A message for Joe McGinniss: Go pound sand

H/T to Weasel Zippers and a courtesy to Slate

Talk about irony. This dirtbag has shown what it means to be the epitome of what a hypocrite is. Hey, Joe. If you can't take the heat and all that jazz. Talk about being at the bottom rung of evolutional society.

Edward Sabin, COO
Eileen O’Neill, President
The Learning Channel (TLC)

David Zaslav CEO
Peter Liguori, COO
Discovery Comm., LLC

Mark Burnett, President
Mark Burnett Productions

RE: “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” // Invasion of Privacy of Joe McGinniss

Dear Ms. O’Neill, Mr. Sabin, Mr. Zaslav, Mr. Ligouri and Mr. Burnett:

This law firm represents Joe McGinniss. It has come to our attention that the first episode (titled “Mamma Grizzly”) of the above referenced television show, scheduled to air on Sunday, November 14, 2010 at 9:00 PM on TLC, contains unauthorized videotaped images of Mr. McGinniss which were obtained without his knowledge or consent. In addition, you have already placed a video clip containing this image of Mr. McGinniss on your website and it has been picked up and reproduced by the Huffington Post and many other online sites.

Mr. McGinniss was not asked if any production crew could videotape him as he read a book on the secluded deck of the house he was living in at that time. He was not aware that any camera crew was in fact videotaping him. Mr. McGinniss had a reasonable expectation of privacy under those circumstances. The mere taking of the video therefore gives rise to an actionable claim for invasion of his privacy. The publication of the video on your website and in the television show constitutes an additional wrong – the unauthorized use of the likeness of Mr. McGinniss. Finally, the manner in which Ms. Palin describes Mr. McGinniss in the episode is defamatory: Mr. McGinniss has never invaded the Palins’ privacy, contrary to the many statements made by Ms. Palin and her husband, both prior to this television production, and now repeated in the episode referenced above.

DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE upon each of you that all images of Mr. McGinniss be removed from any television show produced by any of you, and removed from any website controlled or operated by any of you. If you do not do so, Mr. McGinniss will be forced to pursue all his available remedies. Please confirm in writing by November 12, 2010, to this office that you will remove these images.

Mr. McGinniss reserves all of his rights.

If you would like to discuss any of the above, contact this office.

Very truly yours,
Dennis Holahan

It wasn't a message, it was a repudiation

People in California, Delaware and New York? You deserve everything you get. As for Nevada, what can I say except that Sharon Angle was fighting against the machine.

With still more votes to count, we may see more seats changing hands to Republicans. With a 59 seat pick up, this wasn't a message to Obama and the democrats, it was a repudiation of his agenda. Senate races in Alaska and Washington are still too close to call and still may count towards Republican gains.

And the apparatchik bloggers and the left wing media crowd are already spinning this repudiation of the anointed one's agenda as being ready to "compromise", or "reaching across the aisle" and "bipartisanship".

Not quite.

Where was this compromise and reaching across the aisle when the democrats were running things since 2006? They shoved health care down our throats. They passed Cap and Trade in the House. They passed a number of other legislation under the radar and all without compromise or reaching across the aisle.

If there was a message in last night's elections, it was one of no compromise. What's good for the goose...

Obama has two directions he can go, as I see it.

A. ) He can continue to go full steam ahead and fight the Republican led House, in which case he'll try to pin the blame of not compromising on the GOP and try to use it against them during the next election cycle in 2012.

B.) He can move towards the center, as Bill Clinton did. In this case, he'll alienate his far left base even more and dashing all hopes of a second term.

As for those incumbent senators who narrowly won, it certainly sent a message for those who will be up for re-election in 2012. When legislation is passed in the House and moves to the Senate, those senators will be thinking twice before they vote. After witnessing what happened last night, they are not about to rubber stamp Obama's agenda as they did for the last four years, knowing that they may be next for retirement.

What about those democrat senators that vote so close to the Republican line that it's hard to tell what party they are in? My guess is that they will be courted to flip sides. Then there are those two independents. They may caucus with democrats, but, Lieberman is known for voting along Republican lines quite often.

What we need to hope for in this Congressional split is gridlock. In this case, nobody can get things done, thus preventing any of Obama's agenda from getting anywhere. Gridlock is good.

