Finally something smart comes out of the mouth of Bill Maher
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Look like Jeb Bush knows Charlie Christ!
October 29, 2010
Categories:2010.Jeb: Crist 'the most ambitious man I’ve ever met'
Jeb Bush, never a Crist fan, blasts him on CNBC:
Charlie Crist has been such a disappointment, because he will shift his position to — for his own personal ambition. It’s not that he’s serving anybody, it’s serving himself. He’s the most ambitious man I’ve ever met in politics. He believes in absolutely nothing other than — what’s the next step for him in a path.
Categories:2010.Jeb: Crist 'the most ambitious man I’ve ever met'
Jeb Bush, never a Crist fan, blasts him on CNBC:
Charlie Crist has been such a disappointment, because he will shift his position to — for his own personal ambition. It’s not that he’s serving anybody, it’s serving himself. He’s the most ambitious man I’ve ever met in politics. He believes in absolutely nothing other than — what’s the next step for him in a path.
There IS a move afoot in America for REAL CHANGE!
Fox News Poll: Most Dissatisfied With Washington
By Dana Blanton
Published October 29, 2010 | FoxNews.com
With less than a week to go before Election Day, widespread dissatisfaction with the way things are going in the country combined with negative views of the economy and frustration with the government point to major trouble for the incumbent majority Democrats. In addition, a Fox News poll released Friday shows President Obama’s job approval has hit a record low.
The new poll finds if the election were held today, 50 percent of likely voters would favor the Republican candidate in their House district and 37 percent the Democratic candidate, with 10 percent still undecided.
When it comes to enthusiasm, more Republicans (76 percent) than Democrats (65 percent) are extremely or very interested in the elections, and more Republicans (91 percent) than Democrats (83 percent) plan to vote for their party’s candidate.
Yet votes for the Democratic candidates look more solid: 87 percent say they will definitely vote for the Democrat, while 12 percent could change their mind. Among those favoring the Republican, 82 percent are definite they will vote that way and 16 percent may change their vote.
Among the 18 percent who have already voted, ballots have been evenly cast between the Republican and Democratic candidates.
The national telephone poll was conducted for Fox News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 1200 registered voters from October 26 to October 28. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. For the subgroup of 764 likely voters, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 points.
Two-thirds of voters are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country today, and more than not think Barack Obama’s presidency has made the country weaker (45 percent) rather than stronger (37 percent).
The president’s job approval among registered voters is currently 41 percent, a record low. This compares to 43 percent in mid-October and 46 percent in early September. Half disapprove of Obama’s performance. Among likely voters, negative sentiment is even stronger: 40 percent approve and 55 percent disapprove.
Frustrations are high. Most voters feel dissatisfied (51 percent) or even angry (25 percent) about the way the federal government is working. Just one in five is satisfied (22 percent), while 2 percent are enthusiastic. Angry voters are backing the Republican candidate by a 65-point margin.
Nearly half of likely voters -- 46 percent -- say they will cast their vote to express opposition to Obama administration policies. That shouldn’t be surprising given almost all voters rate economic conditions negatively, only a quarter thinks the stimulus plan has helped the economy, and fewer than one in five wants the new health care law to remain intact.
About a third of likely voters say they will use their vote to express support for Obama policies, and 20 percent say the president will not be a factor in their vote.
Forty-seven percent of likely voters approve of the job their own representative is doing. Even so, most -- 76 percent -- disapprove of the job Congress is doing overall.
Nearly equal numbers of voters have a positive view of the Democratic (42 percent) and Republican (44 percent) parties. By a six-point spread, more voters have a negative view of the Democratic Party.
Congressional Voting
Independents favor the Republican candidate in their district by 41 percent to 27 percent, with 32 percent saying they will vote for a third party candidate or are still undecided. This raises the question of whether these independents really will show up at the polls Tuesday.
Men back the Republican candidate by a wide 30 percentage point margin. Among women, the vote splits more evenly: 45 percent back the Democrat and 42 percent the Republican.
Eighty-seven percent of likely voters who support the Tea Party movement are backing the Republican candidate.
While 76 percent of those who backed Obama in 2008 are voting for the Democratic House candidate, some 13 percent are defecting to the Republican. More of Republican Presidential nominee John McCain’s voters -- 88 percent -- are sticking with the Republican this year.
Key Issues
The top issue to voters this election is the economy, followed by the trustworthiness of candidates, government spending, health care, and the federal deficit.
By a wide 60-34 percent, voters disapprove rather than approve of Obama’s handling of the economy. Fully 90 percent rate economic conditions negatively, and more than twice as many say they are worse off today compared with two years ago (36 percent) as say they are better off (16 percent).
A 55 percent majority of voters disapproves of the job Obama is doing on health care. In addition, many would like Congress to repeal the new health care law, either entirely (29 percent) or in part (29 percent). Others would like to see the law expanded (20 percent). The smallest group is the 15 percent who wants to leave the law as it currently is.
Of the issues tested, the president receives his highest approval rating for his handling of Afghanistan: 43 percent approve and 45 percent disapprove.
By Dana Blanton
Published October 29, 2010 | FoxNews.com
With less than a week to go before Election Day, widespread dissatisfaction with the way things are going in the country combined with negative views of the economy and frustration with the government point to major trouble for the incumbent majority Democrats. In addition, a Fox News poll released Friday shows President Obama’s job approval has hit a record low.
The new poll finds if the election were held today, 50 percent of likely voters would favor the Republican candidate in their House district and 37 percent the Democratic candidate, with 10 percent still undecided.
When it comes to enthusiasm, more Republicans (76 percent) than Democrats (65 percent) are extremely or very interested in the elections, and more Republicans (91 percent) than Democrats (83 percent) plan to vote for their party’s candidate.
Yet votes for the Democratic candidates look more solid: 87 percent say they will definitely vote for the Democrat, while 12 percent could change their mind. Among those favoring the Republican, 82 percent are definite they will vote that way and 16 percent may change their vote.
Among the 18 percent who have already voted, ballots have been evenly cast between the Republican and Democratic candidates.
The national telephone poll was conducted for Fox News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 1200 registered voters from October 26 to October 28. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. For the subgroup of 764 likely voters, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 points.
Two-thirds of voters are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country today, and more than not think Barack Obama’s presidency has made the country weaker (45 percent) rather than stronger (37 percent).
The president’s job approval among registered voters is currently 41 percent, a record low. This compares to 43 percent in mid-October and 46 percent in early September. Half disapprove of Obama’s performance. Among likely voters, negative sentiment is even stronger: 40 percent approve and 55 percent disapprove.
Frustrations are high. Most voters feel dissatisfied (51 percent) or even angry (25 percent) about the way the federal government is working. Just one in five is satisfied (22 percent), while 2 percent are enthusiastic. Angry voters are backing the Republican candidate by a 65-point margin.
Nearly half of likely voters -- 46 percent -- say they will cast their vote to express opposition to Obama administration policies. That shouldn’t be surprising given almost all voters rate economic conditions negatively, only a quarter thinks the stimulus plan has helped the economy, and fewer than one in five wants the new health care law to remain intact.
About a third of likely voters say they will use their vote to express support for Obama policies, and 20 percent say the president will not be a factor in their vote.
Forty-seven percent of likely voters approve of the job their own representative is doing. Even so, most -- 76 percent -- disapprove of the job Congress is doing overall.
Nearly equal numbers of voters have a positive view of the Democratic (42 percent) and Republican (44 percent) parties. By a six-point spread, more voters have a negative view of the Democratic Party.
Congressional Voting
Independents favor the Republican candidate in their district by 41 percent to 27 percent, with 32 percent saying they will vote for a third party candidate or are still undecided. This raises the question of whether these independents really will show up at the polls Tuesday.
Men back the Republican candidate by a wide 30 percentage point margin. Among women, the vote splits more evenly: 45 percent back the Democrat and 42 percent the Republican.
Eighty-seven percent of likely voters who support the Tea Party movement are backing the Republican candidate.
While 76 percent of those who backed Obama in 2008 are voting for the Democratic House candidate, some 13 percent are defecting to the Republican. More of Republican Presidential nominee John McCain’s voters -- 88 percent -- are sticking with the Republican this year.
Key Issues
The top issue to voters this election is the economy, followed by the trustworthiness of candidates, government spending, health care, and the federal deficit.
By a wide 60-34 percent, voters disapprove rather than approve of Obama’s handling of the economy. Fully 90 percent rate economic conditions negatively, and more than twice as many say they are worse off today compared with two years ago (36 percent) as say they are better off (16 percent).
A 55 percent majority of voters disapproves of the job Obama is doing on health care. In addition, many would like Congress to repeal the new health care law, either entirely (29 percent) or in part (29 percent). Others would like to see the law expanded (20 percent). The smallest group is the 15 percent who wants to leave the law as it currently is.
Of the issues tested, the president receives his highest approval rating for his handling of Afghanistan: 43 percent approve and 45 percent disapprove.
Christ says the White House WAS involved in the Back Room Deal!
More evidence that Charlie Crist is a "sleaze-ball" AND the White House was INVOLVED!!!!...and why would we think not...that's all Obama has done is make back room deals ever since he has come into the White House!
NOW a Useless Organization...!
NOW has proven it's a useless organization more interested in it's political leanings than protecting women. It's interesting how all these organizations "show their stripes" during these elections cycles....whether it's the AARP, the SEIU, the NAACP or NOW they only care about their own political leanings, not the interested of the constituents they are supposed to be protecting.
NOW Defends O'Donnell After One Night Stand Story
Published October 29, 2010 | FoxNews.com
After Republican women faced name-calling for allegedly being a "whore," a "b----" and now something akin to a prudish slut, the National Organization of Women has said it's had enough, and five days before the midterm election has called for a stop of the "sexist, misogynist attacks."
NOW President Terry O'Neill issued a statement late Thursday after a gossip website published a report from an anonymous man -- later identified by "The Smoking Gun" website as Dustin Dominiak -- claiming that he had a one-night stand three years ago with Republican Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell.
"Today the tabloid website Gawker published an anonymous piece titled "I Had A One-Night Stand With Christine O'Donnell" that takes the routine sexual degradation of women candidates to a disgusting new low. NOW repudiates Gawker's decision to run this piece. It operates as public sexual harassment. And like all sexual harassment, it targets not only O'Donnell, but all women contemplating stepping into the public sphere," O'Neill said.
NOW has endorsed O'Donnell's opponent Chris Coons in the Delaware race, and said it disagrees with O'Donnell's political views.
"That does not mean it's acceptable to use slut-shaming against her, or any woman," O'Neill said. "Let me be honest: I look forward to seeing Christine O'Donnell defeated at the polls, but this kind of sexist attack is an affront to all women, and I won't stand for it."
The Gawker story tells an account of a tipsy O'Donnell hitting on a man who lives in an apartment jointly owned by O'Donnell, her mother and her aunt. It alleges that O'Donnell, who is single, having briefly met the man a few months earlier, swung by the apartment before a night out to celebrate Halloween and convinced him to dress up and go out to a bar with her.
After drinking several beers, the first-person account recalls how the two returned to his apartment and start getting romantic. Ultimately, however, the account says O'Donnell refused to consummate the evening, and the two shared a bed strictly for sleeping.
On Thursday, O'Donnell's office issued a statement condemning the report.
"This story is just another example of the sexism and slander that female candidates are forced to deal with. From Secretary Clinton, to Governor Palin, to soon-to-be Governor Haley, Christine's political opponents have been willing to engage in appalling and baseless attacks -- all with the aim of distracting the press from covering the real issues in this race. Even the National Organization for Women gets it," said Communications Director Doug Sachtleben.
Speaking on Fox News on Thursday night, O'Donnell said she is targeted for personal attacks because her opponent does not want to discuss the issues.
"Right now, the Democrats can't run on their record," she said. "So instead they are trying to make it personal. They are trying to make it about me, because they can't attack my position."
O'Donnell is not the first Republican candidate to be blasted in purely sexist terms.
Earlier this week, liberal talk show host Joy Behar called Republican Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle a "b----" who "is going to hell." Angle responded by sending Behar flowers and thanking her for helping her raise funds. Behar responded by saying that she shouldn't have used that expression on Angle because she reserves the "B" word for her friends.
Earlier this season, Republican Californian gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman was called a "whore" by a woman identified as opponent Jerry Brown's wife during a conversation picked up on a voicemail messaging system that Brown had thought he'd hung up on. Brown later apologized for the slight.
In South Carolina, two Republican operatives have also claimed to have affairs with Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley. Neither has produced evidence of any trysts and Haley has denied both charges, saying she has been faithful throughout her 13-year marriage.
Dominiak was apparently outed by roommate Brad Kurisko, who was identified by The Smoking Gun website as the owner of the Boy Scouts uniform that Dominiak wore as his Halloween costume the night he and O'Donnell went for drinks. Dominiak's Facebook account was apparently deactivated after the Gawker story was published.
NOW Defends O'Donnell After One Night Stand Story
Published October 29, 2010 | FoxNews.com
After Republican women faced name-calling for allegedly being a "whore," a "b----" and now something akin to a prudish slut, the National Organization of Women has said it's had enough, and five days before the midterm election has called for a stop of the "sexist, misogynist attacks."
NOW President Terry O'Neill issued a statement late Thursday after a gossip website published a report from an anonymous man -- later identified by "The Smoking Gun" website as Dustin Dominiak -- claiming that he had a one-night stand three years ago with Republican Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell.
"Today the tabloid website Gawker published an anonymous piece titled "I Had A One-Night Stand With Christine O'Donnell" that takes the routine sexual degradation of women candidates to a disgusting new low. NOW repudiates Gawker's decision to run this piece. It operates as public sexual harassment. And like all sexual harassment, it targets not only O'Donnell, but all women contemplating stepping into the public sphere," O'Neill said.
NOW has endorsed O'Donnell's opponent Chris Coons in the Delaware race, and said it disagrees with O'Donnell's political views.
"That does not mean it's acceptable to use slut-shaming against her, or any woman," O'Neill said. "Let me be honest: I look forward to seeing Christine O'Donnell defeated at the polls, but this kind of sexist attack is an affront to all women, and I won't stand for it."
