Posts Tagged ‘Right Wing’

“Having this debate year after year offers little certainty to agents utilizing these provisions to keep the nation safe,” said ranking member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

“Short-term reauthorizations lead to operational uncertainty and compliance and reporting problems if the reauthorization occurs too close to expiration,” Grassley continued. “If these provisions are necessary, we should provide more certainty rather than simply revisiting the law year after year given the indefinite threat we face from acts of terrorism, and that looks like decades ahead. We should permanently reauthorize the three expiring provisions.”

Reader, I would like to pose this question to you: Who has the greater power to supercede the Constitution, the United States government or al-Qaeda?

Advertisements

Fox News brought us a lot of good things to blog about in 2010.  Good, that is, for

I just like this pic of Megyn Kelly in GQ.

 us.  If it weren’t for Sarah Palin spouting nonsensical words and dubious phrases and saying that the President of the United States has no ‘cojones’ over the Arizona law and Jan Brewer (‘cojones’ is a Spanish word, by they way…someone might want to tell Sarah that), where would that lead us?

Oh, yeah, Neil Cavuto cutting from a speech by the First Lady in Shanksville, PA. and saying that President Obama was a ‘nobody’ on September 11, 2001.  We would see Glenn Beck crying on television.  Also, we would see Fox leading the charge of anti-Muslim propaganda and the double-standard elements Fox News’ own funding from a Muslim.

Ranker.com has put together the Top 10 Fox News Fails of 2010.  Enjoy!

Sarah Palin has turned away from the juvenile forums of Facebook and Twitter, at least for a

All body...No brains

 while, to release a new book – America by Heart.  Well, in this case an excerpt.

“We have to know what makes America exceptional today more than ever because it is under assault today more than ever,” the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee writes in the excerpt released Saturday.

“I can’t think of a sadder prospect for Todd and me than our spending our sunset years telling our grandson, Tripp, and our grandchildren yet to come about what it was like in America when we were strong and proud and free,” she adds. “But maybe I can think of a sadder prospect: Tripp and our other grandchildren spending their whole lives working to pay off the irresponsible debt we have accumulated and are about to leave to them.”

‘Under assault today more than ever?’  C’mon, Sarah, you don’t mean to tell me that you still believe in the whole “terrorists attacked us on 9/11 because of our prosperity, religion, and that we are the brightest beacon of freedom” thing, do you?

‘Strong and proud and free?’  You would be including George W. Bush as an opponent to that very same thing, wouldn’t you?  I mean, after all, his malicious lies to the American people over Iraq.  His insistent “stay the course” when evidence was telling us to avoid the iceberg, the war crimes of torture, etc.  As an opponent to freedom you would be including President Bush’s National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51 in that, wouldn’t you?

Just as a short tutorial – because we know you don’t like to read books – here’s a basic rundown: in the event that a matter of national security or cataclysmic event, the president has the power to bring all three branches of the federal government under his power, and it will take place of the nations regular government.

Not very Constitutional.  Not very much of the resemblance of “freedom”.  And, to me, not very much in the direction of the “Amer’can Way”.  By the way, to the casual reader, Directive 51 still sits on the President’s desk, no matter who the President is.  I suggest you click on the link and read the other topics.

Debt?  I couldn’t agree more.  But aside from being a political sniper for Fox News, not even a full term governor, and Sean Hannities BFF, how do you plan to handle the debt?  Why don’t we start with the failed foreign policy that you support?  To be completely truthful, our interventionist foreign policy does not make up all of our nation’s debt, but it contributes to a good chunk, and its a damn good place to start cutting.

Now I am a registered voter, Ms. Palin, so tell me, do you snipe politicians based on the fact of “party”, or do you hate the seed of corruption all the way around?  Because if it is the latter, then you wouldn’t have run with one of the most corrupt, ignorant politicians in 2008.

Sarah Palin has tapped into the disgruntled American syndrome and has grown monetarily fatter because of it.  Americans would be stupid to buy her books.