What concerns me at this point are those establishment Republicans who would try to co-opt the fresh faces in the House and the Senate, such as Trent Lott. This cannot be allowed to happen. If it does, then we'll back to where we were that ultimately led to GOP defeat in 2006 when we couldn't tell who the Republicans were.

In closing, I have a message for Karl Rove. Christine O'Donnell may have been defeated, but, if she had not defeated Castle, he would most likely have lost to Coons anyway. What Christine O'Donnell did was galvanize conservatives in Delaware and proved that sticking to those principles can work wonders. Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman lost, because they were willing to compromise and that's not what Americans were wanting when they went to the polls last night.

When liberty is threatened, the American people will fix it

"Whenever our affairs go obviously wrong, the good sense of the people will interpose and set them to rights."

- Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789

Isn't it interesting what happens when Americans feel that their liberty is being threatened. In 1994, it was nothing more than a shift of power. If the GOP gain 55 seats or more in the House, it's a clarion call to our government that the American people has had enough. And if miracles do happen and the GOP takes over both houses of Congress, what kind of message will that be?

But, I issue this warning to the GOP. Screw it up this time and the Republican party is done for...permanently.

And if you think the Tea Party movement didn't have anything to do with it, then you are living in La La Land. Before Obama was anointed, the American people were pissed off at Bush and the Republican party and wanted change; they got it, but it wasn't the change they were looking for. Yes, this mess started during Bush's watch, but, the democrats were in complete control of both houses since 2006. When Obama was anointed, he stated that, "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming this great country..."

Yet, those who wanted change didn't ask the obvious question: "If this is a great country, why does it need to be transformed and transformed into what?" It didn't take long for the answer to that question to be fully realized and then Rick Santelli said the words that started a movement.

A great awakening.

And don't kid yourself into thinking that Obama's people will go away quietly. During early voting, the SEIU were already up to their old tricks and will do anything to ensure that they don't lose this year; they have A LOT at stake and they know they will lose it all if their puppets lose.

I'll echo the words of Mark Steyn, "It will be a victory by the margin of lawyer."

America Rising

Many attempts have been made to scrub this video from the Internet. I captured, downloaded and uploaded it to my domain.

Please, feel free to send this page to anyone you know.

America Rising

If the GOP wins both houses, will they impeach Obama?

There is little, if any doubt that the GOP will take control of the House of Representatives on November 2nd. As for the Senate, who knows, they may just take it over as well. Assuming that the GOP does take back both houses of Congress, what is the possibility of impeaching the president?

And the accusations of voter fraud is already being bandied about. Do you think democrat operatives are a bit worried that the President's impeachment is inevitable?

It most likely won't happen. But, let's assume, for the purpose of this missive, that it will. What charges would he be charged with?

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Members of the House would have to determine which of these the president has committed. Assuming that they charge the president with High Crimes and Misdemeanors, what, specifically would those be? Clinton was impeached for perjury, but, he was caught dead to rights when the GOP led House figured out what is is.

But, I digress.

So, what could the president be impeached for? How about offering Joe Sestak a high level position in the White House. When the White House offered Sestak a position in the White House, if he dropped out of the race against Arlen Specter, they violated 18 USC 595, which prohibits a federal official from interfering with the nomination or election for office.

This is an impeachable offense. You say, "The president wasn't aware that anyone in his administration did that!"

That's irrelevant, the buck stops with him. And if you honestly believe he didn't know anything about it, then the word naive comes to mind.

Then there is the National Endowment of the Arts. On Aug. 6, 2009, on behalf of the White House Office of Public Engagement, NEA Director Yosi Sergent invited a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, marketers and other groups of influence in the arts to participate in a conference call designed to encourage involvement in President Obama's United We Serve program.

The use of taxpayer dollars to fund federal employees to create an alliance whereby the NEA becomes the primary strategic communications arm of the White House is unlawful. Using government e-mail accounts, or any other electronic means, as well as government personnel and resources to host a call using artists and arts group to support the president's agenda is a violation of the law.

To see more violations, read Representative Darrell Issa's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

But, impeachment is very unlikely. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.  When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.  When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside:  And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.

Seeing how it's unlikely that either house of Congress will agree to impeachment, it wouldn't gain enough steam. And, I might add, that it doesn't look promising that the GOP will take control of both houses anyway.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this is going through his mind every day as November 2nd gets closer. One congressman has mentioned it already.