The Gawker story tells an account of a tipsy O'Donnell hitting on a man who lives in an apartment jointly owned by O'Donnell, her mother and her aunt. It alleges that O'Donnell, who is single, having briefly met the man a few months earlier, swung by the apartment before a night out to celebrate Halloween and convinced him to dress up and go out to a bar with her.
After drinking several beers, the first-person account recalls how the two returned to his apartment and start getting romantic. Ultimately, however, the account says O'Donnell refused to consummate the evening, and the two shared a bed strictly for sleeping.
On Thursday, O'Donnell's office issued a statement condemning the report.
"This story is just another example of the sexism and slander that female candidates are forced to deal with. From Secretary Clinton, to Governor Palin, to soon-to-be Governor Haley, Christine's political opponents have been willing to engage in appalling and baseless attacks -- all with the aim of distracting the press from covering the real issues in this race. Even the National Organization for Women gets it," said Communications Director Doug Sachtleben.
Speaking on Fox News on Thursday night, O'Donnell said she is targeted for personal attacks because her opponent does not want to discuss the issues.
"Right now, the Democrats can't run on their record," she said. "So instead they are trying to make it personal. They are trying to make it about me, because they can't attack my position."
O'Donnell is not the first Republican candidate to be blasted in purely sexist terms.
Earlier this week, liberal talk show host Joy Behar called Republican Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle a "b----" who "is going to hell." Angle responded by sending Behar flowers and thanking her for helping her raise funds. Behar responded by saying that she shouldn't have used that expression on Angle because she reserves the "B" word for her friends.
Earlier this season, Republican Californian gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman was called a "whore" by a woman identified as opponent Jerry Brown's wife during a conversation picked up on a voicemail messaging system that Brown had thought he'd hung up on. Brown later apologized for the slight.
In South Carolina, two Republican operatives have also claimed to have affairs with Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley. Neither has produced evidence of any trysts and Haley has denied both charges, saying she has been faithful throughout her 13-year marriage.
Dominiak was apparently outed by roommate Brad Kurisko, who was identified by The Smoking Gun website as the owner of the Boy Scouts uniform that Dominiak wore as his Halloween costume the night he and O'Donnell went for drinks. Dominiak's Facebook account was apparently deactivated after the Gawker story was published.
Spending is the Problem!!!
From the Heritage Foundation - Here's $343 Billion in spending cuts....
How To Cut Federal Spending
Earlier this month, the Obama administration reported that the federal deficit hit a near-record $1.3 trillion for fiscal year 2010. That means the government had to borrow 37 cents out of every dollar it spent. If Congress continues existing taxing and spending policies, federal deficits will reach a projected $2 trillion deficit in just 10 years. America cannot survive such sustained deficits, and Americans know it. According to a poll conducted last week by The Hill, 52% of independent voters surveyed cited debt reduction as a priority, compared with only 39 percent who said additional federal spending to create jobs is more important.
Our nation's deficits are, in reality, a spending problem. Even if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent, revenues are set to return to their post-World War II average of 18% by 2020. Spending, on the other hand, continues to explode. After averaging 20% since World War II, federal spending is set to soar to 26% of the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2020. If Congress is to have any chance of cutting the deficit, spending must be cut. But how?
The lion's share of spending growth is due to the big three entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Heritage has Solutions for each of these programs including: 1) transforming Social Security into a real insurance program that offers a safety net for poorer retirees; 2) transforming Medicare into a defined contribution system that would be capped and reviewed periodically; and 3) changing Medicaid from a open-ended entitlement into an insurance-based model of private coverage. But these are all long-term reforms that will take time to implement. What can the next Congress do as soon as they take office to prove to the American people that they are serious about cutting spending?
The Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl has identified $343 billion in spending cuts that can be made for the fiscal year 2012 budget. You can see a table of all the cuts here. The bulk of the cuts fall into six areas:
Empowering state and local governments. Congress should focus the federal government on performing a few duties well and allow the state and local governments, which are closer to the people, to creatively address local needs in areas such as transportation, justice, job training and economic development.
Consolidating duplicative programs. Past Congresses have repeatedly piled duplicative programs on top of preexisting programs, increasing administrative costs and creating a bureaucratic maze that confuses people seeking assistance.
Privatization. Many current government functions could be performed more efficiently by the private sector.
Targeting programs more precisely. Corporate welfare programs benefit those who do not need assistance in the American free enterprise system. Other programs often fail to enforce their own eligibility requirements.
Eliminating outdated and ineffective programs. Congress often allows the federal government to run the same programs for decades, despite many studies showing their ineffectiveness.
Eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. Taxpayers will never trust the federal government to reform major entitlements if they believe that the savings will go toward "bridges to nowhere," vacant government buildings and Grateful Dead archives.
$343 billion in spending cuts will not balance our nation's $1.3 trillion budget deficit. But it would be great start to permanently shrinking the size and power of the federal government.
How To Cut Federal Spending
Earlier this month, the Obama administration reported that the federal deficit hit a near-record $1.3 trillion for fiscal year 2010. That means the government had to borrow 37 cents out of every dollar it spent. If Congress continues existing taxing and spending policies, federal deficits will reach a projected $2 trillion deficit in just 10 years. America cannot survive such sustained deficits, and Americans know it. According to a poll conducted last week by The Hill, 52% of independent voters surveyed cited debt reduction as a priority, compared with only 39 percent who said additional federal spending to create jobs is more important.
Our nation's deficits are, in reality, a spending problem. Even if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent, revenues are set to return to their post-World War II average of 18% by 2020. Spending, on the other hand, continues to explode. After averaging 20% since World War II, federal spending is set to soar to 26% of the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2020. If Congress is to have any chance of cutting the deficit, spending must be cut. But how?
The lion's share of spending growth is due to the big three entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Heritage has Solutions for each of these programs including: 1) transforming Social Security into a real insurance program that offers a safety net for poorer retirees; 2) transforming Medicare into a defined contribution system that would be capped and reviewed periodically; and 3) changing Medicaid from a open-ended entitlement into an insurance-based model of private coverage. But these are all long-term reforms that will take time to implement. What can the next Congress do as soon as they take office to prove to the American people that they are serious about cutting spending?
The Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl has identified $343 billion in spending cuts that can be made for the fiscal year 2012 budget. You can see a table of all the cuts here. The bulk of the cuts fall into six areas:
Empowering state and local governments. Congress should focus the federal government on performing a few duties well and allow the state and local governments, which are closer to the people, to creatively address local needs in areas such as transportation, justice, job training and economic development.
Consolidating duplicative programs. Past Congresses have repeatedly piled duplicative programs on top of preexisting programs, increasing administrative costs and creating a bureaucratic maze that confuses people seeking assistance.
Privatization. Many current government functions could be performed more efficiently by the private sector.
Targeting programs more precisely. Corporate welfare programs benefit those who do not need assistance in the American free enterprise system. Other programs often fail to enforce their own eligibility requirements.
Eliminating outdated and ineffective programs. Congress often allows the federal government to run the same programs for decades, despite many studies showing their ineffectiveness.
Eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. Taxpayers will never trust the federal government to reform major entitlements if they believe that the savings will go toward "bridges to nowhere," vacant government buildings and Grateful Dead archives.
$343 billion in spending cuts will not balance our nation's $1.3 trillion budget deficit. But it would be great start to permanently shrinking the size and power of the federal government.
If this doesn't help get your support for the Arizona Immigration Law, then nothing will....
Here's the attitude of the Social Justice, Socialist party....Makes you want to deport ALL the illegals immediately, doesn't it?????
Poll Watcher Describes Multiple Violations Witnessed at Houston Polling Place
And the voting tampering/cheating begins....this is just disgusting that anyone would try to influence someone else's vote. Where is the integrity in America? Poll workers should be better trained and then actions to sway voters decisions should be met with criminal prosecution.
Breitbart.tv » Poll Watcher Describes Multiple Violations Witnessed at Houston Polling Place
Breitbart.tv » Poll Watcher Describes Multiple Violations Witnessed at Houston Polling Place
Conservative Actress Janine Taylor Rallies for Joe Miller; ‘Follow the Constitution’
Finally someone from Hollywood willing to speak out for conservative values...even if CNN does everything in it's power to make them look small...Maybe after Tuesday's wins it will be more in style to be a conservative!
Breitbart.tv » Conservative Actress Janine Taylor Rallies for Joe Miller; ‘Follow the Constitution’
Breitbart.tv » Conservative Actress Janine Taylor Rallies for Joe Miller; ‘Follow the Constitution’
Charlie Crist - a Major "Sleaze-Ball"
This just shows you what a "sleaze-ball" Charlie Christ is and it doesn't say much for Bill Clinton either.....getting involved to get a Democrat to drop out of the race (a Black qualified Democrat candidate at that) in favor of an Independent candidate who was a Republican just smells of cronyism. It just shows that the Democrats have NO integrity, no values and all they care about is winning!
Meek Denies Clinton Urged Him to Quit Florida Senate Race
Published October 29, 2010 | FoxNews.com
Oct. 19: Florida Democratic Senate candidate Kendrick Meek, right, listens to Former President Bill Clinton address supporters during a campaign rally in St. Petersburg.
Former President Bill Clinton never asked Florida's Democratic Senate candidate to drop out of the race so that Gov. Charlie Crist could win, Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek said Friday, noting that the two men did discuss the scenario, but a request was never made.
Meek, who's in a virtual tie for second place with Crist behind Republican nominee Marco Rubio, told Fox News on Friday that Crist is driving the story that first appeared in Politico because Meek's departure is the only way he would have a chance.
"I don't operate like this, and the bottom line is is that Charlie Crist does," Meek said. "It's mind boggling."
Meek said that Clinton was appearing at a rally for Meek when he said he heard reports that Meek was dropping out. Meek said Clinton asked if the reports were true, and he replied not at all.
The conversation ended there, according to Meek.
But Politico reported that during Clinton's trip to Florida, Meek agreed twice to drop out of the race, but then changed his mind.
Clinton's spokesman Mark McKenna also told Politico that the former president's top aide, Doug Band, had served as the intermediary between Meek and Crist, after which Clinton dropped into the conversation when it seemed a deal had been struck.
Crist said Thursday night in an interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren that he had discussed the matter with Meek.
"I can attest to you that those conversations did take place," Crist said, asserting that Meek initially had agreed to quit, to "do what was right ... for the people of Florida and people of America and stop a right-wing radical, if you will, from getting elected to the U.S. Senate."
Politico reported that Meek changed his mind when he determined he could still win the race and did not want to be seen as a quitter.
Meek said Friday that he and Band and Clinton are all friends and it was just talk. He added that the controversy has blown up support for him, and his website has processed thousands of dollars in donations since Thursday night.
A Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday shows Rubio's lead is shrinking in the final days of the race. Rubio has 42 percent of the vote to Crist's 35 percent and Meek's 15 percent in their three-way contest. Rubio led Crist by a margin of 44 percent to 30 percent two weeks ago.
As for Rubio, his campaign described it as "politics as usual."
"Charlie Crist truly will say and do anything to get elected and hold on to power," Rubio senior strategist Todd Harris said in a written statement. "Secret deals to trade away principles for power is already the problem in Washington, it's not the solution."
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele weighed in on the report Thursday evening, blasting the former president's involvement in the race.
"President Clinton's actions to have Kendrick Meek withdraw from the campaign sends a chilling signal to all voters, but especially African Americans," Steele said. "One can only imagine the response if Republican leadership tried to force out of the race -- in the 11th hour -- a qualified black candidate like Kendrick Meek."
Meek Denies Clinton Urged Him to Quit Florida Senate Race
Published October 29, 2010 | FoxNews.com
Oct. 19: Florida Democratic Senate candidate Kendrick Meek, right, listens to Former President Bill Clinton address supporters during a campaign rally in St. Petersburg.
Former President Bill Clinton never asked Florida's Democratic Senate candidate to drop out of the race so that Gov. Charlie Crist could win, Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek said Friday, noting that the two men did discuss the scenario, but a request was never made.
Meek, who's in a virtual tie for second place with Crist behind Republican nominee Marco Rubio, told Fox News on Friday that Crist is driving the story that first appeared in Politico because Meek's departure is the only way he would have a chance.
"I don't operate like this, and the bottom line is is that Charlie Crist does," Meek said. "It's mind boggling."
Meek said that Clinton was appearing at a rally for Meek when he said he heard reports that Meek was dropping out. Meek said Clinton asked if the reports were true, and he replied not at all.
The conversation ended there, according to Meek.
But Politico reported that during Clinton's trip to Florida, Meek agreed twice to drop out of the race, but then changed his mind.
Clinton's spokesman Mark McKenna also told Politico that the former president's top aide, Doug Band, had served as the intermediary between Meek and Crist, after which Clinton dropped into the conversation when it seemed a deal had been struck.
Crist said Thursday night in an interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren that he had discussed the matter with Meek.
"I can attest to you that those conversations did take place," Crist said, asserting that Meek initially had agreed to quit, to "do what was right ... for the people of Florida and people of America and stop a right-wing radical, if you will, from getting elected to the U.S. Senate."
Politico reported that Meek changed his mind when he determined he could still win the race and did not want to be seen as a quitter.
Meek said Friday that he and Band and Clinton are all friends and it was just talk. He added that the controversy has blown up support for him, and his website has processed thousands of dollars in donations since Thursday night.
A Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday shows Rubio's lead is shrinking in the final days of the race. Rubio has 42 percent of the vote to Crist's 35 percent and Meek's 15 percent in their three-way contest. Rubio led Crist by a margin of 44 percent to 30 percent two weeks ago.
As for Rubio, his campaign described it as "politics as usual."
"Charlie Crist truly will say and do anything to get elected and hold on to power," Rubio senior strategist Todd Harris said in a written statement. "Secret deals to trade away principles for power is already the problem in Washington, it's not the solution."
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele weighed in on the report Thursday evening, blasting the former president's involvement in the race.
"President Clinton's actions to have Kendrick Meek withdraw from the campaign sends a chilling signal to all voters, but especially African Americans," Steele said. "One can only imagine the response if Republican leadership tried to force out of the race -- in the 11th hour -- a qualified black candidate like Kendrick Meek."
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Disgraceful New Jersey Teacher Union behavior....Go Chris Christie!