Or as Philip Giraldi says, “Sarah Palin doesn’t know anything about foreign policy.”

I seriously hope that Sarah Palin put a lot more thought into this book and used other forms of taking notes instead of her hand.

As an after thought, Sarah Palin’s Republican’s – or Teapublicans, whatever you want to call them – blocked unemployment benefits for Americans in the name of “balancing the budget”.  This reminds me of the aftermath of September 11, 2001 when then-President Bush legislated for unemployment benifits and the Republicans went with him.  Can you say friggin’ hypocritical?

I’ve got an idea: How about stop sending money to corrupt foreign governments?  Work outside in instead of inside out, and in the process shamming Americans out of a livelihood.  What a way to kick a person in the go-nads in the middle of the Holiday season? 

By Philip Giraldi

The Tea Party phenomenon has attracted a good deal of both good and bad attention in the media. Though it would perhaps be a stretch to describe it as a movement in that it has only limited organization and focus, it does tap into a genuine disconnect between the American people and the federal government in Washington. Most Tea Partiers claim to want smaller and cheaper government, less interference from Washington in their daily lives, and fewer programs that are intended to socially re-engineer the nation. So far, so good, but then comes the huge failure to comprehend that is as wide as the Grand Canyon. Most also want a strong, assertive national defense and are supporters of an aggressive foreign and security policy.

Tea Partiers have unfortunately been fed a line of hokum by politicians aided and abetted by the mainstream media. They fail to understand that it is precisely the interventionist defense and foreign policies that are driving the bad things they see in government. It is easy to forget that when Bill Clinton left office in 2000 there was a budget surplus. Ballooning defense and security spending since that time, all accomplished without raising taxes, has been the engine of growth for a $13 trillion national debt, a total that increases by $4 billion every day. The United States now accounts for 45% of the entire world total for military spending, euphemistically referred to as “defense.” The Pentagon budget has gone from $432 billion in 2001 to a projected $720 billion in 2011, not including the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Federal Government is twice as big as it was in 2001 and there has been the creation of major new bureaucracies at the Department of Homeland Security and the office of the Director of National Intelligence, neither of which can be regarded as a model of efficiency.

Fueling government growth is the fearmongering that has been artfully encouraged by Democrat and Republican alike. Fear of terrorists, fear of unruly foreigners, fear of the unknown. Fear that unless something is done and more money is spent, the United States will be destroyed by a nameless, faceless threat. The Tea Partiers should instead understand that terrorists will only tear down the United States if we Americans help them to do so. Irrational fear of a small group of men hiding in a cave in Asia is what drives larger government, the infringement of civil liberties, and more taxes and regulation. The United States is on a road that can only lead to ruin. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 in circumstances somewhat similar to the current American financial slide, a Russian politician joked that his country was somewhat like Upper Volta with nuclear armed ballistic missiles. At the time Upper Volta was the poorest country in the world and his point was that having the world’s greatest missile force did not make up for having a wrecked economy. For the United States to continue its imperialist foreign policy, and there is every sign that it intends to do so, will eventually lead to economic and social collapse.

So how can the Tea Party turn things around? It can only do so by realizing that the first thing that must be done to fix the government in Washington is for the United States to end its wars overseas and dramatically scale back on its international commitments. There is no good reason for Washington to serve as the world’s policeman and many good reasons why it should cease and desist from doing so. Reason number one should be that the US muscular foreign policy has actually been helping the terrorists achieve their objectives. In October 2004 Usama bin Laden said, referring to the economic damage the US economy has sustained in the wake of 9/11, “We are continuing in the same policy to make America bleed profusely to the point of bankruptcy.” The numbers alone demonstrate that bin Laden has succeeded, far beyond his wildest imaginings. Iraq alone has cost $1 trillion and counting, 4400 Americans have died together with as many as 650,000 Iraqis. Afghanistan and Iraq continue to run a tab at $12 billion per month, with 1,086 more American dead in Afghanistan, and global war is expanding, not contracting, as the Obama Administration contemplates increased direct involvement in Yemen, Pakistan, and the Horn of Africa.

