Sunday, February 28, 2010

All Men Are Created Equal?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Well, not quite. The Founders new that all men could not be created equal, in the sense that no two people are exactly alike when they are born. When they grow, they have different skill sets, emotions, physical strength, social status, among other attributes. What they were referring to is that all men are created equal under the law, with equally protected rights and all under the sight of God.

It is up to society to accept and uphold those rights of equality, even with all of their individual differences.

As noted by the Constitutional writer, Clarence Carson, all people should have their rights equally protected under the law and each person is equally entitled to pursue life, liberty and happiness afforded under the Declaration of Independence. In terms of the law, every person has the right to have his or her case heard regardless of social standing on an equal playing field.

The Founders put our country on a course that provided something that no other country had ever done, in terms of equality to all citizens. The disconnect comes from society itself when some people are not treated equally for one reason or another. And these people that are mistreated are always the minority and are always kept as outsiders, as long as society allows it to happen, minorities will always consider themselves as being unequal. What's bizarre is that America is a country of minorities.

There is no other country on the face of this planet that has the amount of minorities as America does. The Founding Fathers were geniuses, because they created a society of freedom which allowed for opportunity, which in turn, attracted millions of immigrants and a few generations later, millions were considered first class citizens. Even though it was painful, their acceptance into our society was much faster than other countries. In many other countries, a certain group can reside there for hundreds of years and are never accepted into their society.

Growing up twenty five or thirty years ago, I never recalled a time when I was asked to press 1 for English or 2 for Espaniol. Today, it's common place to the point that if you don't have that option, you can put your business at risk because it is considered by many as racist or ethnically biased because it's excluding a minority.

You can disagree all you want, but the national language of America is English and in order to be accepted into it is to cross the culture gap and learn it. If you decided to relocate to Spain, do you honestly believe that they would change their culture to suit you, who is the minority? If you dialed a business on their phone system, would you hear, press 1 for Spanish or 2 for English?

For a minority to be accepted into society and then assimilated takes patience and can take generations to become an asset. Some times minority groups run out of patience and they choose a different path to acceptance and bloodshed occurs, which can result in that cultures destruction and nothing is gained. Recent history has shown that this has very nearly happened, such as the Jews during World War II and the Hutu and the Tutsi tribes in Africa.

Of course the United States has had her problems with accepting minorities as well.

During the boom of the railroad industry in the 19th century, the Chinese were treated brutally. They worked tirelessly on the railroads, as field workers and ran laundries for a pittance, all the while sleeping on boards and sending their children to school and suffering maltreatment. Yet, they endured with patience and by the 1940's were virtually assimilated into our culture. The Japanese, however, never quite made it due to December 7, 1941.

Just weeks after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese were carted off to concentration camps in the Rocky Mountains and it's a national embarrassment to this day. It particularly doesn't help matters much when J. Edgar Hoover knew there weren't any spies or agent provocateurs among them. He also vehemently protested their movement into these internment camps to no avail.

Did the Japanese hold it against our country? Not quite. They did something that rightly gave our country a black eye and that was to send their sons to war in the American armed forces! They did this knowing that their sons would still be distrusted in the ranks and yet, being loyal, they came out the heroes in the end.

And it was done through patience.

One scar on America that will never be fully healed is the slavery of blacks, even though they have been assimilated and have risen to become first class citizens faster than any other, despite their brutal treatment. If you don't think so, consider this: Within three to four generations, thousands of blacks made leaps and bounds to cross the culture gap. Blacks in other countries noticed the higher standard of living of their kinsmen in America and by the 70's, a black student in high school living in the South had a much better opportunity to get a college education than a white student in Europe.

The crux of the problem, when it comes to the manner in which they were treated, comes down to two issues. Politicians were split as to how blacks could be fully assimilated into American culture. Some felt that they could do it through education and job opportunities, while others asserted it could be accomplished with taxpayer subsidies and government assistance. History has shown that the former is the better way to go, while the latter caused them to be dependent on government handouts, much like a drug addict needs a supplier.

Of course some blacks ran out of patience and took the extreme path.

Eldridge Cleaver was a Marxist radical who spent much of his youth in detention centers for petty crimes. In 1957, he was arrested for committing rape and was convicted of assault with intent to murder and subsequently went to prison for 15 years. During this time, he taught himself Marxist philosophy and the tactics of revolutionaries and in 1967, he became the Minister of Information for the Black Panthers.

Cleaver's agenda was to destroy the economy and social structure of America, so that blacks could enjoy the same rights as others under what he called American Communism. By 1968, the violence was getting worse and only the black ghettos were burning, which the lamestream media tends to always ignore.

At any rate, Cleaver jumped bail on an attempted murder charge in late 1968 and fled to Cuba, then to Algeria. After some trouble with Timothy Leary, he fled to France and in 1975 was eventually repatriated to the United States. Disavowing Marxism he stated:
I was wrong and the Black Panthers were wrong. We Black Americans are inside the system and I feel that the number one objective for Black America is to recognize that they have the same equal rights under the Constitution as Ford or Rockefeller, even if we have no blue-chip stocks. But our membership in the United States is the supreme blue-chip stock and the one we have to exercise.

Part of his retribution to society was to serve several hundred hours of community service. He accepted many speaking engagements at schools, universities and churches professing his profound appreciation for the American idea and way of life. He felt betrayed by Communism when he realized that it wasn't all about human rights.