Here's the Teachers Gone Wild video ....it clearly shows why we have to get the government unions under control....These NJ Teacher's behaviors are disgraceful...there should be NO Tenure, No Pension and wages should be based on private business competitive studies...we also need to move to a voucher system so each student is given a voucher for education and can spend it as they see fit...then there would be real competition for the public school system and the level of education would improve dramatically.....
Chris Christie....Right Again!!!!
God I like this guy.....We need this kind of effort from elected officials across the nation....
| Gov. Chris Christie comments on 'teachers unions gone wild' |
"Dirty" Harry Reid...Now he's bribing voters with Free Food and Union Workers with Gift Cards in exchange for a vote for HIM!
If Dirty Harry Reid can't win the election the right way he's not against bribing voters with free food and gift card to buy a vote for him....After all that's what's he's been doing for at least 19 months as he rammed legislation through that the American Public didn't want. This guy has got to GO!
Reid “intends to steal this election if he can’t win it outright”
By Jon Ralston · October 26, 2010 · 9:29 AM
UPDATE: Secretary of state's response, calling Mitchell's letter "conjecture and rumor," posted at right.
So says Cleta Mitchell, the same woman who tried to get Scott Ashjian, the Tea Party of Nevada candidate out of the race, in an astonishing fundraising letter:
As Sharron Angle's campaign attorney, I am sorry to report that the Democrats and their cronies are up to their same old tricks, of trying to manipulate the election in hopes of skewing the results in their favor.
Two days ago, the Democratic Secretary of State announced that voters can be provided "free food" at "voter turnout events." Harry Reid has been offering free food and, according to other reports, some Democratic allies such as teachers' unions are offering gift cards in return for a vote for Reid.
Before we were even able to document the reported infractions to report to the authorities, the Democrat Secretary of State slammed the door shut on preventing this behavior and issued a public statement permitting these ACORN-style tactics. THESE are the kinds of shenanigans that can turn this race.
Harry Reid intends to steal this election if he can't win it outright. As a result, we need to deploy literally dozens of election law attorneys and poll watchers to combat these tactics at a cost of nearly $80,000. That's over and above our current budget. We need to raise $80,000 and we need to do it RIGHT NOW, because even as I am writing this, Harry Reid and his Machine are trying to steal this election. I'm sorry that we have to come to you yet again and ask for you to reach deep and contribute, but we must.
Understand, EVERYTHING we have worked for in the last year could be destroyed by dirty tricks and criminal acts in the next 8 days. As Sharron's first line of defense on these matters I am absolutely committed to making sure this won't happen.
What Harry Reid is doing is clearly illegal. Nevada law (NRS 293.700) provides that, “A person who bribes, offers to bribe, or use and other corrupt means, directly or indirectly, to influence any elector in giving his or her vote or to deter the elector from giving it is guilty of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.”
We've seen evidence of this sort of voter 'enticement' by groups such as ACORN - where, in 2008, two ACORN workers in Milwaukee were accused of offering pre-paid gasoline cards or restaurant gift cards to people in exchange for registration.
John Fund wrote in his book Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy, cited reports from the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader (South Dakota) and the election in 2004, where certain residents were quoted saying that "people on the streets were saying you go vote, they would give you gas money, $10, maybe a pack of cigarettes..."
Now, this week in Las Vegas, at our election hotline, we received reports that some teachers' union representatives were offering Starbucks cards to people to get them to vote for Harry Reid. It is even more disturbing and may be possible that they are using their influence and authority as educators to entice students on behalf of Reid.
Here’s the bottom line: when the powerful are threatened, they will do anything to retain their position. It's clear now that Harry Reid's campaign is even willing to skirt the laws of Nevada to do it.
Is there any question that they will do the same on Election Day?
Will you help us raise this $80,000 today? With it we can fight the election-stealing tactics of Harry Reid and his corrupt cronies.
The right to vote is a precious one - and it carries with it somber responsibilities. The Democrats' willingness to allow voters to be enticed with a promise of any thing of value is a debasement of the process- and it may just destroy everything we've worked for.
Please send an urgent contribution so our work will not be in vain. We’re going to win this race as long as we don’t let Harry Reid steal it. Can you help us today?
Sincerely,
Cleta Mitchell
Counsel to Friends of Sharron Angle
Republican Nominee for U.S. Senate, Nevada
P.S. I've been in this business a long time. I have never before been so convinced that a candidate would reach so low in order to be victorious. Let's do this for Sharron and all her hard work. Please support us financially today.
Reid “intends to steal this election if he can’t win it outright”
By Jon Ralston · October 26, 2010 · 9:29 AM
UPDATE: Secretary of state's response, calling Mitchell's letter "conjecture and rumor," posted at right.
So says Cleta Mitchell, the same woman who tried to get Scott Ashjian, the Tea Party of Nevada candidate out of the race, in an astonishing fundraising letter:
As Sharron Angle's campaign attorney, I am sorry to report that the Democrats and their cronies are up to their same old tricks, of trying to manipulate the election in hopes of skewing the results in their favor.
Two days ago, the Democratic Secretary of State announced that voters can be provided "free food" at "voter turnout events." Harry Reid has been offering free food and, according to other reports, some Democratic allies such as teachers' unions are offering gift cards in return for a vote for Reid.
Before we were even able to document the reported infractions to report to the authorities, the Democrat Secretary of State slammed the door shut on preventing this behavior and issued a public statement permitting these ACORN-style tactics. THESE are the kinds of shenanigans that can turn this race.
Harry Reid intends to steal this election if he can't win it outright. As a result, we need to deploy literally dozens of election law attorneys and poll watchers to combat these tactics at a cost of nearly $80,000. That's over and above our current budget. We need to raise $80,000 and we need to do it RIGHT NOW, because even as I am writing this, Harry Reid and his Machine are trying to steal this election. I'm sorry that we have to come to you yet again and ask for you to reach deep and contribute, but we must.
Understand, EVERYTHING we have worked for in the last year could be destroyed by dirty tricks and criminal acts in the next 8 days. As Sharron's first line of defense on these matters I am absolutely committed to making sure this won't happen.
What Harry Reid is doing is clearly illegal. Nevada law (NRS 293.700) provides that, “A person who bribes, offers to bribe, or use and other corrupt means, directly or indirectly, to influence any elector in giving his or her vote or to deter the elector from giving it is guilty of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.”
We've seen evidence of this sort of voter 'enticement' by groups such as ACORN - where, in 2008, two ACORN workers in Milwaukee were accused of offering pre-paid gasoline cards or restaurant gift cards to people in exchange for registration.
John Fund wrote in his book Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy, cited reports from the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader (South Dakota) and the election in 2004, where certain residents were quoted saying that "people on the streets were saying you go vote, they would give you gas money, $10, maybe a pack of cigarettes..."
Now, this week in Las Vegas, at our election hotline, we received reports that some teachers' union representatives were offering Starbucks cards to people to get them to vote for Harry Reid. It is even more disturbing and may be possible that they are using their influence and authority as educators to entice students on behalf of Reid.
Here’s the bottom line: when the powerful are threatened, they will do anything to retain their position. It's clear now that Harry Reid's campaign is even willing to skirt the laws of Nevada to do it.
Is there any question that they will do the same on Election Day?
Will you help us raise this $80,000 today? With it we can fight the election-stealing tactics of Harry Reid and his corrupt cronies.
The right to vote is a precious one - and it carries with it somber responsibilities. The Democrats' willingness to allow voters to be enticed with a promise of any thing of value is a debasement of the process- and it may just destroy everything we've worked for.
Please send an urgent contribution so our work will not be in vain. We’re going to win this race as long as we don’t let Harry Reid steal it. Can you help us today?
Sincerely,
Cleta Mitchell
Counsel to Friends of Sharron Angle
Republican Nominee for U.S. Senate, Nevada
P.S. I've been in this business a long time. I have never before been so convinced that a candidate would reach so low in order to be victorious. Let's do this for Sharron and all her hard work. Please support us financially today.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
The corruption of Unions!
Here's a New Jersey Union admitting that in the past they were involved in voter fraud....and these are Obama's big buddies.....
Just Another Cheating Democrat!!!
Alex Sink says she didn't mean to break debate rules
By Marc Caputo, Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau
Posted: Oct 26, 2010 02:00 AM
TALLAHASSEE — Alex Sink on Tuesday confirmed that the campaign aide she fired after Monday night's gubernatorial debate was Brian May, who had sent a text message/e-mail to the Droid of Sink's makeup artist, who in turn shared it with the Democrat during the debate.
May is a Miami-Dade-based insurance lobbyist and onetime aide to Sen. Bill Nelson, when he was the state's insurance commissioner.
The incident had a double irony for Sink: 1) May signed the debate agreement that essentially outlawed the message-passing; 2) Sink has spent considerable time and political capital trying to make Republican opponent Rick Scott out to be the cheater due to the Medicare fraud in the past of his former company, Columbia/HCA.
Scott, who was getting touched up with makeup during a commercial break, watched the message being passed to Sink. He called over CNN political editor Mark Preston. Arms crossed, Scott said, "So we can get notes, we can have people that work for us come give us messages? … Right there with the BlackBerry. She was shown one by that lady." At that point, CNN confiscated the cell phone.
When the debate resumed, Scott complained that Sink broke the rules, claiming to the studio audience that she was shown a message on an iPad or an iPod (it was, again, a Droid, so the Republican Party of Florida's catchy "iCheat" moniker is a no-go).
Sink, speaking to reporters after a Cabinet meeting, said she didn't know about the message or its contents until she was shown the message. She spent most of her explanation laying into Scott for what she said was his characterization of Panhandle residents as whiners from the oil spill.
Scott's campaign is passing around an "iCheat" graphic that includes Sink's picture on an iPhone screen. "You want to cheat at a debate? There's an app for that," one Scott aide said.
Scott's making political hay out of the incident, but in a state suffering from a litany of economic problems that Scott regularly cites in a stump speech, how big a deal is this?
"You know, I don't know how big it is to any individual," Scott said. "But she wants to attack me all the time and then she doesn't follow the rules. And that's a pretty simple rule to follow. … This is like everything she's done; she never takes responsibility."
Scott said Sink should have taken responsibility by saying, "Look, I made a mistake. I was wrong. I shouldn't have done it."
Times/Herald staff writers Alex Leary and Michael C. Bender contributed to this report.
By Marc Caputo, Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau
Posted: Oct 26, 2010 02:00 AM
TALLAHASSEE — Alex Sink on Tuesday confirmed that the campaign aide she fired after Monday night's gubernatorial debate was Brian May, who had sent a text message/e-mail to the Droid of Sink's makeup artist, who in turn shared it with the Democrat during the debate.
May is a Miami-Dade-based insurance lobbyist and onetime aide to Sen. Bill Nelson, when he was the state's insurance commissioner.
The incident had a double irony for Sink: 1) May signed the debate agreement that essentially outlawed the message-passing; 2) Sink has spent considerable time and political capital trying to make Republican opponent Rick Scott out to be the cheater due to the Medicare fraud in the past of his former company, Columbia/HCA.
Scott, who was getting touched up with makeup during a commercial break, watched the message being passed to Sink. He called over CNN political editor Mark Preston. Arms crossed, Scott said, "So we can get notes, we can have people that work for us come give us messages? … Right there with the BlackBerry. She was shown one by that lady." At that point, CNN confiscated the cell phone.
When the debate resumed, Scott complained that Sink broke the rules, claiming to the studio audience that she was shown a message on an iPad or an iPod (it was, again, a Droid, so the Republican Party of Florida's catchy "iCheat" moniker is a no-go).
Sink, speaking to reporters after a Cabinet meeting, said she didn't know about the message or its contents until she was shown the message. She spent most of her explanation laying into Scott for what she said was his characterization of Panhandle residents as whiners from the oil spill.
Scott's campaign is passing around an "iCheat" graphic that includes Sink's picture on an iPhone screen. "You want to cheat at a debate? There's an app for that," one Scott aide said.
Scott's making political hay out of the incident, but in a state suffering from a litany of economic problems that Scott regularly cites in a stump speech, how big a deal is this?
"You know, I don't know how big it is to any individual," Scott said. "But she wants to attack me all the time and then she doesn't follow the rules. And that's a pretty simple rule to follow. … This is like everything she's done; she never takes responsibility."
Scott said Sink should have taken responsibility by saying, "Look, I made a mistake. I was wrong. I shouldn't have done it."
Times/Herald staff writers Alex Leary and Michael C. Bender contributed to this report.
President Obama Heads into Midterms at Lowest Approval Rating of Presidency
Obama's approval ratings continue to crash.....
Harris Interactive: Harris Polls President Obama Heads into Midterms at Lowest Approval Rating of Presidency
Harris Interactive: Harris Polls President Obama Heads into Midterms at Lowest Approval Rating of Presidency
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is Nuts and she is a Whack Job!!!
Elections
Wasserman-Schultz: Tea Partiers Dress Obama Pics in Blackface, Burn Him in Effigy
Published October 26, 2010
| FoxNews.com
Print Email Share Comments (97) Text Size A Florida Democratic congresswoman demonstrating outside the office of a black Republican congressional candidate said Friday that her protest is unlike Tea Party gatherings because there are no "pictures of the president in black-face or burned in effigy."
Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and other supporters of Orlando-area Rep. Ron Klein were out in front of the headquarters of Tea Party-favored candidate Allen West to demonstrate against West's contributions to a Miami biker magazine that Wasserman-Schultz says degrades women.
Asked by a conservative blogger about the difference between her street protest and Tea Partiers demonstrations, Wasserman-Schultz said, "Our protest is different because I don't see any swastikas, or any pictures of the president in black-face or burned in effigy here."
Click here to see the video.
"They certainly have welcomed those images and not repudiated them, not asked them to leave," she said.
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Is Taking Social Security Morally Just? NBA Star Defaults on $1.5M Mortgage Tiger Woods Mistress Loredana Jolie Pens Tell-All Gunmen Kill at Least 10 at Mexico Rehab Center Father of Missing North Carolina Girl Arrested Wasserman-Schultz's congressional office did not respond when asked to provide examples of Tea Partiers doing to the president's image what she described.
West aides said they didn't recall that ever happening at Tea Party protests in Florida.
"Clearly Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is nuts," West campaign manager Josh Grodin said. "She's a whack job. I have no idea what that means or where she's getting that from."
Surrounded by a small group of folks holding signs for Klein, Wasserman-Schultz argued at the demonstration that West is a "self-described right-wing extremist."