US policies also propagate terrorism in the form of blowback. Every diplomat or intelligence officer understands that laws of physics apply in foreign affairs as much as they do in the natural sciences. When you get involved in a foreign country’s internal affairs and take action against individuals or groups the action will result in a Newtonian “equal and opposite reaction.” Push on one spot and something happens, sometimes half a world away. When a man attempts to blow up an SUV in Times Square or ignite a bomb in his underwear on board an airliner it is because the US is bombing and killing in places like Yemen and Pakistan. Stop one and you stop the other. As Ron Paul puts it, they are over here because we are over there. It’s that simple.

And when you put an end to the American empire you can stop writing a blank check every year for the Pentagon, you can stop borrowing money to fund the wars, and you can take sensible steps to reduce the size of government, making it again answerable to the people. As the memory of the overhyped terrorist threat fades, you can even begin to restore some of those civil liberties that have been stripped away by the Patriot Acts, the Military Commissions Act, and the assertion of state secrets privilege.

Is it unimaginable that the Tea Parties might turn in that direction? Perhaps not, though much depends on the extent to which the Republican Party and people like Sarah Palin are able to co-opt the movement. If they do, the revolt will fizzle out and turn into George W. Bush revisited. What is needed is a resurgence of traditional conservatives and libertarians to make the case that it is precisely the disastrous foreign policy that is driving virtually everything that ails the United States today. This might be referred to as shifting the narrative, turning it away from the sense that there is an amorphous threat out there that has to be dealt with and towards an understanding that America’s genuine security depends on a sane and cautious foreign policy that eschews meddling in other peoples’ affairs.

I have an overwhelming distrust of the corporate media, and it isn’t because they have a college education in journalism and I don’t (I do this blog because it is a better way to vent my political opinions as opposed to dumping them on my family).  But then again, neither does Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck.  And these guys sit in front of a camera and tell you how to think.

I distrust the corporate media because they have no free speech.  They say or do the wrong thing and sponsors get pulled (as in the case of Glenn Beck), they get fired or suspended (as in the case of Imus when he called the girls Rutger team “nappy headed ho’s”).  Which I really don’t understand because Ludicrous can have a song saying you bitches ain’t some niggas…you some ho’s, and the women love it.  There’s that song out called Crazy Bitch, and it is really demeaning to women and they love it too.

You have more of a chance of getting truth from someone who has a radio show from his basement as opposed to these guys (take Alex Jones for example). 

Sean Hannity a lover of prostitutes?

Now the pictures on the right are of Sean Hannity with prostitutes in a whore house in Nevada.  I found these on a website and thought, this can’t be right.  These have got to be photoshopped.  For all I know they still could be.  But it doesn’t look that way to me.  According to sources the photos were leaked by Hannity himself to distance himself from the Glenn Beck 1990 rape scandal.

According to Wanda Cyprian, a scheule coordinator, she had this to say of Hannity:

 “Sean was no stranger to the Bunny, he was actually one of our most valued customers, right behind Charlie Sheen, Michael Douglas and Billy Mays, you know the guy with the beard from those infomercials who OD’d on coke.” Cyprian went on to say: “I’ve gotten to know Sean pretty well over the past couple of years, and I can honestly say- yes, the man had an insatiable thirst for paying top dollar for raunchy sexual services- however, that doesn’t mean he might have been a rapist in 1990, or a co-conspirator to a rape in 1990.” She also said the reality of his recovery from his legalized prostitution addiction, “has been kind of bitter sweet you know, because on one hand we lost one fourth of our yearly revenue- boom! gone in one shot, but on the other hand I’m happy to see that he’s recovered and is leading what appears to be a normal life free of hookers.”

Now understand this section does not pertain to the blog post, I just wanted to explain the photos before someone said, “those are fake!”  And thus far I haven’t seen anything to suggest they are.