The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were added to the Constitution after its adoption in 1789. Our Founding Fathers new that there was a difference between equal rights and other areas where it was not possible. They realized that it was up to society to pursue it and to provide it. What many Americans don't realize and don't understand, is that the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence guarantees equal rights, but, it does not guarantee an equal outcome or result.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

UKIP To Ban Al Gore From Schools?

No-AlgoreBy Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent

The party, that has traditionally campaigned on the anti-European Union vote, launched a manifesto for the environment.

Following a number of scandals around the science of climate change, UKIP are promising to launch a Royal Commission led by a High Court judge to investigate whether global warming is man-made.

Pending the results of the commission, the party, that has no MPs at the moment, have promised to build new fossil-fuelled power stations to meet energy demands and scrap subsidies for wind farms. Global warming 'propaganda' like the Al Gore film Inconvenient Truth will be banned in schools and public authorities will not be allowed to spend money on climate change initiatives.

Read the rest at the Telegraph.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

My Stance On 9/11 Truthers And Birthers

wtc911Google World Trade Center conspiracy and you will get a return of about 5,990,000 page links. Go to Amazon or Barnes and Noble and search for the same thing and you will likely be greeted with over 3,000 books claiming that 9/11 was an inside job to some degree or another.

Healthy skepticism is needed, paranoia is not.

Everything from websites, talk radio to blurry photos bring out the kooks and all of a sudden, they are experts at photo analysis or explosives. Then it's, "The Pentagon was struck by a missile...", "The Pentagon was struck by a Global Hawk...", "Flight 93 was blown out of the sky by some mysterious white jet..." There are so many of them, I can't list them, but, you get the idea.

I am not going to rebut each conspiracy whackjob's points. They can believe that our government committed the murders of 3,000 Americans all they want, however, I can point out that they are freaks for doing so. The planning, logistics and the execution of it would have been colossal and they would have to believe that NOTHING would or could go wrong.

Yeah, right. That would require a belief that American government is flawlessly proficient.

I have no problems with people asking questions about it, that's natural. But, when those questions begin to denigrate into downright paranoia and takes the conspiracy fork in the road, we have to part ways. If I were to believe that our government had the audacity to murder 3,000 Americans, then that would require that I also believe that our country is no longer a republic of liberty and all of us are subject to tyrannical leaders and despots and our way of life, and our Founders' sacrifice was all for naught.

So far, all I have read or seen is lunatics making money off of ignorant people.

Lastly I would like to point out, that if you believe that our government did it, you are obligated to rebel against it. Stop paying your taxes, because, according to you, they helped fund it. Disavow yourself from the Constitution, because it no longer applies. The Founding Fathers stated, unequivocally, that if our government became despotic, then it is the right of its citizens to remove it.

As for you people that believe Barack Obama is not a US citizen, I have no problems with that. I'm a bit puzzled about all of the secrecy surrounding it myself, however, it's all a moot point. He's been in office for over a year now and it's getting old. I, for one, have bigger things to worry about and if it be true, then it will eventually come out in the wash.

In other words, give it a rest and move on. Focus on replacing him in 2012, then worry about it.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Does Bill O'Reilly Dismiss The Second Amendment?

o'reilly1220541851Picture this scenario:

A natural disaster occurs and devastates an entire state. Thousands of people leave before conditions get worse and thousands more have no choice but to remain. Many of those thousands that left were law enforcement officers and what remains is broken and authority becomes non existent, sending the entire state into chaos causing the governor to implement martial law to suppress looting and other criminal behavior.

Much of the population are business owners and have no choice but to arm themselves for protection. Law enforcement is virtually non-existent and the national guard can't be everywhere all time. Those who dare to venture outside do so at their peril. Those who remain indoors and own guns use them for protection. But, their second amendment rights are violated and they are forced to turn them over, making the population more vulnerable to the rampant crime in a devastated state.

I've been stewing on this for a couple of days and I have concluded that Bill O'Reilly's February 18th discussion with a group called the Oath Keepers is over the top. Before I continue, please take a moment to watch the clip below and do your best not to vomit when you hear Mark Potok.



What O'Reilly doesn't seem to understand is that, whether or not a governor declares a state of emergency, it still violates the second amendment when law abiding gun owners are forced to turn their firearms in or they get confiscated. To O'Reilly, this is an "extreme position..."

No, it's not. What is extreme are law abiding citizens having their firearms confiscated because of a natural disaster, which is the time when they would need them most; a criminal isn't about to hand their weapons over to authorities and they sure as Hell aren't going to have them taken. Many of the law enforcement officers in New Orleans fled the state, leaving that city in utter chaos. Where does that leave law abiding citizens?


Yes, the national guard was called in, but, they couldn't be everywhere all the time and much of what they were doing were rescue operations. How else would citizens protect themselves? A shout can only be heard by someone who can help, a hammer on a handgun being eared back, or the infamous pumping sound of a shotgun slide makes a deafening sound that everyone knows and understands.


I would have thought Bill O'Reilly would have understood this, being that he is a historian. Perhaps he can recall this statement from President George Washington:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

Yeah, Bill. It is an extreme position, not by the person you interviewed, but yours.

White House Accused Of Federal Crime

18 USC Sec. 211 -- Bribery, Graft and Conflicts of Interest: Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office

"Whoever solicits or receives … any….thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

For the second time in five months, the Obama White House is being accused -- by Democrats -- of offering high ranking government jobs in return for political favors. What no one is reporting is that this is a violation of federal law that can lead to prison time, a fine or both, according to Title 18, Chapter 11, Section 211 of the United States Code.