"In fact, he wears his extreme disrespect as a badge of honor. He thinks it's okay to objectify and denigrate women. He thinks it's okay to take away our reproductive freedom. He thinks it's okay to associate with people who refer to women as 'oral relief stations.' Well, we're here to tell him it is not okay," she said.
Wasserman-Schultz then went on to describe West as one of a group of "Tea Party extremists" that includes Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul and Massachusetts congressional candidate Jeff Perry who "have some real issues when it comes to women."
Paul has been accused of kidnapping a woman and making her worship an "Aqua Buddha." The woman at the center of the claim said it was a college prank and she freely participated.
Perry was accused by a woman of standing nearby and ignoring her screams when at age 14 she was strip-searched by a police officer under Perry's command. During an investigation of the event, Perry reportedly alternatively said that he was nearby during the 1991 episode and heard nothing, and later, that if something happened, he wasn't around to witness it. The officer involved was later convicted of indecent assault.
As for West's conduct, he writes for a magazine called "Wheels on the Road."
The magazine is run by an editor who goes by the name "Miami Mike." Klein reported Miami Mike to the U.S. Capitol Police last week for allegedly threatening him. Miami Mike told The Miami Herald that he told Klein he needed a "good a-- kicking, which I'd be more than happy to do even though I'm a lot older than you."
Miami Mike reportedly said he was annoyed that Klein accused West of having ties to The Outlaws, a Department of Justice-designated criminal gang. That accusation followed a local news report showing some guys at a West fundraiser at a park donning a clothing patch signifying a related gang. But Miami Mike said the same patch was also found on men spotted at a Klein event.
As for the magazine, which has as many pictures of good ol' boys as it does bikini-clad women, one contributor endorsed West in this month's edition, writing, "He wants to restore honor, integrity and character to Washington, something that it desperately needs and Allen West will bring it on. Let's give him a chance to work for American Patriots in Washington as he is a true American Patriot himself, unlike most of those brainless dumb a--es currently running the country down the toilet."
As for Wasserman-Schultz, she said if West doesn't address his issues with women, "we will with our voices and our vote." She added that voters can see a "clear choice" between Klein, who supports women, and West "who would take us backwards."
Wasserman-Shultz also said that one protester at a community meeting she hosted "shouted from the courtyard that I deserved breast cancer" because she supported the health care law.
"This is the kind of thing that they allow in their group, and I think it's unacceptable," she said of Tea Partiers.
The latest Sunshine State News polling shows the race in a virtual dead heat, with West at 47 percent to Klein's 44 percent. The Oct. 17-19 survey of likely voters had a 3.46 percent margin of error and 9 percent of those polled were undecided.
Wasserman-Schultz: Tea Partiers Dress Obama Pics in Blackface, Burn Him in Effigy
Published October 26, 2010
| FoxNews.com
Print Email Share Comments (97) Text Size A Florida Democratic congresswoman demonstrating outside the office of a black Republican congressional candidate said Friday that her protest is unlike Tea Party gatherings because there are no "pictures of the president in black-face or burned in effigy."
Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and other supporters of Orlando-area Rep. Ron Klein were out in front of the headquarters of Tea Party-favored candidate Allen West to demonstrate against West's contributions to a Miami biker magazine that Wasserman-Schultz says degrades women.
Asked by a conservative blogger about the difference between her street protest and Tea Partiers demonstrations, Wasserman-Schultz said, "Our protest is different because I don't see any swastikas, or any pictures of the president in black-face or burned in effigy here."
Click here to see the video.
"They certainly have welcomed those images and not repudiated them, not asked them to leave," she said.
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Is Taking Social Security Morally Just? NBA Star Defaults on $1.5M Mortgage Tiger Woods Mistress Loredana Jolie Pens Tell-All Gunmen Kill at Least 10 at Mexico Rehab Center Father of Missing North Carolina Girl Arrested Wasserman-Schultz's congressional office did not respond when asked to provide examples of Tea Partiers doing to the president's image what she described.
West aides said they didn't recall that ever happening at Tea Party protests in Florida.
"Clearly Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is nuts," West campaign manager Josh Grodin said. "She's a whack job. I have no idea what that means or where she's getting that from."
Surrounded by a small group of folks holding signs for Klein, Wasserman-Schultz argued at the demonstration that West is a "self-described right-wing extremist."
"In fact, he wears his extreme disrespect as a badge of honor. He thinks it's okay to objectify and denigrate women. He thinks it's okay to take away our reproductive freedom. He thinks it's okay to associate with people who refer to women as 'oral relief stations.' Well, we're here to tell him it is not okay," she said.
Wasserman-Schultz then went on to describe West as one of a group of "Tea Party extremists" that includes Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul and Massachusetts congressional candidate Jeff Perry who "have some real issues when it comes to women."
Paul has been accused of kidnapping a woman and making her worship an "Aqua Buddha." The woman at the center of the claim said it was a college prank and she freely participated.
Perry was accused by a woman of standing nearby and ignoring her screams when at age 14 she was strip-searched by a police officer under Perry's command. During an investigation of the event, Perry reportedly alternatively said that he was nearby during the 1991 episode and heard nothing, and later, that if something happened, he wasn't around to witness it. The officer involved was later convicted of indecent assault.
As for West's conduct, he writes for a magazine called "Wheels on the Road."
The magazine is run by an editor who goes by the name "Miami Mike." Klein reported Miami Mike to the U.S. Capitol Police last week for allegedly threatening him. Miami Mike told The Miami Herald that he told Klein he needed a "good a-- kicking, which I'd be more than happy to do even though I'm a lot older than you."
Miami Mike reportedly said he was annoyed that Klein accused West of having ties to The Outlaws, a Department of Justice-designated criminal gang. That accusation followed a local news report showing some guys at a West fundraiser at a park donning a clothing patch signifying a related gang. But Miami Mike said the same patch was also found on men spotted at a Klein event.
As for the magazine, which has as many pictures of good ol' boys as it does bikini-clad women, one contributor endorsed West in this month's edition, writing, "He wants to restore honor, integrity and character to Washington, something that it desperately needs and Allen West will bring it on. Let's give him a chance to work for American Patriots in Washington as he is a true American Patriot himself, unlike most of those brainless dumb a--es currently running the country down the toilet."
As for Wasserman-Schultz, she said if West doesn't address his issues with women, "we will with our voices and our vote." She added that voters can see a "clear choice" between Klein, who supports women, and West "who would take us backwards."
Wasserman-Shultz also said that one protester at a community meeting she hosted "shouted from the courtyard that I deserved breast cancer" because she supported the health care law.
"This is the kind of thing that they allow in their group, and I think it's unacceptable," she said of Tea Partiers.
The latest Sunshine State News polling shows the race in a virtual dead heat, with West at 47 percent to Klein's 44 percent. The Oct. 17-19 survey of likely voters had a 3.46 percent margin of error and 9 percent of those polled were undecided.
Change Needed in the House
These changes suggested by the Heritage Foundation make a lot of sense to me...It will be interesting to see how truly determined the Republican House will be to effecting REAL CHANGE when get elected into power next week. IF they don't heed the outcry in America today they find themselves shortly out of office and find that there's a new party in America that will effect change - The Tea Party!
Returning the People's House to the People
"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in March. No single statement better epitomizes everything that is wrong with how Congress works. While Speaker Pelosi was referring to Obamacare at the time, she could have been referring to any of the thousand-plus page bills Congress passed this year. This was not how the Framers intended Congress to be run.
The House of Representatives was designed to be a broad-based legislative body, more representative of widespread public opinion and responsive to the people than any other element of the federal government. This is why the Constitution grants the House exclusive power to initiate revenue bills and take the country to war. The Founders intended the House to be a decentralized lawmaking body, not one dominated by a few select leaders.
Unfortunately over the past several decades, leadership from both parties have concentrated more and more power into a select few leadership positions. This trend reached its zenith under Speaker Pelosi who routinely: 1) bypassed committees entirely by writing major legislation in the Speaker's office or via the Rules Committee; 2) created and funded parallel quasi-committees (e.g. the "Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming") to outflank dissenting committee chairs; and 3) prevented opponents from offering their own proposals or amendments on the House floor.
To help prevent these practices from continuing, The Heritage Foundation recommends that the party caucuses of both parties adopt the following rules: 1) Rank-and-file members, not party leaders, should be allowed equal opportunity to nominate and vote for each party's steering committee members; 2) Term limits should apply to all House party leadership positions, including the Speaker; and 3) A cap should be placed on the overall size of each committee so no one committee dominates the House.
The 112th Congress will not be sworn-in until January 2011. However, just weeks after the November 2 elections, each party will meet to create their steering committees, which then allocate positions of authority to govern the full body. If the American people send a strong message for change next week, both parties should strongly consider adopting the reforms above to show they have listened.
Returning the People's House to the People
"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in March. No single statement better epitomizes everything that is wrong with how Congress works. While Speaker Pelosi was referring to Obamacare at the time, she could have been referring to any of the thousand-plus page bills Congress passed this year. This was not how the Framers intended Congress to be run.
The House of Representatives was designed to be a broad-based legislative body, more representative of widespread public opinion and responsive to the people than any other element of the federal government. This is why the Constitution grants the House exclusive power to initiate revenue bills and take the country to war. The Founders intended the House to be a decentralized lawmaking body, not one dominated by a few select leaders.
Unfortunately over the past several decades, leadership from both parties have concentrated more and more power into a select few leadership positions. This trend reached its zenith under Speaker Pelosi who routinely: 1) bypassed committees entirely by writing major legislation in the Speaker's office or via the Rules Committee; 2) created and funded parallel quasi-committees (e.g. the "Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming") to outflank dissenting committee chairs; and 3) prevented opponents from offering their own proposals or amendments on the House floor.
To help prevent these practices from continuing, The Heritage Foundation recommends that the party caucuses of both parties adopt the following rules: 1) Rank-and-file members, not party leaders, should be allowed equal opportunity to nominate and vote for each party's steering committee members; 2) Term limits should apply to all House party leadership positions, including the Speaker; and 3) A cap should be placed on the overall size of each committee so no one committee dominates the House.
The 112th Congress will not be sworn-in until January 2011. However, just weeks after the November 2 elections, each party will meet to create their steering committees, which then allocate positions of authority to govern the full body. If the American people send a strong message for change next week, both parties should strongly consider adopting the reforms above to show they have listened.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Vote Republican on Nov 2nd....or the Taxes will Surely go UP, UP, UP if you leave it to Obama and the Democrats!
Deficit Commission Weighs Dropping Mortgage Interest Deduction
Published October 25, 2010 | FoxNews.com
The mortgage-interest deduction and other sacrosanct tax breaks are on the deficit commission's table as it works toward its deadline of providing a set of recommendations on balancing the budget by 2015.
The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that hugely popular tax breaks are part of the commission's consideration since they add up to about $1 trillion in potential government revenue.
Besides the mortgage-interest deductions, the newspaper reports that the child tax credits and pre-tax spending by employers for health insurance could also be killed.
Commission officials are expected to look at preserving these breaks but at lower levels, people familiar with the matter told the Journal.
The 18-member panel has until Dec. 1 to come up with a list of items that would then be sent to Congress for a vote. But since lobbyists and special interests often are working to prevent hikes on their favored tax breaks, none of the targeted tax increases may be realized.
With the commission already facing a backlash against any changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the commission's recommendations could result in an empty exercise.
Published October 25, 2010 | FoxNews.com
The mortgage-interest deduction and other sacrosanct tax breaks are on the deficit commission's table as it works toward its deadline of providing a set of recommendations on balancing the budget by 2015.
The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that hugely popular tax breaks are part of the commission's consideration since they add up to about $1 trillion in potential government revenue.
Besides the mortgage-interest deductions, the newspaper reports that the child tax credits and pre-tax spending by employers for health insurance could also be killed.
Commission officials are expected to look at preserving these breaks but at lower levels, people familiar with the matter told the Journal.
The 18-member panel has until Dec. 1 to come up with a list of items that would then be sent to Congress for a vote. But since lobbyists and special interests often are working to prevent hikes on their favored tax breaks, none of the targeted tax increases may be realized.
With the commission already facing a backlash against any changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the commission's recommendations could result in an empty exercise.
Obama Justice Department - A Political Ploy Again!
More Politics in the Department of Justice under Obama....Illinois gets a "pass" on the MOVEACT and some in the military may NOT be able to vote....But Obama's from Illinois so I guess he doesn't have the guts to hold them accountable!
Military Vote in Question After DOJ Gives Illinois 'Pass' on MOVE Act, Advocacy Group Warns
Published October 25, 2010 | FoxNews.com
Military voters from the land of Lincoln could be shut out of the midterm election after the Justice Department reached an agreement with Illinois that gave the state "a pass" for violating federal election law, an advocacy group warned Monday.
The Justice Department hammered out the court agreement Friday addressing the failure of 35 Illinois counties to send military and overseas absentee ballots 45 days before the election -- a requirement of the MOVE Act. The agreement gave voters from six of those counties a few extra days to send back their ballots but did not specifically address the other 29 counties.
Eric Eversole, a former Justice voting section attorney who runs the nonprofit Military Voter Protection Project, told FoxNews.com the deal effectively lets wayward Illinois election officials off the hook and does little to ensure the state's military voters get their ballots in time.
"For at least 29 counties, there were absolutely no consequences," he said. "Illinois is precisely the reason why you can't wait until a week before the election to try and resolve a clear violation of military voting rights."
For some overseas military voters, he said, "it might not get there."
The Illinois agreement was the final deal struck by the Justice Department to address states' failure to send their ballots out in time. While agreements with other states had tougher provisions compelling them to send out more express ballots and extending the deadline to receive them by many more days, Eversole's group said the Illinois decree gave "no meaningful relief" to military voters.
There is an online alternative for some military voters who do not receive paper ballots in time, and the administration is urging service members to use that option if they need to.
Bob Carey, director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program, said in a written statement that voters from 39 states can access full ballots online.
"That number includes New York and Illinois, where we have the most significant problems with late ballot delivery," he said.
Military voters can visit FVAP.gov to access the online system; all voters also can file federal write-in absentee ballots, which are available online and include federal candidates.
"Even if voters have not received their absentee ballots, it's not too late to vote," Carey said.
