national prominence.
But Bachmann – and Palin too – are more than just individual politicians. They have come to represent a mass social movement that stretches far beyond just turning up on election day. It is no coincidence that both Palin and Bachmann have inspired lines of T-shirts, coffee mugs and action figures for their fans to snap up. That movement first made its appearance during John McCain's rallies after he picked Palin for his running mate in the 2008 election. The choice electrified what had been a fairly moribund campaign. Suddenly crowds of thousands were turning out to Republican rallies, as well as Democratic ones. They were there to see Palin, not McCain.
Palin's brand of homespun wisdom, rooted in uber-patriotism and killer heels, was a breath of fresh air that conservatives had been looking for. So were unashamedly conservative views and a willingness to state bluntly what she thought about Democrats. Palin's subsequent self-destruction in a series of media interviews only served to make her more popular.
Indeed, to examine the impact of both Palin and Bachmann is to see an America split firmly into two different worlds. The first is a liberal one where such politicians make outlandish comments that become the butt of jokes on the Daily Show or Saturday Night Live. The other is one where Palin and Bachmann are the victims of a liberal media that hates its own country. "For their supporters, attacking Palin and Bachmann actually gives them the proof that they are the victims that they already believe themselves to be," said Bowler. To the conservative mind-set, these women are truth-tellers who are viciously attacked precisely because of the validity of the message that they are carrying.
That side of the great American divide is about to get a prolonged period in the sun. This week Palin begins her book tour, touting her autobiography. It is already a massive hit and leaks have hit the internet, generating stories and gossip. Palin is set to talk about her feelings about her daughter's pregnancy, dish dirt on McCain and his aides and slam the very same media that once slammed her. Her tour is like a mini political campaign. She and her family are set to travel by bus across America as she shuttles from stop to stop. She is also shunning large cities such as New York and instead going to small towns and out-of-the-way states.
It is a stunning reversal of the situation after the McCain-Palin ticket lost, when McCain's staff tried to distance themselves from Palin and blame her for the defeat. But now McCain, hated by many conservatives, has retreated quietly to the Senate, while Palin powers from strength to strength.
But the political future is not likely to belong to Palin. The trouncing that she received in the media during the presidential election campaign and the fact she currently holds no office have rendered her political power symbolic. Though it is not impossible, it is hard to imagine Palin launching a credible run in 2012. But what she has done is pave the way for an extremist conservative candidate to emerge as the Republican nominee. The excitement coursing through the conservative movement, and the power wielded by its media stars such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, has made selecting any sort of moderate very difficult.
Palin's legacy could be to place the 2012 nomination in the hands of the people who supported her. Could that recipient be Bachmann? It is an outside bet. But Bachmann has spoken of it, couching the question in religious terms that are deeply familiar and beloved of her followers. "If I felt that's what the Lord was calling me to do, I would do it," she told one conservative website of her potential presidential ambitions. Such comments have filled liberals with scorn and fear. "Most people don't think she can have presidential ambitions. She's too crazy," said Landry. "But a lot of people in Alaska thought that about Sarah Palin."

Is America at War?

Eleuthera — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:18:34 -0800

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Are we at war - or not?
For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?
Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies - that he may not be guilty.
And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.
When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.
Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.
We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?
Minoru Genda, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, a naval base on U.S. soil, when America was at peace, and killed as many Americans as the Sept. 11 hijackers, was not brought here for trial. He was an enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions and treated as such.
When Maj. Andre, the British spy and collaborator of Benedict Arnold, was captured, he got a military tribunal, after which he was hanged. When Gen. Andrew Jackson captured two British subjects in Spanish Florida aiding renegade Indians, Jackson had both tried and hanged on the spot.
Enemy soldiers who commit atrocities are not sent to the United States for trial. Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who commit atrocities are shot when caught.
When and where did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed acquire his right to a trial by a jury of his peers in a U.S. court?
When John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln, alleged collaborators like Mary Surratt were tried before a military tribunal and hanged at Ft. McNair. When eight German saboteurs were caught in 1942 after being put ashore by U-boat, they were tried in secret before a military commission and executed, with the approval of the Supreme Court. What makes KSM special?
Is the Obama administration aware of what it is risking by not turning KSM over to a military tribunal in Guantanamo?
How does Justice handle a defense demand for a change of venue, far from lower Manhattan, where the jury pool was most deeply traumatized by Sept. 11? Would not KSM and his co-defendants, if a change of venue is denied, have a powerful argument for overturning any conviction on appeal?
Were not KSM’s Miranda rights impinged when he was not only not told he could have a lawyer on capture, but that his family would be killed and he would be water-boarded if he refused to talk?
And if all the evidence against the five defendants comes from other than their own testimony under duress, do not their lawyers have a right to know when, where, how and from whom Justice got the evidence to prosecute them? Does KSM have the right to confront all witnesses against him, even if they are al-Qaida turncoats or U.S. spies still transmitting information to U.S. intelligence?
There have been reports that in the trials of those convicted in the first World Trade Center bombing, sources and methods were compromised, weakening our security for the second attack on Sept. 11.
If the trial is held in lower Manhattan, how much security will be needed to protect against a car bomber who wants the world to see a mighty blow struck against the Great Satan? And if, as some suggest, the trial should be held on Governor’s Island, would that not make the United States look like a nation under siege?
What do we do if the case against KSM is thrown out because the government refuses to reveal sources or methods, or if he gets a hung jury, or is acquitted, or has his conviction overturned?
In America, trials often become games, where the prosecution, though it has truth on its side, loses because it inadvertently breaks one of the rules.
The Obamaites had best pray that does not happen, for they may be betting his presidency on the outcome of the game about to begin.