The jobs in question? Secretary of the Navy and a position within the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The favor requested in return? Withdrawal from Senate challenges to two sitting United States Senators, both Democrats supported by President Obama. The Senators are Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Michael Bennet in Colorado.

Read the rest at American Spectator

Revisiting An Old Issue - The Patriot Act

constitution"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

- Patrick Henry

On October 26, 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, better known as The Patriot Act.

This act allows government law enforcement agencies to track and search telephone, cell phone and other electronic communications, as well as financial and medical records and eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States.

And it's unconstitutional.

What one has to ask is, how much liberty do I need to relinquish to the federal government for my safety? I think Benjamin Franklin summed it up in one sentence. Liberty is the foundation of individual freedom; relinquish a small portion of it and you have opened the door for tyranny.

Playing devils advocate, one may ask how many Americans have been arrested, much less accosted by the Patriot Act. However, that's not the point. The point of it being unconstitutional is giving up ones liberty for temporary safety and when that happens, and we know this to be true, politicians will attempt to take even more.

Let's look at the Constitution and the Patriot Act, side by side.

Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Patriot Act allows the federal government to monitor religious, as well as political institutions without any reasonable suspicion.

Amendment I -...abridging the freedom of speech.

The Patriot Act allows the government to prosecute any organization or group who maintains records that make public any investigation or subpoenas of those records.

Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Patriot Act allows the federal government to seize any documents and effects without probable cause, thus violating the freedom of reasonable search and seizure.

Amendment IV - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The Patriot Act allows the federal government to prosecute and jail Americans indefinitely.

Amendment IV - ...to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The Patriot Act allows the federal government to monitor conversations between clients and their lawyers in federal prisons and deny a lawyer to Americans accused of crimes involving terrorism.

Amendment IV - to be confronted with the witnesses against him...

The Patriot Act gives authority to the federal government to deny the accused any charges and to confront any witnesses. Any American who is accused of any crime related to terrorism can be jailed incommunicado and denied an attorney.

Revisiting Benjamin Franklin's quote, we begin to see what he meant. Yes, it is the federal governments role to protect us from the bad guys, domestically and abroad. But, how much freedom are we willing to forfeit to the federal government for the sake of temporary safety? Remember, if the government can give a right, it can take it away.

I am no Constitutional expert, but watch someone who is.





Friday, February 19, 2010

Mom, Dad? I May Be Your Child, But I Know More Than You Do.

Generation-WeJust when you thought that the progressive movement couldn't stoop any lower. It's bad enough that they are intellectually raping the minds of children in our nation's schools, but, to brainwash them into believing that they wiser than than their parents is about as low as they can get. If you are a parent and are being schooled by your kids about politics, that's your fault as a parent for being apathetic about it.

Recently a video was aired on televisions throughout the country called Generation We. Watch the video below and ask yourself if this is reprehensible:


Perusing the 257 page e-book, it becomes evident that these progressive reprobates are literally teaching young children that they are smarter than their parents. Because they are the "Millennials". What is that? It apparently means that because they were born into the high tech world and know how to use the Internet, they are smarter and wiser than than their parents. The Baby Boomers need to step aside and let them teach their parents how things are done.

Despicable? Most definitely.

To teach and encourage children that they know better than their parents is nothing more than a blatant attempt to rewrite this countries history, brainwashing them when they are young is how they are trying to do it. Howard Zinn, disgusting as he was, was doing the same thing and was blatant about it, this Generation We movement uses a bit more sophistry in its approach. Despite his recent death, it didn't stop with him. Bill Bigelow is continuing the crusade to indoctrinate our children and until they are exposed, it will continue.

Besides indoctrinating our children, these people are teaching them to be disrespectful to their parents.

I don't know about you, but, if any of my children talked to me with this attitude, they would know what it meant to be schooled by wisdom.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

The Austin Tragedy

Small-planes-crashes-in-t-001Today a man named Joseph Stack, 53, slammed a small single engine plane into an IRS Building in Austin, Texas.  This act, while "cowardly" to say the least, shows an abhorrent disregard to the 300 million other Americans living in this country, many who have dealt with the setbacks mention in his diatribe, and whom also have dealt with this same type of dastardly terrorism.  Regardless of what he may have being dealing with in his life, he had absolutely no right to speak for anyone else in his actions.  Already there are posts hitting the internet calling this man some type of "hero" for standing up to the IRS.  This man is nothing more than a terrorist and should be viewed as much by every other American regardless of faction.  How dare he copy the actions of the 19 tyrannical, ideologically insane, despots who, to quote Christopher Hitchens, "annex(ed) two famous achievements of modernism—the high-rise building and the jet aircraft— and use them for immolation and human sacrifice."  How dare he slap not just the country at large, but the family and friends of those who have both died in the attacks of 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terrorism.  How dare he be so narcissistic and selfish as to emulate the cruel action and attempt to deface everything our country stands for and is fighting for.

This man should go down in history as a domestic terrorist.  That's if we should decide to keep records of this atrocity.  One can only hope that it ends here, that this does not become some de facto resolution for despots and cowards in this country and the world abroad.  How dare he use 9/11 as an example or inspiration for an easy way out of a self-prescribed, problematic life.  My condolences to the friends, family, and co-workers of the Austin IRS building.  My apologies to the fallen of 9/11, their friends and family, and to those who have and currently are working towards ending this horrible, ideologically incorrect vigilantism.  You should never had to have witnessed this again, (nay ever).

Bad News For Anchor Babies

anchorBabies of illegals would not receive citizenship
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
Created: 02/14/2010 09:11:01 AM PST

Republican lawmakers in Congress are sponsoring a bill that seeks to abolish birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents.