Nearly a dozen states have struggled to come into compliance with the MOVE Act. The Justice Department has reached agreements with eight of them, including Illinois, and has filed lawsuits against three of them. The department subsequently hammered out agreements with those three states -- New York, New Mexico and Wisconsin.
Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, said in a statement Friday that the Illinois agreement "will ensure that the state's military and overseas voters can participate in the upcoming federal elections."
The deadline to send out ballots, which 35 counties missed, was Sept. 18. For six counties where ballots were sent out between 16 and 20 days late, the agreement extends the deadline to receive ballots from Nov. 16 by two to three days. For those counties, the deadline to postmark the ballots moves from Nov. 1 to Nov. 2.
But the agreement does not offer a specific remedy for the 29 counties where ballots were mailed out between two and 12 days late. It instead includes a section that says election officials must mail out, either electronically or by express mail, "properly and timely requested" ballots they learn were not transmitted -- and then accept Nov. 2-postmarked ballots until Nov. 19. The decree also orders officials to make sure all requested electronic ballots are sent out.
Justice spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa said the 29 counties did not get extra time because they already have 14 extra days after the election for their ballots to be received. She said the ballots will get to them in time and if any voter's on-time ballot is not counted, "we can file a lawsuit."
Eversole, though, said the agreement just doesn't go far enough. He said it could have at the very least explicitly extended the deadline for all 35 counties. And he expressed concern that the agreement did little to prevent the violations from happening again in 2012, saying it sends the message that so long as states accept ballots after Election Day, they can ignore the 45-day requirement in the MOVE Act. The 45 days, though, were meant to give military voters enough time to receive and send back their ballots before Election Day.
"It's just the wrong message to send," Eversole said.
Military Vote in Question After DOJ Gives Illinois 'Pass' on MOVE Act, Advocacy Group Warns
Published October 25, 2010 | FoxNews.com
Military voters from the land of Lincoln could be shut out of the midterm election after the Justice Department reached an agreement with Illinois that gave the state "a pass" for violating federal election law, an advocacy group warned Monday.
The Justice Department hammered out the court agreement Friday addressing the failure of 35 Illinois counties to send military and overseas absentee ballots 45 days before the election -- a requirement of the MOVE Act. The agreement gave voters from six of those counties a few extra days to send back their ballots but did not specifically address the other 29 counties.
Eric Eversole, a former Justice voting section attorney who runs the nonprofit Military Voter Protection Project, told FoxNews.com the deal effectively lets wayward Illinois election officials off the hook and does little to ensure the state's military voters get their ballots in time.
"For at least 29 counties, there were absolutely no consequences," he said. "Illinois is precisely the reason why you can't wait until a week before the election to try and resolve a clear violation of military voting rights."
For some overseas military voters, he said, "it might not get there."
The Illinois agreement was the final deal struck by the Justice Department to address states' failure to send their ballots out in time. While agreements with other states had tougher provisions compelling them to send out more express ballots and extending the deadline to receive them by many more days, Eversole's group said the Illinois decree gave "no meaningful relief" to military voters.
There is an online alternative for some military voters who do not receive paper ballots in time, and the administration is urging service members to use that option if they need to.
Bob Carey, director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program, said in a written statement that voters from 39 states can access full ballots online.
"That number includes New York and Illinois, where we have the most significant problems with late ballot delivery," he said.
Military voters can visit FVAP.gov to access the online system; all voters also can file federal write-in absentee ballots, which are available online and include federal candidates.
"Even if voters have not received their absentee ballots, it's not too late to vote," Carey said.
Nearly a dozen states have struggled to come into compliance with the MOVE Act. The Justice Department has reached agreements with eight of them, including Illinois, and has filed lawsuits against three of them. The department subsequently hammered out agreements with those three states -- New York, New Mexico and Wisconsin.
Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, said in a statement Friday that the Illinois agreement "will ensure that the state's military and overseas voters can participate in the upcoming federal elections."
The deadline to send out ballots, which 35 counties missed, was Sept. 18. For six counties where ballots were sent out between 16 and 20 days late, the agreement extends the deadline to receive ballots from Nov. 16 by two to three days. For those counties, the deadline to postmark the ballots moves from Nov. 1 to Nov. 2.
But the agreement does not offer a specific remedy for the 29 counties where ballots were mailed out between two and 12 days late. It instead includes a section that says election officials must mail out, either electronically or by express mail, "properly and timely requested" ballots they learn were not transmitted -- and then accept Nov. 2-postmarked ballots until Nov. 19. The decree also orders officials to make sure all requested electronic ballots are sent out.
Justice spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa said the 29 counties did not get extra time because they already have 14 extra days after the election for their ballots to be received. She said the ballots will get to them in time and if any voter's on-time ballot is not counted, "we can file a lawsuit."
Eversole, though, said the agreement just doesn't go far enough. He said it could have at the very least explicitly extended the deadline for all 35 counties. And he expressed concern that the agreement did little to prevent the violations from happening again in 2012, saying it sends the message that so long as states accept ballots after Election Day, they can ignore the 45-day requirement in the MOVE Act. The 45 days, though, were meant to give military voters enough time to receive and send back their ballots before Election Day.
"It's just the wrong message to send," Eversole said.
Another lying Democrat!
Here's another crazy democrat congresswoman out there spewing lies....lies so outrageous that it's evident that they can't be true. Do they all think that the American public is just STUPID?....This woman needs to go home...let's hope her constituents can see through her and vote her out....they need to send her back to New York where she came from.
The Time Has Indeed Come!
No Elected Official should be above the law of the land.....Today that's not the case and it needs to change!...
The Time Has Indeed Come!
Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.
This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.
An idea whose time has come!
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest was to exempt themselves from the HealthcareReform ... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law.
I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independentor whatever. The self-serving must stop.
A Constitutional Convention - this is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come. And, with the advent of modern communication, the process can be moved along with incredible speed. There is talk out there that the "government" doesn't care what the people think. That is irrelevant. It is incumbent on the population to address elected officials to the wrongs afflicted against the populace...you and me.
Think about this...
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.
I'm asking each addressee to forward this Email to a minimum of twenty people on their Address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.
In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."
You are one of my 20+.
Keep it going. Spread the word!
The Time Has Indeed Come!
Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.
This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.
An idea whose time has come!
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest was to exempt themselves from the HealthcareReform ... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law.
I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independentor whatever. The self-serving must stop.
A Constitutional Convention - this is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come. And, with the advent of modern communication, the process can be moved along with incredible speed. There is talk out there that the "government" doesn't care what the people think. That is irrelevant. It is incumbent on the population to address elected officials to the wrongs afflicted against the populace...you and me.
Think about this...
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.
I'm asking each addressee to forward this Email to a minimum of twenty people on their Address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.
In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."
You are one of my 20+.
Keep it going. Spread the word!
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Why not to vote for the Democrats!
Sharron Angle Ad tells a great story on why NOT to vote for Reid, Pelosi or the Democrats this time and why NOT to vote for Obama in 2012!
Another Shady, Dishonest Democrat!
Jack Conway may have tipped brother off about drug investigation
By Alex Pappas--The Daily Caller | Published: 2:31 PM 10/23/2010 | Updated: 1:37 PM 10/24/2010
Jack Conway, the Democratic attorney general of Kentucky who is running for U.S. Senate, says he was not involved in a recent criminal investigation involving his brother and drug trafficking.
But it appears he — along with other law enforcement officials — tipped his brother off about the investigation.
The campaign made a statement distancing Conway from his brother’s investigation in a Saturday story in Louisville’s Courier-Journal. The story was the first to disclose this summer’s drug probe.
In August, authorities decided not to file charges against Conway’s brother, Matthew Conway, according to the report.
The story notes how a supporter who overheard a narcotics detective speaking about the investigation alerted Jack Conway. Conway’s campaign says the attorney general subsequently aided his brother in getting an attorney.
The Courier-Journal also says two detectives accused of leaking the fact that an investigation was taking place to Matthew Conway have been placed on administrative leave until it’s determined whether they violated any policies.
After hearing rumors about the drug investigation last week, The Daily Caller placed a call to Matthew Conway’s office. He did not return a request for comment.
Jack Conway is running against Republican Rand Paul in November’s U.S. Senate election. His campaign did not immediately return an e-mail seeking elaboration Saturday as to whether Conway, as attorney general, took any steps to involve himself in the investigation.
By Alex Pappas--The Daily Caller | Published: 2:31 PM 10/23/2010 | Updated: 1:37 PM 10/24/2010
Jack Conway, the Democratic attorney general of Kentucky who is running for U.S. Senate, says he was not involved in a recent criminal investigation involving his brother and drug trafficking.
But it appears he — along with other law enforcement officials — tipped his brother off about the investigation.
The campaign made a statement distancing Conway from his brother’s investigation in a Saturday story in Louisville’s Courier-Journal. The story was the first to disclose this summer’s drug probe.
In August, authorities decided not to file charges against Conway’s brother, Matthew Conway, according to the report.
The story notes how a supporter who overheard a narcotics detective speaking about the investigation alerted Jack Conway. Conway’s campaign says the attorney general subsequently aided his brother in getting an attorney.
The Courier-Journal also says two detectives accused of leaking the fact that an investigation was taking place to Matthew Conway have been placed on administrative leave until it’s determined whether they violated any policies.
After hearing rumors about the drug investigation last week, The Daily Caller placed a call to Matthew Conway’s office. He did not return a request for comment.
Jack Conway is running against Republican Rand Paul in November’s U.S. Senate election. His campaign did not immediately return an e-mail seeking elaboration Saturday as to whether Conway, as attorney general, took any steps to involve himself in the investigation.
More evidence that the Democrats are in real Trouble!
More evidence that there's a huge move afoot in America today...Now we have make it count at the polls on November 2nd....
A chart to make Democrats’ blood run cold
By Jon Ward - The Daily Caller | Published: 10:07 AM 10/24/2010 | Updated: 12:09 PM 10/24/2010
Page eight of a new poll out this week by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press shows which party 28 different categories of voters supported in 2006 – the last midterm election – and who they favor now.
In 2006, 17 categories favored Democrats, which helped them take control of the House and Senate from Republicans. Democrats picked up six Senate seats and 30 House seats.
In the Pew Poll, 23 of the 28 categories of voters now favor Republicans. What’s more, 22 of the 28 categories support the GOP by 49 percent or more. There are only four categories of voters that are under 40 percent: those making less than $30,000 a year, at 39 percent; voters who are unaffiliated with a religion, at 37 percent; black voters, at 10 percent; and Democrats, at 8 percent.
What is most remarkable is how far some categories have swung away from Democrats and toward the GOP.
Democrats have lost a significant advantage with women voters, who supported Democrats by a 48 to 41 percent margin in 2006, but who have now flipped to supporting the GOP by 49 to 43 percent.
Voters over 65 years old were for Democrats by a 48 to 42 percent margin four years ago. They now favor Republicans by 52 to 38 percent. That’s a 20 point swing.
Perhaps most damaging for Democrats, they have suffered huge losses among Independents. Democrats were up 7 points in 2006, by 42 to 35 percent. They now are down 19 points, 49 to 30 percent. That’s a 26-point swing.
That point movement matches exactly what’s happened with white voters in mainline Protestant denominations. Democrats were even with the GOP among these voters in 2006, but are now down by 26 points, 58 to 32 percent.
Geographically, the biggest swing has been in the Midwest, where voters have come back to the GOP in droves. Democrats had an 11-point advantage in the Midwest in 2006, 51 to 40 percent. This year, Republicans are up 16 points, 53 to 37 percent.
The smallest swing of any group away from Democrats – besides black voters, where Democrats have seen only a one point loss – is out West, where they were up 47 to 44 percent in 2006 but are now down 45 to 43 percent.
Even in those four categories under 40 percent support for the Republicans, there has been massive movement away from Democrats.
Take voters unaffiliated with any religion. In 2006, 71 percent of those voters said they supported Democrats, while only 20 percent were for Republicans. Now, Democrats have lost 19 points in this group, while Republicans have gained 17 points. The Democrat advantage went from a gaping 51 points to just 15 points.
Voters making less than $30,000 a year also swung toward Republicans by 14 points, moving to 55 percent support for Democrats down from 62 percent, and to 39 percent support for the GOP up from 32 percent.
A chart to make Democrats’ blood run cold
By Jon Ward - The Daily Caller | Published: 10:07 AM 10/24/2010 | Updated: 12:09 PM 10/24/2010
Page eight of a new poll out this week by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press shows which party 28 different categories of voters supported in 2006 – the last midterm election – and who they favor now.
In 2006, 17 categories favored Democrats, which helped them take control of the House and Senate from Republicans. Democrats picked up six Senate seats and 30 House seats.
In the Pew Poll, 23 of the 28 categories of voters now favor Republicans. What’s more, 22 of the 28 categories support the GOP by 49 percent or more. There are only four categories of voters that are under 40 percent: those making less than $30,000 a year, at 39 percent; voters who are unaffiliated with a religion, at 37 percent; black voters, at 10 percent; and Democrats, at 8 percent.
What is most remarkable is how far some categories have swung away from Democrats and toward the GOP.
Democrats have lost a significant advantage with women voters, who supported Democrats by a 48 to 41 percent margin in 2006, but who have now flipped to supporting the GOP by 49 to 43 percent.
Voters over 65 years old were for Democrats by a 48 to 42 percent margin four years ago. They now favor Republicans by 52 to 38 percent. That’s a 20 point swing.
Perhaps most damaging for Democrats, they have suffered huge losses among Independents. Democrats were up 7 points in 2006, by 42 to 35 percent. They now are down 19 points, 49 to 30 percent. That’s a 26-point swing.
That point movement matches exactly what’s happened with white voters in mainline Protestant denominations. Democrats were even with the GOP among these voters in 2006, but are now down by 26 points, 58 to 32 percent.
Geographically, the biggest swing has been in the Midwest, where voters have come back to the GOP in droves. Democrats had an 11-point advantage in the Midwest in 2006, 51 to 40 percent. This year, Republicans are up 16 points, 53 to 37 percent.
The smallest swing of any group away from Democrats – besides black voters, where Democrats have seen only a one point loss – is out West, where they were up 47 to 44 percent in 2006 but are now down 45 to 43 percent.
Even in those four categories under 40 percent support for the Republicans, there has been massive movement away from Democrats.