You can't eat while we fast

samantha999 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:10:55 -0800

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,26343471-421,00.html?from=news+newsletter_rss&referrer=email&source=eDM_newspulse

Parents say son was tormented for eating salami sandwich during Ramadan

The Daily Telegraph
November 13, 2009 12:01am

Helen Grigoriou comforts her son Antonios who was allegedly beaten by Muslim students at his school. Picture: Jeff Herbert

Boy "chased, assaulted by Muslim students"
Was eating salami during Ramadan
Parents withdraw boy from the school

A SYDNEY couple has withdrawn their two children from a public primary school, claiming their 11-year-old son was bullied by Muslim students because he ate a salami sandwich during Ramadan.
Andrew Grigoriou said yesterday he complained to the school and to police after his son Antonios was chased and later assaulted by Muslim students after a confrontation over the contents of his lunch, The Daily Telegraphreports.
Antonios, a Year 5 student of Greek-Australian background at Punchbowl Public School in Sydney's southwest, said he and a friend had to be locked inside the library for an hour after being chased by a group of Muslim boys offended by his choice of food while they were fasting.

The Grigoriou family said the following exchange took place:
Muslim student to Antonios: "Why are you eating ham, it's Ramadan?"

Muslim student: "Don't eat that. How can you eat pig, it's disgusting."

During the confrontation a Muslim boy allegedly accused Antonios of saying: "F--- the Muslims" but Antonios denied swearing.
Mr Grigoriou said he removed his son and a younger child from the school on Tuesday after the boy was punched in the eye and kicked in the legs by a Muslim student.
"It has broken my heart to see this happening to my boy," he said. Antonios, who wrote about his experiences in words and drawings, still has nightmares.
The Department of Education and Training said it had a zero tolerance policy towards racism.
"Claims of bullying or racial intolerance are taken very seriously and looked into," a spokeswoman said. "The School Education Director is looking into the matter and called the father concerned.

"As a result ... the school will work with all families and students involved to ensure that the values promoted by Punchbowl Public School and the department are understood and supported."
After the salami sandwich incident a student described as "the ringleader of the group" was suspended from the school. The department said that the school had "ongoing cultural and interfaith awareness programs to improve understanding among students of events like Ramadan and Christmas".
Other parents also complained to The Daily Telegraph about bullying at the school and claimed victims received too little protection.
One said her 12-year-old son was scared to open his lunch box at school because he was harassed about what is in it. "He has been bullied from day one ... about being a Christian and about the hot salami in his lunch," she said.
"My boy has a Greek background ... the bullying is extreme.
"He has been called a fat pig and hit on the back with a stick."
Another mother said her young son refused to go on school excursions for fear he would be bashed.

How do you make a suicide bomber?

samantha999 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:06:36 -0800

'I agreed to become a suicide bomber'

A 14-year-old boy in the tribal region of Bajaur, in north-west Pakistan, says he was detained by Taliban forces who tried to turn him into a suicide bomber. The boy is now in army hands.

He provided a detailed account to BBC correspondent Orla Guerin. His story cannot be independently verified.

The boy says he was beaten until he agreed to become a suicide bomber

There were five people who came after me from a place in Bajaur. They tricked me. They told me they were going to behead my father.