Federal law automatically grants citizenship to any person born on American soil, regardless of the immigration status of the child's parents.

Supporters of the bill say that many people come to this country for the express purpose of having children who are American citizens, making the family eligible for welfare and other government benefits.

"You have many people coming to this country illegally," said Rep. Gary Miller, R-Brea, a co-sponsor of the legislation. "They come to this country and have babies. The children are citizens. The children are eligible to go to school. They receive food stamps and social programs. The American taxpayers are paying for it."

The bill does not seek to change the Constitution, which grants birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment ratified in 1868.

Instead, it would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Read more: Inland Valley Daily Bulletin

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Rhode Island Highschool Fires All Union Teachers









A school superintendent in Rhode Island is trying to fix an abysmally bad school system.Her plan calls for teachers at a local high school to work 25 minutes longer per day, each lunch with students once in a while, and help with tutoring.  The teachers' union has refused to accept these apparently onerous demands.

The teachers at the high school make $70,000-$78,000, as compared to a median income in the town of $22,000.

Read the rest at Business Insider

Weather Is Not Climate? Yeah, We Already Know That

Punxsatawney-AlClimate drives the weather. What drives the climate is a combination of things, such as the Sun and for the most part the oceans. The recent snow storms on the north east coast isn't indicative of anything, except that the climate is unpredictable; last winter we here in the Pacific Northwest got hammered just like what's going on now in the New England states. This winter, the Pacific Northwest is experiencing a very mild winter and I hope it stays that way.

The climate is constantly changing and it's been doing so for 4.5 billion years. We skeptics don't deny this. What we do deny is the anthropogenic part of it, which alarmists keep trying there best at blaming sans the sun and oceans.

First it was global warming, when that didn't work it was renamed to climate change and now that's no longer working. So what's next? Who knows what these people will do; after all, what's in a name? When progressives realize that things are not quite working out their way, they tag and rename it thinking that people are too stupid to know what they are up to.

Ever wonder why the weather forecast is never given on television or the radio as fact, but as chance? It's because the weather can never be one hundred percent accurate on any given week, it's impossible because weather is a fluid thing that always changes. Go to bed with stars in the sky, wake up to showers. It happens, I know it because I live in Northwest Washington State.

But, the weather going on right now across the fruited plane is anecdotal; a snow storm or an off season hurricane does not global warming make.

One would think that the recent Hadley Climate Research Unit emails would have quelled the average climate change/global warming alarmist, but that's like asking a progressive to read the Constitution...ain't gonna happen. On top of the damning emails and the altered program code, Phil Jones' admission that the data was deliberately skewed still hasn't convinced alarmists, including politicians which is the dangerous part of this whole scam.

Global warming/climate change/whatever it's going to be called next, is ranked at dead last for the concerns of American citizens. Yet, the Obama administration is tone deaf because they are continuing to push cap and trade (aka cap and tax). In other words, sit down, shut up, we know what's best.

Want proof? Listen to one of Obama's mouthpieces respond to us skeptics:



Remember when Al Gore claimed that hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming? Will Jane tell Punxsutawney Al he was wrong? Probably not. It's not the alarmists that need correcting, it's us skeptics because we are too stupid to know better.

So, to quote Jane that weather is not climate, we skeptics already know that. However, as one commenter put it on Brietbart TV, "Let me fix that statement for you, lady: “Weather is only climate when WE want it to be.” And this about sums it up.

Other sites:

Breitbart.tv

Monday, February 15, 2010

Alabama Shooter A Far Left Political Extremist

Amy-BishopInteresting how the media completely jumped all over the shootings at the Holocaust Museum in June of last year. The media quickly tagged James von Brunn as a right-wing, Jew hating white supremacist, that is until his Internet postings painted him as more of a ultra left-wing radical. Then the lamestream media ceased to mention anything about it.

A few days ago, a woman by the name of Amy Bishop entered a building on the Alabama University campus, began shooting people and killed three of her colleagues. Early reports indicated that she was denied tenure, however, some of her students and colleagues claim that she was not able to deal with reality and couldn't simplify topics that were difficult.

In 1986 she shot and killed her 18 year old brother with a shotgun. The police concluded that it was an accident, however, events that surrounded the incident seems to indicate that there was more to the story. According to the Boston Globe, Amy had an argument with her father and went to her parents' room to learn how to load the shotgun. The weapon discharged once and she went downstairs and accidentally shot her brother, her mother witnessing. She then ran outside, shotgun in hand and later the police catching her. According to Gateway Pundit, she was released after police Chief John Polio received a phone call by district attorney, William Delahunt who is now a Congressman.

She was cleared of sending a double pipe bomb to Dr. Paul Rosenberg in December of 1993. Police Chief Henry Reyes acknowledged that he was working with the FBI to learn why Bishop was a suspect. According to Sylvia Fluckiger, a lab technician who worked with Bishop during at that time, she was "quite cavalier" about it when Bishop described the police interview.

A family source is quoted as saying she is a left-wing extremist that is obsessed with Obama to the point of being off putting.

Why isn't the lamestream media reporting this? Or did I just answer my own question?

Obama, Twitterer and Radical MoveOn.org Connection

Obama's Twitterer, which your tax dollars pay for, is connected to the radical progressive organization MoveOn.org. Last Friday the Wallstreet Journal revealed the identity of Obama's current Twitterer as Mia Cambronero. Sweetness & Light discovered that she is a senior fellow at the NOI (New Organizing Institute), described by Discover the Networks.