Take voters unaffiliated with any religion. In 2006, 71 percent of those voters said they supported Democrats, while only 20 percent were for Republicans. Now, Democrats have lost 19 points in this group, while Republicans have gained 17 points. The Democrat advantage went from a gaping 51 points to just 15 points.
Voters making less than $30,000 a year also swung toward Republicans by 14 points, moving to 55 percent support for Democrats down from 62 percent, and to 39 percent support for the GOP up from 32 percent.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Once Again with Democrats it's less about Integrity and more about what's good for them!
Don't plan on any Democrats keeping their word after the election! For Democrats their word doesn't mean much!
In tight races, some Democrats cut corners on ethics pledges
By Jonathan Strong - The Daily Caller | Published: 3:31 PM 10/22/2010 | Updated: 6:06 PM 10/22/2010
By Jonathan Strong - The Daily Caller
Facing unusually stiff competition at the ballot box, at least two Democratic congressmen are cutting corners on the ethics pledges they made regarding whom they’ll accept money from, disclosure records show.
Rep. Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, has accepted nearly $50,000 from individuals employed by companies that received government bailouts under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
Frank has pledged he will not accept funds from companies that received TARP money, but the donations appear to skirt the pledge.
In a separate race, Ohio Democrat Rep. Zack Space recently accepted a $1,000 donation from the wife of a D.C.-based lobbyist, violating the spirit of his pledge not to accept money from lobbyists, watchdog groups say.
Space, who represents the district formerly held by Republican Rep. Bob Ney, who went to jail for corruption related to GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff, pledged he would not accept lobbyists’ dollars when he first ran for the seat.
Space has been criticized, though, both for accepting over $1 million from corporate political action committees and the immediate family members of lobbyists.
Now in the heat of a campaign in which a Republican wave has put as many as 100 Democrats at risk of losing their congressional seats, Space is again accepting money from the spouse of a lobbyist.
Space accepted $1,000 from Laura Fallin Redding, married to lobbyist Robert L. Redding, records show.
With so many Democrats in danger, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee said members are ditching their pledges because they desperately need the money.
“Democrats have hit the panic button, and that’s why Speaker Pelosi’s allies, like Barney Frank and Zack Space, are abandoning the pledges they made. They need all the help they can get to fend off tough challenges this fall. It’s obviously more important to Barney Frank and Zack Space to save their political careers than it is to keep their word with voters,” said NRCC spokesman Tory Mazzola.
Neither Frank nor Space returned requests for comment.
In tight races, some Democrats cut corners on ethics pledges
By Jonathan Strong - The Daily Caller | Published: 3:31 PM 10/22/2010 | Updated: 6:06 PM 10/22/2010
By Jonathan Strong - The Daily Caller
Facing unusually stiff competition at the ballot box, at least two Democratic congressmen are cutting corners on the ethics pledges they made regarding whom they’ll accept money from, disclosure records show.
Rep. Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, has accepted nearly $50,000 from individuals employed by companies that received government bailouts under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
Frank has pledged he will not accept funds from companies that received TARP money, but the donations appear to skirt the pledge.
In a separate race, Ohio Democrat Rep. Zack Space recently accepted a $1,000 donation from the wife of a D.C.-based lobbyist, violating the spirit of his pledge not to accept money from lobbyists, watchdog groups say.
Space, who represents the district formerly held by Republican Rep. Bob Ney, who went to jail for corruption related to GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff, pledged he would not accept lobbyists’ dollars when he first ran for the seat.
Space has been criticized, though, both for accepting over $1 million from corporate political action committees and the immediate family members of lobbyists.
Now in the heat of a campaign in which a Republican wave has put as many as 100 Democrats at risk of losing their congressional seats, Space is again accepting money from the spouse of a lobbyist.
Space accepted $1,000 from Laura Fallin Redding, married to lobbyist Robert L. Redding, records show.
With so many Democrats in danger, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee said members are ditching their pledges because they desperately need the money.
“Democrats have hit the panic button, and that’s why Speaker Pelosi’s allies, like Barney Frank and Zack Space, are abandoning the pledges they made. They need all the help they can get to fend off tough challenges this fall. It’s obviously more important to Barney Frank and Zack Space to save their political careers than it is to keep their word with voters,” said NRCC spokesman Tory Mazzola.
Neither Frank nor Space returned requests for comment.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Reply and Letter to Kay Bailey Hutchinson..
I wrote to Kay Bailey Hutchinson to ask for her support to defund NPR....what I got is the reply below that is generic, and basically says she will continue to support it.....the response has no passion, no boldness, no concern that NPR is being run by liberals.....
So I sent her the response below which enbodies my concerns that the "old guard" republicans will not be able to be bold enough to really effect the change we need....
I would encourage you to communicate to your congressmen/women in a simular manner. They have to hear it from us...we have to set our expectations so we will not be disappointed again!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you old time, traditional Republicans do not take BOLD action after this next election (rather than playing the safe game as you have in the past) you will not be given another chance to represent us. As you will see this time many old time traditional politicians will be defeated because they have gotten complacent and not acted with boldness to support the will of the American People. The American people are fed up with politicians both Republican and Democrat, but the Democrats' inexcusable performance over the past 21 months makes you as Republicans the best choice. But with Tea Party enthusiasm and the American People tuned into what is going on in Washington, don't expect a free lunch in the future just because you are Republican. Americans want drastically smaller government...drastically reduced spending...greater national security and defense...No Earmarks....a Department of Justice that is not corrupt and influenced by political considerations....the reestablishment of Constitutional Freedoms, Capitalism, and Free Trade.....Lower Taxes.....the Repeal of Obamacare and the move away from the Welfare State and the Socialism that Obama is trying to put into place.
Anything other than boldness will be seen as weakness....As a Republican Leader of long standing YOU need to take a bold position along with the rest of the leadership of the party. If you don't ....YOU WILL BE GONE when you come up for reelection.
Once again in a time where our deficits are out of control we CAN'T afford to be using taxpayer money to support Radio and TV.....!!! And if you can't see that easy opportunity then I worry how you will ever see the challenges that Social Security and Medicare funding will present.
I am a life long Republican, but I am concerned that you "fat cats" with years in Washington Politics will not be up to the bold actions that will be required after these midterms. Courtesy and Decorum need to be out the door....It's time to get Tough, Bold and get the People's work done!
Republicans have my vote again this time.....but if you screw it up, you will not have it the next time and there might be a national Tea Party political party!
Respectfully,
Steve Kendziera
Your Constituent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
To: stevekendziera@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 10:35:19 AM
Subject: Constituent Response From Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding funding for public broadcasting. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.
Public television and radio deliver important educational services for Americans of all ages and cultures, which is why I have supported funding in the past. However, every funding priority, including public radio and television, must be reviewed by Congress as we work to control federal spending. Increasing private support to preserve public broadcasting's quality programming is essential so the taxpayer's burden is not onerous. You may be sure I will keep your comments in mind as we endeavor to formulate a federal budget during this era of heightened security.
I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov
So I sent her the response below which enbodies my concerns that the "old guard" republicans will not be able to be bold enough to really effect the change we need....
I would encourage you to communicate to your congressmen/women in a simular manner. They have to hear it from us...we have to set our expectations so we will not be disappointed again!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you old time, traditional Republicans do not take BOLD action after this next election (rather than playing the safe game as you have in the past) you will not be given another chance to represent us. As you will see this time many old time traditional politicians will be defeated because they have gotten complacent and not acted with boldness to support the will of the American People. The American people are fed up with politicians both Republican and Democrat, but the Democrats' inexcusable performance over the past 21 months makes you as Republicans the best choice. But with Tea Party enthusiasm and the American People tuned into what is going on in Washington, don't expect a free lunch in the future just because you are Republican. Americans want drastically smaller government...drastically reduced spending...greater national security and defense...No Earmarks....a Department of Justice that is not corrupt and influenced by political considerations....the reestablishment of Constitutional Freedoms, Capitalism, and Free Trade.....Lower Taxes.....the Repeal of Obamacare and the move away from the Welfare State and the Socialism that Obama is trying to put into place.
Anything other than boldness will be seen as weakness....As a Republican Leader of long standing YOU need to take a bold position along with the rest of the leadership of the party. If you don't ....YOU WILL BE GONE when you come up for reelection.
Once again in a time where our deficits are out of control we CAN'T afford to be using taxpayer money to support Radio and TV.....!!! And if you can't see that easy opportunity then I worry how you will ever see the challenges that Social Security and Medicare funding will present.
I am a life long Republican, but I am concerned that you "fat cats" with years in Washington Politics will not be up to the bold actions that will be required after these midterms. Courtesy and Decorum need to be out the door....It's time to get Tough, Bold and get the People's work done!
Republicans have my vote again this time.....but if you screw it up, you will not have it the next time and there might be a national Tea Party political party!
Respectfully,
Steve Kendziera
Your Constituent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
To: stevekendziera@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 10:35:19 AM
Subject: Constituent Response From Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding funding for public broadcasting. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.
Public television and radio deliver important educational services for Americans of all ages and cultures, which is why I have supported funding in the past. However, every funding priority, including public radio and television, must be reviewed by Congress as we work to control federal spending. Increasing private support to preserve public broadcasting's quality programming is essential so the taxpayer's burden is not onerous. You may be sure I will keep your comments in mind as we endeavor to formulate a federal budget during this era of heightened security.
I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov
Interesting Video you MUST see!
Interesting short videa that unfortunately could become truth IF we don't get a real change in national leadership!
Obama and his Agena are EXTREME, not the Tea Party
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor: Obama is extreme not Tea Party
By Jeff Winkler - The Daily Caller | Published: 9:02 AM 10/22/2010
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor said it is President Obama and his political agenda that is out of the mainstream, not the Tea Party movement.
“This administration and the Obama/Pelosi agenda that has been unfolded over the last 20 months is the extreme agenda,” he said on CBS Friday. Cantor rejected assertions that the Tea Party is an extremist movement.
Cantor said Democrats and their allies have failed to recognize that many people in this country are scared of an over-reaching government and that’s the extremism they want to see stopped.
“People are tired of Washington spending the money we don’t have, they’re tired of the expanse of government into almost every aspect of our lives,” Cantor said. “And frankly, they want to see us return to the America that has always stood as the beacon of prosperity to the world.”
By Jeff Winkler - The Daily Caller | Published: 9:02 AM 10/22/2010
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor said it is President Obama and his political agenda that is out of the mainstream, not the Tea Party movement.
“This administration and the Obama/Pelosi agenda that has been unfolded over the last 20 months is the extreme agenda,” he said on CBS Friday. Cantor rejected assertions that the Tea Party is an extremist movement.
Cantor said Democrats and their allies have failed to recognize that many people in this country are scared of an over-reaching government and that’s the extremism they want to see stopped.
“People are tired of Washington spending the money we don’t have, they’re tired of the expanse of government into almost every aspect of our lives,” Cantor said. “And frankly, they want to see us return to the America that has always stood as the beacon of prosperity to the world.”
The Continued Liberal Takeover of America's Media....It really is turning into State-Run Media!
The REAL concern here is the continued takeover of the media by liberal/biased forces that greatly threaten the objectivity of the information we receive and threaten freedom of speech. There was not many positions that Juan Williams took that I personally agreed with, however he certainly has the right to take those positions and express them over the privately funded airwaves. I use this blog to express my views, many of which I know some folks do not agree with....BUT I am not funded with public funds and neither should NPR be funded with ANY Taxpayer money. If this liberal NPR station what's to really compete and fund themselves then I am certain they will fail....just like CNN and MSNBC are failing today and Air America has already failed....
Liberal Billionaires like George Soros can buy and run any media outlets they want, but none of those should be funded by American Taxpayer dollars and Americans need to be aware that we are in the midst of a one sided takeoever of our media which very well might eventually impact our basic right of Freedom of Speech!
JUAN WILLIAMS: I Was Fired for Telling the Truth
By Juan Williams
Published October 21, 2010 | FoxNews.com
Yesterday NPR fired me for telling the truth. The truth is that I worry when I am getting on an airplane and see people dressed in garb that identifies them first and foremost as Muslims.
This is not a bigoted statement. It is a statement of my feelings, my fears after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 by radical Muslims. In a debate with Bill O’Reilly I revealed my fears to set up the case for not making rash judgments about people of any faith. I pointed out that the Atlanta Olympic bomber -- as well as Timothy McVeigh and the people who protest against gay rights at military funerals -- are Christians but we journalists don’t identify them by their religion.
And I made it clear that all Americans have to be careful not to let fears lead to the violation of anyone’s constitutional rights, be it to build a mosque, carry the Koran or drive a New York cab without the fear of having your throat slashed. Bill and I argued after I said he has to take care in the way he talks about the 9/11 attacks so as not to provoke bigotry.
This was an honest, sensitive debate hosted by O’Reilly. At the start of the debate Bill invited me, challenged me to tell him where he was wrong for stating the fact that “Muslims killed us there,” in the 9/11 attacks. He made that initial statement on the ABC program, "The View," which caused some of the co-hosts to walk off the set. They did not return until O’Reilly apologized for not being clear that he did not mean the country was attacked by all Muslims but by extremist radical Muslims.
I took Bill’s challenge and began by saying that political correctness can cause people to become so paralyzed that they don’t deal with reality. And the fact is that it was a group of Muslims who attacked the U.S. I added that radicalism has continued to pose a threat to the United States and much of the world. That threat was expressed in court last week by the unsuccessful Times Square bomber who bragged that he was just one of the first engaged in a “Muslim War” against the United States. -- There is no doubt that there's a real war and people are trying to kill us.
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Fox Programming Pulled From Cablevision As Contract Ends Dollar Surge Crushes Stocks; Dow Drops 165 Was NPR Right to Fire Juan Williams? NPR Under Fire After Canning Juan Williams RAW DATA: NPR Internal Memo on Juan Williams Mary Katharine Ham, a conservative writer, joined the debate to say that it is important to make the distinction between moderate and extreme Islam for conservatives who support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on the premise that the U.S. can build up moderate elements in those countries and push out the extremists. I later added that we don’t want anyone attacked on American streets because “they heard rhetoric from Bill O’Reilly and they act crazy.” Bill agreed and said the man who slashed the cabby was a “nut” and so was the Florida pastor who wanted to burn the Koran.