I went with them but my father wasn't there. They tied me up.

They said: 'You have two choices. We will behead you, or you will become a suicide bomber.' I refused.

There were two more guys of my age. They were also training to be suicide bombers. If we refused they would tie our hands behind our backs, blindfold us and start beating us.

They brainwashed us and told us we would go to heaven. They said 'there will be honey and juice and God will appear in front of you. You will have a beautiful house in Heaven'.

We used to ask them to let us out to pray. They would reply 'you are already on your way to heaven. You don't need to pray.'

They beat me hard for five days. I wasn't given any food. While they were beating me I agreed to become a suicide bomber. They separated me from the other boys.

Mosque mission

They took me to a dark room and started giving me pills. I was handed over to Maulvi Fakir [the Bajaur Taliban commander]. After all this preparation they said I was to go and do the job in a mosque.

Before the Taliban came we used to enjoy freedom. We used to play, and go to our schools

'Haunting' Taliban problem

It was an ordinary mosque but the cleric there used to talk against the Taliban, and they declared him their enemy. They told me the cleric was a non-believer, a non-Muslim.

They took off my shirt and put the jacket on my shoulders. There were two hooks on my chest.
They told me that when you go there you say 'Allahu Akbar' [God is Great] and then you pull apart these two hooks. Then they took me there, showed me the mosque and went off.

I was drugged and I couldn't feel anything. I only came to my senses when I arrived in the mosque. I saw the peaceful kind face of the cleric, and I saw the mosque was full of holy books. I saw the people praying. And I thought, they are all Muslims. How can I do this? I decided not to and I came out.

I sat under a tree outside the mosque and waited for prayers to be over. After that I made my way back to the Taliban. Then they called me 'a son of a b*tch' and asked why I had come back without doing it.

I told them I could not do it because they were carrying out body searches of all the people entering the mosque. They took off my vest and handed me over to Maulvi Fakir.

They tied me up but I told them to give me another chance and I would do it. They trusted me. I was roaming around with them for a couple of days. I got to the road, found transport and came home. They followed me to my house. They wanted to know if I was still there or had run somewhere else.

'Eliminate the Taliban'

The Taliban had beaten me so harshly my back was scarred. When my parents saw that my mother started to cry, and told me not to go back to them. My father asked them why they were after his son. One day he took his weapon and went after them. But they wanted to kill him so he came back home and closed the door.

Before the Taliban came we used to enjoy freedom. We used to play, and go to our schools. There were no restrictions on us. Morning and evening we used to play games, and sit and chat with friends. We used to listen to music on our mobile phones. They banned that. They stopped us doing anything. They stopped us playing cricket and going to school. We felt like prisoners.

I want to join the army because they are the defenders of the land. They are fighting for the right cause. I want to fight against the Taliban. I have no other intention except to defend my country. The Taliban should be eliminated.

I want to tell the Taliban that they are cruel, and what they did to me was unjust. I can't kill innocent Muslims.

I am not afraid of them. I am only afraid of God. I am answerable only to Him.

Human Rights Group Against the Cross - WWJS?

samantha999 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:53:41 -0800

Greek Church acts on crucifix ban

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8358027.stm

By Malcolm Brabant
BBC News, Athens

The Strasbourg ruling caused outrage in the Italian media

The Greek Orthodox Church is urging Christians across Europe to unite in an appeal against a ban on crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled last week that the presence of crucifixes violated a child's right to freedom of religion.

Greece's Orthodox Church fears the Italian case will set a precedent.

It has called an emergency Holy Synod meeting for next week to devise an action plan.

Although the Greek Orthodox Church has been at odds with Roman Catholicism for 1,000 years, the judicial threat to Christian symbols has acted as a unifying force.

The European Court of Human Rights found that the compulsory display of crucifixes violated parents' rights to educate their children as they saw fit and restricted the right of children to believe or not to believe.

'Worthy symbols'

The head of the Greek Church, Archbishop Ieronymos, shares Catholic complaints that the court is ignoring the role of Christianity in forming Europe's identity.

It is not only minorities that have rights but majorities as well, said the archbishop.

One of his subordinates, Bishop Nicholas from central Greece, lamented that at this rate youngsters will not have any worthy symbols at all to inspire and protect them.

Football and pop idols are very poor substitutes, he said.

The Greek Church has ostensibly intervened in this case in response to an appeal by a Greek mother whose son is studying in Italy.

But without doubt it is concerned that its omnipotence in Greece is under threat.