Sean Hannity the scam artist…

Fox News viewers who see the likes of Hannity and Beck as “telling the truth” operate under a serious case of illusion.  What I am about to write, and what has been circulating around the internet for a while now, may go over their heads and through their ears.  As one Hannity fan told me when I told her that the Freedom Alliance foundation as fronted by Sean Hannity and Oliver North is a scam, she said, “I don’t believe it.”  But here it goes.

Conservative columnist and radio show host writes on her website:

But it’s all a huge scam.

In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity’s statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes. Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.

Also:

The guy went on to tell me about Hannity’s “Freedom Concerts,” which are staged across the country with the proceeds going to children of slain soldiers. Of course, as the guy tells it, there’d be a lot more money every concert to go to the cause if Hannity didn’t demand–and get–use of a Gulfstream 5 plane to fly him and his family/entourage to the concerts; a “fleet” (that’s the word the guy used) of either Cadillac or Lincoln SUVs for him and his family/entourage; and several suites at really expensive hotels for him and his family/entourage. The promoter apparently values Hannity’s star demands at well over $200,000 per event. The source says he heard that Oliver North pulled Hannity aside at one of the concerts and told him that this had to stop. But that may mean that, from now on, Hannity has to fly on a G4 instead of a G5, gets only a few luxury SUVs, and two or three suites.

In 2008, Freedom Alliance raised $8,781,431 in profits and gave only $1,060,275.57 (just 12%) to wounded soldiers and to scholarships for the children of fallen soldiers.  Other expenses included: $1,055,791 on postage, $925,392 on printing, $157,041 on travel.  2007 reveals that they spent only 7% on scholarships and wounded soldiers, while in 2006 when the Alliance brought in $11 million dollars only $400,000 went to the scholarships and wounded soldiers.

It is a “Golden Rule” of charities that they spend 75% of their money on the charities mission.  This is something that Oliver North and Sean Hannity have obviously missed.  Christian logic would tell Sean Hannity that this is all wrong, but then again, it would say the same about torture.

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington have filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission and the IRS calling Freedom Alliance and Sean Hannity as “deceptive”.

 “illegal and deceptive marketing practices by suggesting that all money generated by ticket sales for the Freedom Concerts he sponsors each summer goes to scholarships for children of killed and wounded service members.”

“At the concerts, they [even] sell tour collectibles under Premiere Collectibles. So basically, the whole thing is a money-making enterprise for Premiere Marketing.” Crew says that after the concerts, Premiere Marketing then offers an as-yet unidentified cut of the money it takes in to the charity.

Those who see Hannity as a friend to the people, our soldiers, the Constitution, and they go buy his books with that smug smart-ass grin on his face, would see this as a blatant attack from the liberal left, and no other explination would suffice.

It should come as no surprise in the hype of the anti-government rhetoric from the American people that Barack Obama would nominate someone that says government should have the right to censor free speech if it deems it offensive.

I’ve said it before that Republicans and Democrats only select someone to folow their agenda’s, not that of the U.S. Constitution.  By the way, I was thinking the other day, can someone tell me what happened to Barack Obama’s position of being against NAFTA?

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, May 11, 2010

President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is perfect in every way – perfect that is if you think the role of the highest judicial body in the United States is to ban free speech, indefinitely detain Americans without trial, resurrect command and control socialism, while urinating on everything the Constitution stands for.

We already discovered Kagan’s penchant for treating Americans as guilty until proven innocent, or in fact just plain guilty without even the chance to be proven innocent, when she was quoted as saying, “That someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone.”

So under that definition, if you send money to a charity later linked with some nebulous terrorist group then you are financing Al-Qaeda and could be thrown in Gitmo or some other CIA black site never to be seen again. And this is the woman being forwarded to sit on a body that is supposed to safeguard civil liberties? That would be like hiring Charles Manson to coach the high school basketball team.

But it gets worse. Now we learn that Kagan thinks certain expressions of free speech should be ‘disappeared’ if the government deems them to be offensive. On the surface that’s any opinion on racial, sexuality or gender issues, but since criticizing Obama is now deemed racist, where will it all end?