My point in recounting this debate is to show this was in the best American tradition of a fair, full-throated and honest discourse about the issues of the day. -- There was no bigotry, no crude provocation, no support for anti-Muslim sentiments of any kind.
Two days later, Ellen Weiss, my boss at NPR called to say I had crossed the line, essentially accusing me of bigotry. She took the admission of my visceral fear of people dressed in Muslim garb at the airport as evidence that I am a bigot. She said there are people who wear Muslim garb to work at NPR and they are offended by my comments. She never suggested that I had discriminated against anyone. Instead she continued to ask me what did I mean and I told her I said what I meant. Then she said she did not sense remorse from me. I said I made an honest statement. She informed me that I had violated NPR’s values for editorial commentary and she was terminating my contract as a news analyst.
I pointed out that I had not made my comments on NPR. She asked if I would have said the same thing on NPR. I said yes, because in keeping with my values I will tell people the truth about feelings and opinions.
I asked why she would fire me without speaking to me face to face and she said there was nothing I could say to change her mind, the decision had been confirmed above her, and there was no point to meeting in person. To say the least this is a chilling assault on free speech. The critical importance of honest journalism and a free flowing, respectful national conversation needs to be had in our country. But it is being buried as collateral damage in a war whose battles include political correctness and ideological orthodoxy.
I say an ideological battle because my comments on "The O’Reilly Factor" are being distorted by the self-righteous ideological, left-wing leadership at NPR. They are taking bits and pieces of what I said to go after me for daring to have a conversation with leading conservative thinkers. They loathe the fact that I appear on Fox News. They don’t notice that I am challenging Bill O’Reilly and trading ideas with Sean Hannity. In their hubris they think by talking with O’Reilly or Hannity I am lending them legitimacy. Believe me, Bill O’Reilly (and Sean, too) is a major force in American culture and politics whether or not I appear on his show.
Years ago NPR tried to stop me from going on "The Factor." When I refused they insisted that I not identify myself as an NPR journalist. I asked them if they thought people did not know where I appeared on the air as a daily talk show host, national correspondent and news analyst. They refused to budge.
This self-reverential attitude was on display several years ago when NPR asked me to help them get an interview with President George W. Bush. I have longstanding relationships with some of the key players in his White House due to my years as a political writer at The Washington Post. When I got the interview some in management expressed anger that in the course of the interview I said to the president that Americans pray for him but don’t understand some of his actions. They said it was wrong to say Americans pray for him.
Later on the 50th anniversary of the Little Rock crisis President Bush offered to do an NPR interview with me about race relations in America. NPR management refused to take the interview on the grounds that the White House offered it to me and not their other correspondents and hosts. One NPR executive implied I was in the administration’s pocket, which is a joke, and there was no other reason to offer me the interview. Gee, I guess NPR news executives never read my bestselling history of the civil rights movement “Eyes on the Prize – America’s Civil Rights Years,” or my highly acclaimed biography “Thurgood Marshall –American Revolutionary.” I guess they never noticed that "ENOUGH," my last book on the state of black leadership in America, found a place on the New York Times bestseller list.
This all led to NPR demanding that I either agree to let them control my appearances on Fox News and my writings or sign a new contract that removed me from their staff but allowed me to continue working as a news analyst with an office at NPR. The idea was that they would be insulated against anything I said or wrote outside of NPR because they could say that I was not a staff member. What happened is that they immediately began to cut my salary and diminish my on-air role. This week when I pointed out that they had forced me to sign a contract that gave them distance from my commentary outside of NPR I was cut off, ignored and fired.
And now they have used an honest statement of feeling as the basis for a charge of bigotry to create a basis for firing me. Well, now that I no longer work for NPR let me give you my opinion. This is an outrageous violation of journalistic standards and ethics by management that has no use for a diversity of opinion, ideas or a diversity of staff (I was the only black male on the air). This is evidence of one-party rule and one sided thinking at NPR that leads to enforced ideology, speech and writing. It leads to people, especially journalists, being sent to the gulag for raising the wrong questions and displaying independence of thought.
Daniel Schorr, my fellow NPR commentator who died earlier this year, used to talk about the initial shock of finding himself on President Nixon’s enemies list. I can only imagine Dan’s revulsion to realize that today NPR treats a journalist who has worked for them for ten years with less regard, less respect for the value of independence of thought and embrace of real debate across political lines, than Nixon ever displayed.
Juan Williams is now a full-time Fox News contributor.
Liberal Billionaires like George Soros can buy and run any media outlets they want, but none of those should be funded by American Taxpayer dollars and Americans need to be aware that we are in the midst of a one sided takeoever of our media which very well might eventually impact our basic right of Freedom of Speech!
JUAN WILLIAMS: I Was Fired for Telling the Truth
By Juan Williams
Published October 21, 2010 | FoxNews.com
Yesterday NPR fired me for telling the truth. The truth is that I worry when I am getting on an airplane and see people dressed in garb that identifies them first and foremost as Muslims.
This is not a bigoted statement. It is a statement of my feelings, my fears after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 by radical Muslims. In a debate with Bill O’Reilly I revealed my fears to set up the case for not making rash judgments about people of any faith. I pointed out that the Atlanta Olympic bomber -- as well as Timothy McVeigh and the people who protest against gay rights at military funerals -- are Christians but we journalists don’t identify them by their religion.
And I made it clear that all Americans have to be careful not to let fears lead to the violation of anyone’s constitutional rights, be it to build a mosque, carry the Koran or drive a New York cab without the fear of having your throat slashed. Bill and I argued after I said he has to take care in the way he talks about the 9/11 attacks so as not to provoke bigotry.
This was an honest, sensitive debate hosted by O’Reilly. At the start of the debate Bill invited me, challenged me to tell him where he was wrong for stating the fact that “Muslims killed us there,” in the 9/11 attacks. He made that initial statement on the ABC program, "The View," which caused some of the co-hosts to walk off the set. They did not return until O’Reilly apologized for not being clear that he did not mean the country was attacked by all Muslims but by extremist radical Muslims.
I took Bill’s challenge and began by saying that political correctness can cause people to become so paralyzed that they don’t deal with reality. And the fact is that it was a group of Muslims who attacked the U.S. I added that radicalism has continued to pose a threat to the United States and much of the world. That threat was expressed in court last week by the unsuccessful Times Square bomber who bragged that he was just one of the first engaged in a “Muslim War” against the United States. -- There is no doubt that there's a real war and people are trying to kill us.
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Fox Programming Pulled From Cablevision As Contract Ends Dollar Surge Crushes Stocks; Dow Drops 165 Was NPR Right to Fire Juan Williams? NPR Under Fire After Canning Juan Williams RAW DATA: NPR Internal Memo on Juan Williams Mary Katharine Ham, a conservative writer, joined the debate to say that it is important to make the distinction between moderate and extreme Islam for conservatives who support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on the premise that the U.S. can build up moderate elements in those countries and push out the extremists. I later added that we don’t want anyone attacked on American streets because “they heard rhetoric from Bill O’Reilly and they act crazy.” Bill agreed and said the man who slashed the cabby was a “nut” and so was the Florida pastor who wanted to burn the Koran.
My point in recounting this debate is to show this was in the best American tradition of a fair, full-throated and honest discourse about the issues of the day. -- There was no bigotry, no crude provocation, no support for anti-Muslim sentiments of any kind.
Two days later, Ellen Weiss, my boss at NPR called to say I had crossed the line, essentially accusing me of bigotry. She took the admission of my visceral fear of people dressed in Muslim garb at the airport as evidence that I am a bigot. She said there are people who wear Muslim garb to work at NPR and they are offended by my comments. She never suggested that I had discriminated against anyone. Instead she continued to ask me what did I mean and I told her I said what I meant. Then she said she did not sense remorse from me. I said I made an honest statement. She informed me that I had violated NPR’s values for editorial commentary and she was terminating my contract as a news analyst.
I pointed out that I had not made my comments on NPR. She asked if I would have said the same thing on NPR. I said yes, because in keeping with my values I will tell people the truth about feelings and opinions.
I asked why she would fire me without speaking to me face to face and she said there was nothing I could say to change her mind, the decision had been confirmed above her, and there was no point to meeting in person. To say the least this is a chilling assault on free speech. The critical importance of honest journalism and a free flowing, respectful national conversation needs to be had in our country. But it is being buried as collateral damage in a war whose battles include political correctness and ideological orthodoxy.
I say an ideological battle because my comments on "The O’Reilly Factor" are being distorted by the self-righteous ideological, left-wing leadership at NPR. They are taking bits and pieces of what I said to go after me for daring to have a conversation with leading conservative thinkers. They loathe the fact that I appear on Fox News. They don’t notice that I am challenging Bill O’Reilly and trading ideas with Sean Hannity. In their hubris they think by talking with O’Reilly or Hannity I am lending them legitimacy. Believe me, Bill O’Reilly (and Sean, too) is a major force in American culture and politics whether or not I appear on his show.
Years ago NPR tried to stop me from going on "The Factor." When I refused they insisted that I not identify myself as an NPR journalist. I asked them if they thought people did not know where I appeared on the air as a daily talk show host, national correspondent and news analyst. They refused to budge.
This self-reverential attitude was on display several years ago when NPR asked me to help them get an interview with President George W. Bush. I have longstanding relationships with some of the key players in his White House due to my years as a political writer at The Washington Post. When I got the interview some in management expressed anger that in the course of the interview I said to the president that Americans pray for him but don’t understand some of his actions. They said it was wrong to say Americans pray for him.
Later on the 50th anniversary of the Little Rock crisis President Bush offered to do an NPR interview with me about race relations in America. NPR management refused to take the interview on the grounds that the White House offered it to me and not their other correspondents and hosts. One NPR executive implied I was in the administration’s pocket, which is a joke, and there was no other reason to offer me the interview. Gee, I guess NPR news executives never read my bestselling history of the civil rights movement “Eyes on the Prize – America’s Civil Rights Years,” or my highly acclaimed biography “Thurgood Marshall –American Revolutionary.” I guess they never noticed that "ENOUGH," my last book on the state of black leadership in America, found a place on the New York Times bestseller list.
This all led to NPR demanding that I either agree to let them control my appearances on Fox News and my writings or sign a new contract that removed me from their staff but allowed me to continue working as a news analyst with an office at NPR. The idea was that they would be insulated against anything I said or wrote outside of NPR because they could say that I was not a staff member. What happened is that they immediately began to cut my salary and diminish my on-air role. This week when I pointed out that they had forced me to sign a contract that gave them distance from my commentary outside of NPR I was cut off, ignored and fired.
And now they have used an honest statement of feeling as the basis for a charge of bigotry to create a basis for firing me. Well, now that I no longer work for NPR let me give you my opinion. This is an outrageous violation of journalistic standards and ethics by management that has no use for a diversity of opinion, ideas or a diversity of staff (I was the only black male on the air). This is evidence of one-party rule and one sided thinking at NPR that leads to enforced ideology, speech and writing. It leads to people, especially journalists, being sent to the gulag for raising the wrong questions and displaying independence of thought.
Daniel Schorr, my fellow NPR commentator who died earlier this year, used to talk about the initial shock of finding himself on President Nixon’s enemies list. I can only imagine Dan’s revulsion to realize that today NPR treats a journalist who has worked for them for ten years with less regard, less respect for the value of independence of thought and embrace of real debate across political lines, than Nixon ever displayed.
Juan Williams is now a full-time Fox News contributor.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
More Reasons to Defund NPR!
A Brief History of NPR's Intolerance and Imbalance
Published October 21, 2010 | FoxNews.com
From calling Tea Party members “Tea Baggers,” to saying that "the evaporation of 4 million" Christians would leave the world a better place, to suggesting that God could give former Sen. Jesse Helms or his family AIDS from a blood transfusion, NPR's personalities have said some pretty un-PC things in the past. A look at the record reveals no shortage of intolerant statements and unbalanced segments on the publicly sponsored network's airwaves.
Here's an incomplete list of questionable and controversial content that has aired on NPR or has been uttered by its employees:
-- In June, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) said it was easy to see why some refer to NPR as "National Palestine Radio" following a June 2 segment hosted by Tom Ashbrook on the Gaza flotilla incident. The segment featured five guests -- none of whom defended Israel's actions.
Among the five guests, Janine Zacharia, a Middle East correspondent for The Washington Post, was the only one who did not overtly criticize Israel. She also did not defend its actions, CAMERA officials said.
"So there you have it -- five perspectives and not one voice to present the mainstream Israeli perspective," they said in a June 17 press release. "That's Ashbrook's and NPR's version of a balanced discussion on Israel."
Last week, Newsbusters, a conservative media watchdog group, claimed that NPR's "Fresh Air" spent most of its hour insinuating that the Republican Party was dangerously infested with extremists.
NPR's Terry Gross hosted Princeton professor Sean Wilentz, who has written that President George W. Bush practiced "a radicalized version of Reaganism," Newsbusters' Tom Graham wrote.
"Can you think of another time in American history when there have been as many people running for Congress who seem to be on the extreme?" Gross asked, according to Graham.
"Not running for Congress, no," Wilentz replied. "I mean even back in the '50s."
-- NPR issued an apology in 2005 for a commentator's remark on the return of Christ following a complaint by the Christian Coalition that the comment was anti-Christian.
On "All Things Considered," the network's afternoon drive-time program, humorist Andrei Codrescu said that the "evaporation of 4 million [people] who believe" in the doctrine of Rapture "would leave the world a better place."
Codrescu, who was on contract with NPR but not a full-time employee, later told The Associated Press he was sorry for the language, but "not for what [he] said."
NPR apologized for the comment, saying, it "crossed a line of taste and tolerance" and was an inappropriate attempt at humor.
-- Also in 2005, NPR apologized to Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America," after a broadcast of its program "Day to Day" falsely accused him of advocating violence against judges. Levin accepted the apology, but said the broadcast was "illustrative of a smear campaign launched by the Left to try and silence" his criticisms of judicial activism.
-- In 2002, the head of NPR issued an apology six months after a report linking anthrax-laced letters to a Christian conservative organization.
-- Also in 2002, during an interview with the Philadelphia City Paper, NPR host Tavis Smiley said he strived to do a show that is "authentically black," but not "too black."