A human rights group called Helsinki Monitor is seeking to use the Italian case as a precedent.

It has demanded that Greek courts remove icons of Jesus Christ from above the judge's bench and that the gospel no longer be used for swearing oaths in the witness box.

Helsinki Monitor is urging trade unions to challenge the presence of religious symbols in Greek schools.

The socialist government here is also considering imposing new taxes on the Church's vast fortune, but at the same time is urging it to do more to help immigrants and poor Greeks.

The mayor of one Italian town displayed a 2m high crucifix in protest

The Dunn Debacle: Is Anita Dunn?

cheekyredhead — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:31:09 -0800

Anita Dunn has proven to be one of Obama’s greatest assets and now perhaps one of his greatest mishaps. As a campaign consultant she boasted boldly during a Jamaican interview that “Obama’s camp controlled the media, ALL the media” and still does today….well perhaps aside from FOX News.

As a Democratic strategist, communications consultant, and is a partner of Squier Knapp Dunn Communications, a Washington-based consulting firm, Anita Dunn has been most recently Obama’s /the White House’s communications chief. Recently she quietly stepped down from her post, resigning and is attempting to tip-toe out of the building and her past revelations which I assert will haunt her and her career in the future.

What is her future? She is no longer the White House Communications Administrator; however she is still on staff as a “consultant.” How many of you are wondering if this has affected her financial status? You may also be wondering how I can say that her past “revelations” will continue to haunt her and I will happily explain by using her own words against her. In an interview titled “The Buying of the Presidency” Anita Dunn stated the following about “who” actually makes money during presidential campaigns.

“Let’s be honest: The money goes to TV stations. The people who make a lot of money off of presidential campaigns are the television stations in targeted states. I’ll give you an example: Alaska Senate race 2004. At the beginning of the Senate race, it cost $25 a gross rating point to be on the air in Anchorage, Alaska. By October of 2004, it cost $500 a gross rating point, which is more, or comparable to the city of Philadelphia.”

So, when Anita Dunn bragged about “controlling ALL the media” during the election she also was well aware that manipulating the media was really about manipulating funds. Where does money for campaigns come from?

I will let her tell you: “A $2,300 check is a lot of money to me, but it is a drop in the bucket for a statewide competitive race. The amount of people in this country who can afford to write checks like that and who do write checks like that is relatively small, and they tend to be very wealthy. So the amount of time the candidates and elected officials have to spend talking to rich people - calling them to ask them to hold an event, calling them to ask them to raise money, to share their Rolodex, getting on the phone with 50 of their friends, calling them to ask them for money - skews their perspective. The amount of time it takes is so significant that: a) They have less time to go out and actually campaign with people who don’t have that kind of money, and b) they tend to get a skewed sense of what the issue concerns are.”

Wow. There is no confusion here about why a “consultant” is so valuable to a campaign or a candidate. They obviously need someone to remind them “why” they are actually running for office aside from begging for money. Just how much impact does a consultant have on a candidate’s platform? I will let her tell you herself:

“In terms of the role of the consultant theme, there are small races and there are big races. Most of them, at the end of the day, present you with the same fundamental challenges that I believe that any consultant in this business faces, which is working with a candidate and trying to get out of them what they want to do, why they want to hold an office, and then presenting that. And it is frustrating, as a consultant, when a candidate doesn’t know and expects that to be my job to tell them. … And I’ve worked with a lot of candidates who say, “What’s my message?”

(Now you know why I picked this picture for above...I suppose it is sometimes VERY hard to keep our leaders properly focused)

Now I pose this question about how much our legislators, leaders, and basically all politicians really know or able to communicate what they have determined as “their views” when they so readily pay others to build that “view or platform” for them. As voters we listen to candidates and seem to have the idea that what they say they are representing is genuine. We are being led down the proverbial path largely constructed by the ideals, agendas and special interests of those often faceless minions.

Who organizes and focuses these views for those in office? Largely it is those consultants who so recently have been named as “czars” who have very specific agendas and the ears of our leaders. Anita Dunn has stepped down as the Communications Officer for the White House but is still on the payroll as a “consultant” now. She still has the ear of our president and leaders but without the accountability publicly demanded in an official capacity.

During such financially difficult times in America you’d think that our president would be cutting the excess out of the payroll instead of just changing the official title of someone. As Anita Dunn stepped down from her official capacity many of us thought “Good, we aren’t paying her to continue doing such a poor job of hiding the ineptness within political agendas” but that is simply a mirage.