Established by MoveOn.org in November 2005
Grassroots program that trains young political organizers to work for progressive campaigns and organizations


On November 22, 2005, MoveOn.org Executive Director Eli Pariser announced that his group had created the New Organizing Institute (NOI), "a unique grassroots program that trains young, technology-enabled political organizers to work for progressive campaigns and organizations." Victory in the 2006 midterm elections was NOI's immediate priority. Said Pariser: "The Internet has made huge changes in politics ... Now, our [MoveOn's] former Organizing Director Zack Exley is working on cultivating the next generation of ‘online organizers' at the New Organizing Institute. The first step: find 50 talented up-and-coming organizers, put them through an all-expenses-paid training week, and place them on 2006 campaigns where they can really make a difference."

The importance of this is the organizations director, Zack Exley. Who is this person? Simply put, he is a radical who has ties to the domestic terrorist group, Ruckus Society. However, many may recall him as the guy who created a "phishing" site which spoofed (pretended) to be George W. Bush's.

Sources

Sweetness & Light

Newsbusters

Habledash

Wallstreet Journal

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Phil Jones Admits Manipulating Climate Data









cru_buildingClimategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud

By Marc Sheppard

By now, Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) should require no introduction, so let’s get right to it.  In a BBC Q&A and corresponding interview released Friday, the discredited Climategate conspirator revealed a number of surprising insights into his true climate beliefs, the most shocking of which was that 20th-century global warming may not have been unprecedented.  As the entire anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is predicated on correlation with rising CO2 levels, this first-such confession from an IPCC senior scientist is nothing short of earth-shattering.
Of course, much will be made of Jones’s claim that the refusal to share raw temperature data was partially based on the fact that it “was not well enough organized.” And rightly so, as the very idea that the major datasets CRU released for use in vital anomaly and temperature reconstructions were based on data not “organized” enough to be made public reeks of fraudulent behavior.

Read the rest at American Thinker

Related story at BBC News

Friday, February 12, 2010

Question With Boldness - Glenn Beck Causes Medina to Implode By Asking One Question

Debra-Medina"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

The quote above by Thomas Jefferson seems to be anathema to politicians, particularly when it's put to use. There are some questions that can only be answered with a simple yes or a no; whether or not one believes that the Bush administration killed 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001 is one of those questions.

Yesterday on Glenn Beck's radio show, Debra Medina, who is running for governor of Texas was asked this very question by Glenn Beck. Expecting a yes or no from Debra Medina was not what he and us listeners got. What we got was nothing short of someone trying not to lie by putting a spin on the answer.

And that's what she tried to do. When someone is asked a pointed question that only requires a yes or no, but, goes off on some tangent, they are trying to mask their true answer. In short, Debra Medina admitted that she's a 9/11 "Truther". Listen to the exchange and decide for yourself: Did she try not to lie by putting spin on a simple question?




"I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there, so I have not taken a position on that."

Uh oh. Not good.

"Well, you know, that's a federal issue. We're very focused on issues in Texas, on Texas state government. I'm certainly not into mind control or thought policing people. "We've got a very diverse team in this state and that's because Texans are standing shoulder to shoulder to support and defend the Constitution. I frankly don't have time, you know, to go through and do psychological testing on people and know every thought or detail that they have."

See ya. I can sum up Debra Medina's spin in one phrase: YES. I Do think the Bush administration killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11.



It's really fascinating that Bush-Cheney detractors can call them stupid, clowns and imbeciles, yet claim that they were smart enough to concoct and execute, with mastermind precision to kill 3,000 Americans.

MessNBC - What A Disgrace

ODonnellIf there was any reason to wonder why the lamestream media has lost its appeal, then look no further. MessNBC is on borrowed time and looking to follow the same path as Air America, who, by the way, accused the free market for their demise; it had nothing to do with their vile content. No, no. It was you, the stupid person who tuned out. But, alas, while pointing the finger of accusation at others they completely ignore where the other three were pointing at.

No surprise there.

For me the defining moment was Mark Thiessen's appearance on MessNBC's Morning Joe with Lawrence O'Donnell to "discuss" interrogating terrorists. It started out normal enough, but a discussion is was not, it was nothing short of an ambush when O'Donnell started by calling Thiessen a liar, then accusing the Bush administration of being the chief cause of 9/11 by not knowing what Al Qaeda was up to. O'Donnell was so unhinged that he ignored his colleagues when he was asked to dial it back.

Watch this disgraceful behavior by Lawrence O'Donnell:



Then Scarborough reached for his microphone and told them to go to a break and he would continue the "discussion" alone. He was given a second chance, but...



This guy is Keith Olbermann's evil twin.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

The St Croix Purchase - Your Cost, Just $50 Million









st-croix-beachfrontBy William La Jeunesse

If you are hoping to visit the newest crown jewel in America's park system chosen by Congress, throw away the car keys and open up your wallet. The 2,900 pristine acres of beachfront property were not cheap -- or even in the United States.

The property soliciting accusations of "pork" from critics is the Castle Nugent National Historic Park. It's in the U.S. Virgin Islands, about a thousand miles from Miami and an expensive jet ride to get there.


Two weeks ago, on a near party line vote, a huge Democratic majority in the House agreed to spend $50 million to buy the former cotton plantation on the island of St. Croix.


"This is a beautiful and important natural and cultural resource that is in danger of being lost forever," Virgin Island delegate, Donna Christiansen, told House colleagues in January.