At any rate, here's how it works in a nutshell:

Impeachment proceedings must begin in the House of Representatives, where a motion is submitted into Committee describing what specific crime(s) or misdemeanor(s) the president has committed. If the committee votes to accept the motion to impeach, it then goes to a full vote in the House. If the House votes with a simple majority to impeach, then a separate committee of managers or prosecutors is chosen and the procedure then moves to the Senate.

The trial is held in the Senate, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. After the managers and the president address the Senate, the Senators are allowed to debate the issue. If the Senate votes with a simple majority to convict, then the President is removed; if less than a majority votes to convict then the President is acquitted.

Two top republicans are on record stating that impeachment will not happen. Of course, this was months ago. Besides that, would you really want Smokin' Gaffes Joe Biden running things?

Juan Williams, a victim of left wing tolerance. Watch out Mara Liasson

Now that the story of Juan Williams' firing from NPR has made the media rounds, I'll add my two pence.

“I Always Thought the Right Wing Were the Ones That Were Inflexible, Intolerant”

Well, now he knows better. Since he has been bitten by what amounts to a dog biting its owner, will Juan change his views of who is tolerant to free speech and who is not? He knew his days were numbered when he became a Fox News contributor and NPR was just looking for the right moment to pull the trigger.

And if you think that George Soros didn't have anything to do with it, then you're still blind; dumping $1.8 million into the left wing media isn't a coincidence. Moreover, the billionaire's charity to NPR should be a clarion call to remove federal funding, after all the head of NPR did say that federal funding is minuscule compared to donations and George Soros's grants.

Hopefully the reprehensible action by NPR will be a wake up call to those who thought they were a "diverse" and "tolerant" media organization. Which leads me to this question,

Is Mara Liasson next? She may want to see a psychiatrist.

Here we go again. The misuse of Separation of Church and State

If there is one term in our lexicon that has been misused and abused more often than any other, it's the Separation of Church and State. In a recent debate in Delaware, Christine O'Donnell asked Chris Coons where in the Constitution does it say there is a separation of church and state, while the audience laughed, to which the Bearded Marxist replied, "It's in the First Amendment..."

To begin with, the term "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution; try as you might, you will not find it...ANYWHERE.

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 First Amendment doesn't even imply such a thing. It only states that the federal government cannot favor or establish a national religion, such as the case in Europe where the church is always in the governments business. Because of the dumbing down of children in our nation's schools, a vast majority of Americans don't even realize that, prior to the colonies becoming states, each colony already had an established religion. In fact, when the colonies became states, seven of them still had established religions. Thomas Jefferson was successful at dissolving Virginia's state religion in 1786, other states following suit soon after.

As a matter of fact, While Thomas Jefferson was a state legislator, he tried to pass a bill for a state "day of prayer". When he was elected as president, he was asked if he would do the same thing and he stated unequivocally that the FEDERAL government had NO authority to proclaim ANY religious holidays.

Justice Joseph Story clarified this amendment when he said that religious laws are left to the states,

“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.”

Americans must understand that simply looking at the Constitution isn't enough. They must read the Founders personal letters and arguments when dealing with these matters. For instance, James 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. In his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance", he stated,

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?

In other words, if the federal government can establish a national religion, then they will have the authority to force it on others and this was counter intuitive to the stated goal of the Constitution.

How, when and why has this term come to be misused and abused?

For starters, we need to understand where the term came from. In a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson stated in part,

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.

He was talking about the "state" as a whole in regards to the First Amendment, not the individual states. Recall his attempt at establishing a day of prayer while he was a state legislator and what he said when he was president of the United States. This is where the metaphor of Wall of Separation came from.

Jefferson's terminology was perverted by Justice Hugo Black in a 1947 Supreme Court ruling, Everson v. Board of Education. American University professor Daniel Dreisbach asserts that his ruling was due to his anti-Catholicism learned in the Ku Klux Klan. In the ruling, Justice Black cited the phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" from Jefferson's Jan. 1,1802, letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

To read more about this ruling, please visit, Justice Black's bigotry gets misread as Jefferson's belief: scholars challenge the theory of separation of church and state as a mid-20th century myth concocted by ideologues by Larry Witham.

So, the next time you run into another one of these fallacious arguments in regards to Separation of Church and State, refer back to this article.