She is now a consultant again with an ear of our president so that he can continue to get his much needed guidance. Just how much does a consultant make?

Let us look to Anita Dunn for an explanation: “I’ll tell you, the people who by and large overpay for consultants are Senate, gubernatorial, and congressional campaigns in expensive media markets that do percentage-of-the-buy [typically, a 15 percent commission of the total advertising buy]. I mean, I can totally justify percentage-of-the-buy at a pretty high rate in a cheap state, where I’m going to end up producing 35 or 40 ads, have 18 debates I’ve got to be prepared [for], and just work a huge amount of time for a relatively small amount of money because TV is inexpensive. On the other hand, if you’re doing a New Jersey Senate race, you’re going to produce five ads for a $15 million media buy; you’re not working that hard.”

Okay, so those who overpay consultants are those in the top positions in our government. I can’t help but wonder how much she is now getting paid.

She is creating the platform for candidates and then making money on how well her agenda is being pushed. This is not what American voters seem to think they had voted for; nor what they believe their money is actually being spent on. Ultimately we have to consider if anyone in any political office is actually genuine. It sure explains why so many seem to falter when it comes to actually representing their constituents.

Suddenly we realize why so many did not bother to read the Obamacare initiative when it was presented. They were waiting for a consultant to explain it to them and let’s face it-based upon the expertise and demonstrated acumen of Anita Dunn, they are all in a pickle. While Dunn bragged about controlling the media, the internet, and her candidates, Americans were looking for truth that no longer could be controlled by the media minions of Obama’s truth squad. No wonder the Obama camp was so ticked off at FOX and the internet.

Since the presidential campaign, I have had my personal email address barraged with requests to donate to Obama and the truth squad. It is astounding to what extent these people will go to in order to get you to fork over some cash for their cause. It is also shocking the lies they perpetuate for their own agenda.

How do they get away with asking for money while not being actually connected to a candidate?
Let’s ask Anita: “There are a lot of people who feel that the amount of money that can be raised on the Internet, which is primarily ideological money, is also problematic because of what they see as the left-wing push. Bill Bradley was the first candidate to raise over a million dollars on the Internet. He was actually the candidate who went to the FEC [Federal Election Commission] in 1999 and said, “Can Internet donations be qualified for matching funds?...

“What generally happens for presidential campaigns, because you have multiple firms coming in. So, you create a separate corporation that has only one client, which is the campaign. But it’s a way to make sure that the money is made by that. Everything gets distributed. But what the Republicans do, which is more interesting, because they are much more aggressive under the law, is they actually in the past have set up for-profit companies that don’t make any money. They’re not 527s. But the Republicans take a very different attitude toward election law, because they actually don’t believe in it. By and large, our clients believe in this law.”

So you are asking yourself “What?” Essentially all those emails from groups that are officially not connected to a candidate are raising money for who and for what? Where exactly is that money going to and what is it being spent on? Are their laws in place to somehow govern these funds or at least make them abide by any set of rules which represent any form of truth in spending? Nope. That is what we pay consultants for and we had no idea.

Are we to believe that the Democrats are not working as diligently as Anita Dunn leads us to believe that the Republicans are in that virtual gold mine of the internet? Are we to think Democrats are not as internet savvy and legally bound by law as Anita Dunn asserts merely by stating they “believe in this law” and so they are not benefiting from internet donations nearly as much as the Republicans?

Well, I have yet to receive any emails from any Republican requesting a donation. I also haven’t gotten one from a Republican demanding I ignore and boycott FOX News. As a registered Independent I have gotten nothing from the Republicans in my email. I am thinking perhaps the Democrats are as aggressive and controlling as FOX news asserts. They are not interested in truth. They are not interested in American and our needs. They are listening to the consultants whispering into their ear, “You know, I should really be paid more for doing your job.”
Sources:http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/index.php/interviews/anita_dunn/ http://www.mahalo.com/anita-dunn http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,567701,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,568706,00.html http://brainphartspoliticalrefuse.popsugar.com/6078486http://brainphartspoliticalrefuse.popsugar.com/6049851

Unions: Hurt or Heal?

cheekyredhead — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:34:46 -0800

How much to do you believe Unions are playing in our economic problems?

John Stossel on FOX news said he feels for every one person they help, it hurts three others.

Some people think that the "prevailing wage" which Unions demand has undermined their effectiveness in an ability to provide a product at a reasonable price. There are some that feel that Unions are driving jobs overseas.

What do you think about the Union issue?