"The site to be designated as the Castle Nugent National Historic Park continues to be heralded as one of the last pristine areas in the region."


The mixture of dry forest and rangeland offers picturesque views of the Caribbean Sea, but good luck getting there. Critics in Congress say the purchase is wasteful and irresponsible, especially with unemployment at 10 percent and the nation in debt.


Read the rest at FoxNews


Monday, February 8, 2010

More False Data Issued By IPCC?









UN-LogoThe U.N.'s controversial climate report is coming under fire -- again -- this time by one of its own scientists, who admits he can't find any evidence to support a warning about a climate-caused North African food shortage.

The U.N.'s controversial climate report is coming under fire -- again -- this time by one of its own scientists, who admits he can't find any evidence to support a warning about a climate-caused North African food shortage.

The statement comes from a key 2007 report to the U.N., and asserts that by 2020 yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% in some African countries thanks to climate change.

Read the rest at FoxNews

Sunday, February 7, 2010

The Misuse Of Jefferson's "Wall of Separation"

If you spend a modicum of attention to the news, particularly during Christmas, no doubt you will hear something come up about some group or another complaining that a Christmas tree in an airport, or a nativity scene displayed in a library window is a violation of "Separation of Church and State." It's inevitable. This clause is always invoked when these types of issues come up and it's misused and abused by people who don't do a little reading about it.

First, let's read the First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This applies to the federal government not the individual states.

The Founding Fathers were between a rock and a hard place on the issue of freedom of religion; how does the new government allow religious freedom and equality, but ensure that the federal government doesn't establish a national religion? What many don't know is that when the country was founded, there were already seven states that adopted a "state" religion, preventing many people from fully exercising their religious freedoms.

Justice Joseph Story explains in his Commentaries on the Constitution why the Founding Fathers decided to completely remove the federal government on the issue of religion and allowing the states to deal with those issues themselves.
"It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship."

This is the reason why the Founders decided that Congress shall make NO law respecting ANY one religion, religious establishment, or making any law preventing the free exercise thereof. If they had decided otherwise, there would have been enormous civil unrest.

During his travels in the newly formed America, Alexis de Tocqueville noted that schools incorporated core beliefs of religion along side other academic teachings. He noted that in New England, "every citizen receives the elementary notions of human knowledge; he is taught, moreover, the doctrines and the evidences of his religion, the history of his country, and the leading features of its Constitution...".

He also noticed a bond resonating from the various churches. He observed that the clergy was fervent to uphold the separation of church and state, yet as a whole have an impact on the morals and customs of every day public life, which, in turn, showed itself when formulating new laws. Alexis de Tocqueville also noted that the clergy didn't hold any political office and were not even represented in any assemblies. This was completely unheard of in Europe where the clergy always belonged to a national church and occupied offices of power.

What de Tocqueville realized during his tour of the newly formed country, was that the clergy removed itself from politics because in their view it was beneath them. However, they also believed that it was their solemn duty to deliver the message of religious principles to the people. Not doing so would put America's freedom and political security at risk.

In terms of religion, the Founders wanted to do something that no other country on earth achieved: To give LEGAL equality to ALL religions, including non-Christians. Recalling the seven states that already established a state religion, these would have to be dissolved and Jefferson tried that in Virginia in 1776, but wasn't actually completed until 1786. Patrick Henry, on the other hand, made an attempt in 1784 to introduce a bill (Provision For Teachers of the Christian Religion) that would have allowed taxpayers to designate which society of Christians their money should go to.

This was counter intuitive to what the Founders had in mind causing James Madison to fire back with his famous Memorial and Remonstrance. Madison argued that the stated goal was to give legal rights to all religions and the government should not show preference of one over others:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were the two Founders that spearheaded the issue of church and state. Their intent was to completely remove the federal government and at the same time give all religions equality in the law on a national level. During the Virginia conference Madison stated, "There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation."

And Thomas Jefferson took the same stance when he wrote the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, "Resolved that it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the Amendments to the Constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..."

He also went further by making it crystal clear that the Supreme Court was also to be excluded from the jurisdiction of religion. He understood that the Supreme Court's role in the federal government was to act as a sentinel to safeguard the Constitution, not to get involved with making laws and interfering with the individual states. He wrote, "And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another & more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the constitution which expressly declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,’ thereby guarding in the same sentence, & under the same words, the freedom of religion of speech & of the press: insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood & defamation, equally with heresy & false religion, ARE WITHHELD FROM THE COGNISANCE OF FEDERAL TRIBUNALS..." (Emphasis added).

Remember that the intent of the First Amendment is to remove the federal government from religious issues of the individual states. When Thomas Jefferson was on the Virginia State legislature, he was among a group that drafted a bill to have a day of fasting and prayer. However, when he was elected president, he stated unequivocally that the federal government had NO authority to proclaim ANY religious holidays.

This is where the famous "wall of separation between church and state." came from. On January 1, 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association explaining his position on the matter:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the WHOLE AMERICAN people which declared THAT THEIR legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Note the operative phrase, "that act of the WHOLE American people which declared THAT THEIR legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This is a plural use in the sense that he was referring to the federal government, not the individual states. Recall the bill he submitted when he was in the state legislature and what he said when he became president.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has either forgotten their role in the three branches of government or they just don't care. They have taken it upon themselves to misuse Thomas Jefferson's metaphor to meddle in states' religious affairs and have forced others to take the same "hands off" stance. This was not the intent of our Founding Fathers and it only applied to the federal government.