In a 1993 University of Chicago Law review article, Kagan wrote, “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.” (emphasis mine).

“In a 1996 paper, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine,” Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government,” reports World Net Daily.

Kagan also argued as recently as September that corporations shouldn’t be allowed to engage in free speech, and that the government can censor things like newspaper editorials, as well as the political opinions of radio talk show hosts or television reporters.

Chief Justice John Roberts blasted Kagan’s argument at the time, reports Newsmax.

“The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” he wrote.

Kagan’s standpoint on free speech, that it is subject to regulation and definition by the government, has no place in America, completely violates the fundamental premise of the First Amendment, that even unpopular speech should be protected, and would be better suited for countries like Iran, Zimbabwe or North Korea.

Little surprise therefore when we learn that in her undergraduate thesis at Princeton, Kagan lamented the decline of socialism in the U.S. as “sad” for those who still hope to “change America.”

If Kagan is approved she is going to find an eager ally in White House information czar Cass Sunstein, who in a January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” called for the government to tax and outright censor political viewpoints it deemed unsavory.

President Obama blasted antigovernment sentiment as a path to violence.  Sure Fox Nation commenters called for “violent” acts, and one Fox News pundit called for the death of President Obama.  Sure the Tea Party has enraged people against the government.  But isn’t that what makes America, America?

What kind of world would we live in if we walked around and said, “Yes, government.”  Granted taxes are needed to pay for roads, teachers, police, and other public servants.  But like in the days of Biblical times, can’t taxes be used for corrupt purposes?  Funding our enemies and the enemies of Israel?  Propping up the fat politicians and oil men in Mexico just to watch that country sink lower and lower.  Mexico doesn’t need the United States’ help, Mexico needs us to stop funding them so the politicians can stop getting fat, and a true revolution can come to that country.

What about the government’s secret nature, or in another term; the shadow government.  Documents, evidence, and people are protected from prosecution for illegal and un-Constitutional acts.  Take Oliver North into consideration.

Here is just a list of things that people do not trust about the government: the intelligence apparatus, the military industrial complex (Eisenhower warned us of this), the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, last but not least and most importantly, the government itself.

A person would be a fool to hate government based on taxes, taxes are needed, but to what extent?  Should they go to pay for a $1 trillion dollar foreign empire that is breaking the bank and makes us no safer than what we were before 9/11?  Or what about Congress constantly voting themselves in raises?

“What troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad,” Obama said after receiving an honorary doctor of laws degree. “When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us.”

Government, he said, is the roads we drive on and the speed limits that keep us safe. It’s the men and women in the military, the inspectors in our mines, the pioneering researchers in public universities.

The financial meltdown dramatically showed the dangers of too little government, he said, “when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly led to the collapse of our entire economy.”

Corporatism led to the near collapse of our economy, Mr. President, not the free market.  All you will bring is more corporatism.  The banker “bailout fund” that you have been parading around and anyone who disagrees is a “party of no” or has no interest in preserving the American peoples trust will do nothing to stem corporatism in this country.

You, like all president’s who have inhabited the White House for the last 100 years, are corrupt as hell, Mr. President.  You pay lip service to the Constitution, the American people, and to the free market.  But, oh yeah, I forgot, you’re just another puppet like the rest of them.

People don’t hate government because of the taxes that go to pay for roads, Mr. President.  They hate the government because of its intrusive nature.  You want to investigate us, Mr. President, well, how about we investigate you?  Read this definition on the word constitution.  It might educate you.

A constitution is a set of rules for government—often codified as a written document—that enumerates and limits the powers and functions of a political entity.  By limiting the government’s own reach, most constitutions guarantee certain rights to the people. The term constitution can be applied to any overall system of law that defines the functioning of a government, including several uncodified historical constitutions that existed before the development of modern codified constitutions.

A government that governs less, governs least.  Thomas Jefferson