When you read the statements of Jefferson, as well as his actions, you begin to see the obvious distortion of his statement to the Danbury Baptist Association. Remember that it was Madison and Jefferson who said that the states had sole authority of religion and that any state giving preference to any one religious establishment should be dissolved. Other Founding Fathers joined and emphasized that ALL religions were to be encouraged to foster the moral fiber, as well as the tone of the people. This would have been impossible if there were a "wall" between church and state on the state level. His statement was intended ONLY for the federal government.

References cited:

Joseph Story Commentaries

Virginia Ratifying Convention

Kentucky Resolution of 1798

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association

Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville

Memorial and Remonstrance by James Madison

The Papers of Thomas Jefferson vol 30. January 1, 1798 - January 31, 1799

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Landrieu To Critics and Constituants - KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT

ABC News: The Democratic Senator from Louisiana has had about enough of people criticizing the clause she helped put into the Senate version of health care reform and she took to the Senate floor today, giving a fiery defense of special funding for Louisiana that Republicans have derisively nicknamed “the Louisiana Purchase” – implying the language was put in to buy Landrieu’s vote. Today on the Senate floor, Landrieu her naysayers to “keep their mouth shut.”



Read the rest at ABC

Friday, February 5, 2010

Glenn Beck - The Gift That Keeps On Giving

beck-glennGlenn Beck, yet again, is the topic of discussion on the lamestream media talk shows. You would think that he's Jason, Freddie Kruger, Hannibal Lector and Voldemort wrapped into one person. At any rate, Joy Behar has got to be one of the stupidest, moronic or the most willingly ignorant people that I've seen on TV. Until this exchange between Behar and Lizz Winstead took place on her show and convinced me that there are now four: Keith Olberman, Ed Schultz, Joy Behar and now Lizz Winstead. Well, there is Arianna Huffington, but she doesn't count because she doesn't have a television show, thank God.



"He should be institutionalized. First of all Glenn Beck, why is he even on television? I think it's somehow abusive to have Glenn Beck on TV because he seems mentally unstable."

So, the First Amendment doesn't apply to Glenn Beck because he is a kook that cooks up conspiracy theories and, according to another erudite individual, says the president wants to "slaughter" Americans? Not to mention that he is a shill for the Republican Party.

What jumps out at me is the fact that nowhere in this elitist exchange do they even make an attempt to refute any of Glenn Beck's claims and conspiracy theories. I wonder why that would be? Oh, I know. It's because they can't, so they would rather strip Beck's right to free speech.

Let's see. Keith Olberman on MessNBC said of Scott Brown, "In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead, the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States."

And Ed Schultz said this, "And I'm inviting the drug-ridden scumbag, Rush Limbaugh, on The Ed Show to debate me on any topic! He won't do it because he's a drug addict and he's a coward, a complete coward. Plus he probably couldn't hear me if he was on The Ed Show...C'mon you fat pig. Let's get it on. I'm getting ratings without you. Hell, I'm doing you a favor. C'mon, Rush! Let's get it on! Get out of your compound down there. Get away from your drugs. Go see the doctor and get some hearing. Maybe you could pick up a 19th girlfriend. Maybe you could try marriage again. By the way, Rush, you got any kids? Oh, you're out of the mainstream!"

So, Keith Olberman and Ed Schultz's language is covered under the First Amendment, but, Glenn Beck's is not?

To say that the lame stream media, such as MessNBC, was complicit in campaigning for Obama isn't a stretch, particularly when Tina Brown and Howard Kurtz admitted it, "No, Obama got the best press known to man. Let's face it." And Kurtz added, "In the history of civilization."

And let's not forget that every time John Edwards was discussed on these "objective" talk shows, not one time did they ever refer to him as a democrat.

So, who's shilling for who? And what of the rumors that Olby's show is set to be canceled? If this is true, I'll bet it has something to do with a 44% drop in ratings and, I'll wager, that your show isn't fairing to well either.

Yet, Glenn Beck is well known for pummeling both republicans and democrats, if one watches his show or listens to it, they would know that he has railed on Lindsey Graham and John McCain, among other progressives. Of course, we all know that Joy Behar is objective in her reasoning:



Joy Behar made a living being "funny" and it's any wonder why she didn't go broke, because funny she's not. What she basically said was nothing short of echoing Margaret Sanger's idea of eugenics, which, incidentally, was taken up by the Nazi Party.

But, there is one question I have for Lizz Winstead, "Why is it that Glenn Beck's show on FoxNews alone is crushing the other news networks over 10 fold combined?" Why do you think that his show has surpassed Sean Vannity's and is quickly catching up to Bill O'Reilly's? Why has he been selected as the second most popular person on television?

Okay, that was more than one. Who's counting?

Glenn Beck has done more to reawaken Americans' interest in politics and our history than anyone else on network television and we are wide awake. You would rather rewrite our history and indoctrinate. And it frightens you, Lizz. I think it shakes you to your bones, because now that we are awake, liars like Obama and his ilk are in danger of losing come November and 2012.

Glenn Beck has become FoxNews' crowning jewel and it scares you, Lizz. You may say that his listeners and viewers are ignorant, stupid, backward ass hicks, but, you would be saying that to over 3,000,000 Americans. Are you willing to do that? I'll bet you think it, though.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Life Begins Ex Nihilo?

I do my best to stay out of pro life and pro abortion issues as best I can. If you're like me, you were told as a teenager to never discuss politics and religion at the dinner table, this issue is another one that you should never discuss, unless you are among like minded people. However, listening to my local radio station this morning (KGMI) on the Joe and Patti Show, I was both laughing and cursing at progressive Joe Teehan's blatant ignorance and, in my opinion, misinformation (unintentional of course).

Plant life, as well as animal and human life cannot begin without conception, this is a biological absolute and to say otherwise would mean that you would have to believe that all life begins ex nihilo (from nothing).

Another thing that I find amusing is that pro abortion advocates are desperately trying to change that moniker to "pro choice", which isn't doing well either. If they are "pro choice" then why all of the whining if someone chooses life? Take the "pro choice" group's umbrage at ABC airing a commercial of Tim Tebow. If they are "pro choice" and advertising a commercial is part of the free market and right to free speech, then one would think that there wouldn't be an issue.

Not so. The blatant hypocrisy that permeates from "pro choice" advocates reminds me of walking through a landfill in 100 degree temperatures; it's okay if "pro choice" advocates air commercials, but not if you are a pro life advocate.

Joe, in his infinite wisdom, is all for universal, government run health care, but, doesn't want the government involved with tax payer funded abortion. In other words, on this occasion the government needs to stay out of a woman's reproductive rights. I ask you, isn't abortion a health care issue? It's the typical progressive pick and choose hypocrisy.

Then there is Planned Parenthood, an abortion organization created by Margaret Sanger. If you don't know who this vile, racist person is, then you would do well to look up her name with the terms, eugenics, racism and other not so kind adjectives. In his diaries, Joseph Goebells stated that the Nazi Party got the idea of eugenics from the American progressive movement. Margaret Sanger was a progressive through and through.

Should there be exceptions? I don't see an issue with it if a woman becomes pregnant from being raped, incest or if the mother's life is at risk.

Lastly, I would like to point out that Norma McCorvey who was the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade filed a petition to have legalized abortion overturned. Yet, "pro choice" advocates seem to ignore it or gloss over it. Why? She was once the idol of reproductive rights, now that she has changed her views, she isn't even given a mention.

Monday, February 1, 2010

So, It's The Look And Feel. Not That It's Actually An Assault Weapon

klein-fairley-kohl-wells-mcdermottLeave it to progressive Washington State to make an attempt to enact a law banning "assault" weapons because they have the look and feel of one, but, really isn't.

I am a retired infantry soldier of 21 years. An assault weapon is defined as any hand held, shoulder fired weapon capable of semi-automatic, three round burst or fully automatic rate of fire. Contrary to what Washington State progressive politicians say, civilian weapons that can be purchased in gun stores or gun shows ARE NOT assault weapons because they have the look and feel of one. These weapons are only capable of a semi-automatic rate of fire, which means that each time a shot is fired, the trigger must be released and then pulled.

This move is nothing more than another attempt to control the populace, because these arrogant, progressive elitists think they know what's best. Unless the citizens of Washington State stand up and stop taking this crap from these politicians, it will continue to happen.

I would like to ask these elitist politicians a question. What would a car be if the person behind the wheel deliberately drove through a crowd of people killing some of them? An assault vehicle?

Feel free to drop them a line - Washington State Senate

Senate Bill 6396 reads in part:

7 (20) "Assault weapon" means:
8 (a) Any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle
9 or shotgun that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a
10 capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition and that also
11 possesses any of the following:
12 (i) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a pistol grip located
13 rear of the trigger;
14 (ii) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a stock in any
15 configuration, including but not limited to a thumbhole stock, a
16 folding stock or a telescoping stock, that allows the bearer of the
17 firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that the web of
18 the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed below
19 the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;
20 (iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or
21 configuration, including but not limited to a folding stock or a
22 telescoping stock;
23 (iv) A barrel shroud;
24 (v) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;
25 (vi) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that
26 can be held by the hand that is not the trigger hand;
27 (b) Any pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine
28 at any location outside of the pistol grip;
29 (c) Any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle,
30 or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept
31 more than ten rounds of ammunition;
32 (d) Any shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine;
33 (e) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder;
34 (f) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which an
35 assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or
36 under the control of any person.
37 (21) "Detachable magazine" means a magazine, the function of which

1 is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing
2 chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any
3 tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.
4 (22) "Barrel shroud" means a covering, other than a slide, that is
5 attached to, or that substantially or completely encircles, the barrel
6 of a firearm and that allows the bearer of the firearm to hold the
7 barrel with the nonshooting hand while firing the firearm, without
8 burning that hand, except that the term does not include an extension
9 of the stock along the bottom of the barrel that does not substantially
10 or completely encircle the barrel.
11 (23) "Muzzle brake" means a device attached to the muzzle of a
12 weapon that utilizes escaping gas to reduce recoil.
13 (24) "Muzzle compensator" means a device attached to the muzzle of
14 a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to control muzzle movement.
15 (25) "Conversion kit" means any part or combination of parts
16 designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into an assault
17 weapon.

U.S Attorney To Review Call For SEIU Probe









SEIU-Lobbyist
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – Federal prosecutors are reviewing a request for an investigation into whether Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), violated the Lobbying Disclosure Act for his frequent visits to the White House and with members of Congress in 2009.

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) and its subgroup the Alliance for Worker Freedom (AWF) sent letters to acting U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips of the District of Columbia asking for a probe.

“Specifically, it is important to determine whether those and related activities could constitute ‘lobbying’ by Mr. Stern in violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act,” said the Nov. 13, 2009, letter signed by ATR President Grover G. Norquist and AWF Executive Director Brian M. Johnson.

Read the rest at CNSNews