-- In 1995, Nina Totenberg, NPR's award-winning legal affairs correspondent, was allowed to keep her job after telling the host of PBS' "Inside Washington" that if there was "retributive justice" in the world, former North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms would "get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."
Published October 21, 2010 | FoxNews.com
From calling Tea Party members “Tea Baggers,” to saying that "the evaporation of 4 million" Christians would leave the world a better place, to suggesting that God could give former Sen. Jesse Helms or his family AIDS from a blood transfusion, NPR's personalities have said some pretty un-PC things in the past. A look at the record reveals no shortage of intolerant statements and unbalanced segments on the publicly sponsored network's airwaves.
Here's an incomplete list of questionable and controversial content that has aired on NPR or has been uttered by its employees:
-- In June, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) said it was easy to see why some refer to NPR as "National Palestine Radio" following a June 2 segment hosted by Tom Ashbrook on the Gaza flotilla incident. The segment featured five guests -- none of whom defended Israel's actions.
Among the five guests, Janine Zacharia, a Middle East correspondent for The Washington Post, was the only one who did not overtly criticize Israel. She also did not defend its actions, CAMERA officials said.
"So there you have it -- five perspectives and not one voice to present the mainstream Israeli perspective," they said in a June 17 press release. "That's Ashbrook's and NPR's version of a balanced discussion on Israel."
Last week, Newsbusters, a conservative media watchdog group, claimed that NPR's "Fresh Air" spent most of its hour insinuating that the Republican Party was dangerously infested with extremists.
NPR's Terry Gross hosted Princeton professor Sean Wilentz, who has written that President George W. Bush practiced "a radicalized version of Reaganism," Newsbusters' Tom Graham wrote.
"Can you think of another time in American history when there have been as many people running for Congress who seem to be on the extreme?" Gross asked, according to Graham.
"Not running for Congress, no," Wilentz replied. "I mean even back in the '50s."
-- NPR issued an apology in 2005 for a commentator's remark on the return of Christ following a complaint by the Christian Coalition that the comment was anti-Christian.
On "All Things Considered," the network's afternoon drive-time program, humorist Andrei Codrescu said that the "evaporation of 4 million [people] who believe" in the doctrine of Rapture "would leave the world a better place."
Codrescu, who was on contract with NPR but not a full-time employee, later told The Associated Press he was sorry for the language, but "not for what [he] said."
NPR apologized for the comment, saying, it "crossed a line of taste and tolerance" and was an inappropriate attempt at humor.
-- Also in 2005, NPR apologized to Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America," after a broadcast of its program "Day to Day" falsely accused him of advocating violence against judges. Levin accepted the apology, but said the broadcast was "illustrative of a smear campaign launched by the Left to try and silence" his criticisms of judicial activism.
-- In 2002, the head of NPR issued an apology six months after a report linking anthrax-laced letters to a Christian conservative organization.
-- Also in 2002, during an interview with the Philadelphia City Paper, NPR host Tavis Smiley said he strived to do a show that is "authentically black," but not "too black."
-- In 1995, Nina Totenberg, NPR's award-winning legal affairs correspondent, was allowed to keep her job after telling the host of PBS' "Inside Washington" that if there was "retributive justice" in the world, former North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms would "get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."
We should DEFUND National Public Radio!
Why should ANY taxpayer money go to funding any radio station, but less a one sided liberal station that only represents the views of a portion of the American Public. If Soros likes this station so much, let him finance it completely....In this time when we need to cut government spending, this is an easy cut...it won't solve all the problems, but it's a start....
Williams Firing Sparks Calls to Defund National Public Radio
Published October 21, 2010 | FoxNews.com
"I think the U.S. Congress should investigate NPR and consider cutting off their money," said Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also a Fox News contributor
Gingrich called the firing "an act of total censorship."
"I think the whole idea that if you honestly say how you feel about Islam -- what he said was very balanced, people should read what he actually said -- the idea that that's the excuse for National Public Radio to censor Juan Williams is an outrage and every listeners of NPR should be enraged that there's this kind of bias against an American," Gingrich said.
NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller sent an internal memo Thursday seeking to clarify why Williams' contract was terminated, claiming that the remarks he made on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" weren't the problem, he was canned because he's become a pundit rather than an analyst.
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Real-Life 'Something About Mary'? Obsessed Cameron Diaz Fan Goes After A-Rod at Game Justice Department Files Suit Against Blue Cross Blue Shield Of Michigan NBA Star Defaults on $1.5M Mortgage Authorities Investigate Gunshots Fired Into South Side of Pentagon Ten Worst Places to Live "Juan's comments on Fox violated our standards as well as our values and offended many in doing so," Schiller wrote in the memo obtained by Fox News.
"This isn't the first time we have had serious concerns about some of Juan's public comments," she wrote. "Despite many conversations and warnings over the years, Juan continued to violate this principal (sic).
Speaking at the Atlanta Press Club Thursday, Schiller defended the firing, saying Williams should keep his feelings about Muslims between him and "his psychiatrist or his publicist."
Williams told Fox News that he was fired Wednesday by Ellen Weiss, NPR's vice president for news. He said Weiss told him he made a bigoted statement and crossed a line.
"I said, 'You mean I don't even get the chance to come in and we do this eyeball-to-eyeball, person-to-person, have a conversation? I've been there more than 10 years," Williams said. He said Weiss responded that "there's nothing you can that would change my mind."
But Williams has won considerable support from members in the press and lawmakers. The hosts of ABC's "The View," whose raucous interview with O'Reilly last week sparked a weeklong back-and-forth about making a distinction between Muslims and Islamic extremists, said NPR was wrong to let Williams go.
"I don't think he should have been fired, because, in fact as you pointed out Sherri, lots of people have this idea," said host Whoopi Goldberg.
Host Barbara Walters said Williams perhaps should have been chastised, not fired because he was on the show to give his perspective.
"I think they were very wrong," she said of NPR.
Republican Rep. Peter King went further, calling on Congress to defund NPR "because of its indefensible bias."
"NPR has disgraced itself by caving into CAIR and by firing Juan Williams for exercising his right of free speech," he said. "This is political correctness carried to its extreme form."
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Fox News contributor, called on Congress to stop cutting checks to NPR and said he will no longer accept interview requests from NPR "as long as they are going to practice a form of censorship."
"NPR has discredited itself as a forum for free speech and a protection of the First Amendment rights of all and has solidified itself as the purveyor of politically correct pabulum and protector of views that lean left," he said.
NPR says government funding makes up less than 2 percent of it budget with the rest coming from station fees, sponsorships and grants.This week, the radio network received $1.8 million from billionaire investor George Soros to hire journalists to cover legislatures in all 50 states.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations had urged NPR to take swift action against Williams. The group said such commentary from a journalist about racial, ethnic or religious minority groups would not be tolerated.
"NPR should address the fact that one of its news analysts seems to believe that all airline passengers who are perceived to be Muslim can legitimately be viewed a security threats," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.
CAIR national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told Fox News that the group is "pleased that the network addressed Muslim concerns."
"It was really up to them what to do in response," he said. "I think everyone has recognized now that perhaps it wasn't a good fit between the network and Mr. Williams."
Hooper said he did not think Williams, an African American who has written extensively on civil rights in the United States. But Hooper said, "Everybody's accountable for their words and their actions and when he seemed to legitimize singling out people who are perceived to be Muslim based on their attire on airlines, I think that crosses the line."
Williams Firing Sparks Calls to Defund National Public Radio
Published October 21, 2010 | FoxNews.com
"I think the U.S. Congress should investigate NPR and consider cutting off their money," said Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also a Fox News contributor
Gingrich called the firing "an act of total censorship."
"I think the whole idea that if you honestly say how you feel about Islam -- what he said was very balanced, people should read what he actually said -- the idea that that's the excuse for National Public Radio to censor Juan Williams is an outrage and every listeners of NPR should be enraged that there's this kind of bias against an American," Gingrich said.
NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller sent an internal memo Thursday seeking to clarify why Williams' contract was terminated, claiming that the remarks he made on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" weren't the problem, he was canned because he's become a pundit rather than an analyst.
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Real-Life 'Something About Mary'? Obsessed Cameron Diaz Fan Goes After A-Rod at Game Justice Department Files Suit Against Blue Cross Blue Shield Of Michigan NBA Star Defaults on $1.5M Mortgage Authorities Investigate Gunshots Fired Into South Side of Pentagon Ten Worst Places to Live "Juan's comments on Fox violated our standards as well as our values and offended many in doing so," Schiller wrote in the memo obtained by Fox News.
"This isn't the first time we have had serious concerns about some of Juan's public comments," she wrote. "Despite many conversations and warnings over the years, Juan continued to violate this principal (sic).
Speaking at the Atlanta Press Club Thursday, Schiller defended the firing, saying Williams should keep his feelings about Muslims between him and "his psychiatrist or his publicist."
Williams told Fox News that he was fired Wednesday by Ellen Weiss, NPR's vice president for news. He said Weiss told him he made a bigoted statement and crossed a line.
"I said, 'You mean I don't even get the chance to come in and we do this eyeball-to-eyeball, person-to-person, have a conversation? I've been there more than 10 years," Williams said. He said Weiss responded that "there's nothing you can that would change my mind."
But Williams has won considerable support from members in the press and lawmakers. The hosts of ABC's "The View," whose raucous interview with O'Reilly last week sparked a weeklong back-and-forth about making a distinction between Muslims and Islamic extremists, said NPR was wrong to let Williams go.
"I don't think he should have been fired, because, in fact as you pointed out Sherri, lots of people have this idea," said host Whoopi Goldberg.
Host Barbara Walters said Williams perhaps should have been chastised, not fired because he was on the show to give his perspective.
"I think they were very wrong," she said of NPR.
Republican Rep. Peter King went further, calling on Congress to defund NPR "because of its indefensible bias."
"NPR has disgraced itself by caving into CAIR and by firing Juan Williams for exercising his right of free speech," he said. "This is political correctness carried to its extreme form."
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Fox News contributor, called on Congress to stop cutting checks to NPR and said he will no longer accept interview requests from NPR "as long as they are going to practice a form of censorship."
"NPR has discredited itself as a forum for free speech and a protection of the First Amendment rights of all and has solidified itself as the purveyor of politically correct pabulum and protector of views that lean left," he said.
NPR says government funding makes up less than 2 percent of it budget with the rest coming from station fees, sponsorships and grants.This week, the radio network received $1.8 million from billionaire investor George Soros to hire journalists to cover legislatures in all 50 states.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations had urged NPR to take swift action against Williams. The group said such commentary from a journalist about racial, ethnic or religious minority groups would not be tolerated.
"NPR should address the fact that one of its news analysts seems to believe that all airline passengers who are perceived to be Muslim can legitimately be viewed a security threats," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.
CAIR national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told Fox News that the group is "pleased that the network addressed Muslim concerns."
"It was really up to them what to do in response," he said. "I think everyone has recognized now that perhaps it wasn't a good fit between the network and Mr. Williams."
Hooper said he did not think Williams, an African American who has written extensively on civil rights in the United States. But Hooper said, "Everybody's accountable for their words and their actions and when he seemed to legitimize singling out people who are perceived to be Muslim based on their attire on airlines, I think that crosses the line."
Teacher Out of Control AGAIN!
This is disgraceful and unlawful behavior by the school district....this is voter tampering and needs to be addessed by law enforcement. How could the school say they did nothing wrong?......I admire that they are encouraging students to vote, but to prejudice their opinion about who to vote for and to deliver them to the polling place goes way too far.....Another example of the liberal teachers union/department of education in appropriately using their influence over children and breaking the law. If I were a parent of one of these students, I would be screaming at the school. If this happened on the Republican side there would be insurrection in the streets, but my guess is you will hardly hear about this on the national State-Run media.
School Buses Students to Vote, Gives Them Democrat-Only Sample Ballot
By Joshua Rhett Miller Published October 21, 2010 | FoxNews.com
The Cincinnati Public Schools system "expressly denies" that it did anything wrong when it allowed a group of high school students to be bused during school hours to the Board of Elections, to be shown sample ballots that included only Democrats, and then to vote.
And it promises never to do it again.
Thomas Brinkman, a Republican candidate for county auditor, and a group called the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending & Taxes filed a legal complaint after three van loads of students from Hughes High School were bused on Oct. 13 to the Hamilton County Board of Elections. The students, all registered voters, were given sample ballots that listed only Democratic candidates -- "clearly with the intention of instructing [them] how to vote," according to the complaint -- before they cast their ballots.
Then the kids were then taken for free ice cream, a move Brinkman and the coalition said was tantamount to "bribery."
Brinkman's attorney, Chris Finney, said a teacher at the high school coordinated with Gwen Robinson, a former principal within the district, to allow a local church to provide three vans to transport the students to a local polling location.
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Authorities Investigate Gunshots Fired Into South Side of Pentagon Ten Worst Places to Live Is Taking Social Security Morally Just? Fox Programming Pulled From Cablevision As Contract Ends Carrie Fisher Did Cocaine on Set of 'Empire Strikes Back' "We wanted to stop this activity, to stop the buses from rolling and the one-sided nature of the contact," Finney told FoxNews.com. "We want academic freedom."
On Wednesday, attorneys for the school district and Brinkman filed an agreed order that calls for the district to "not use any personnel or property" for advocating any particular political candidate or party.
We want these kids exposed to the full range of ideas, and this order from the judge requires that," Finney said.
He isn't convinced, however, that the busing is limited to Cincinnati.
"We suspect this activity is going on throughout the state of Ohio," said Finney, who was unable to provide additional details. "And it just needs to stop."
The agreement, which was signed by Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Beth Myers, states that "All future efforts to transport students of the Cincinnati Public Schools to a polling place so that those students may vote as part of an educational activity shall comply with all policies of the Cincinnati Public Schools and Ohio law concerning field trips for students."
But school officials "expressly" denied any wrongdoing, and Finney said a lawsuit against the school system will continue despite Wednesday's order. It seeks to have the incident declared a violation of Ohio law and district policy and to have a permanent injunction issued to never allow students to be subjected to partisan political activities during school hours. It also seeks to have Cincinnati Public Schools pay Finney's attorney fees, or at least $10,000. The case is scheduled to continue on Nov. 30.
"We're going to use this lawsuit to expose the depth of collusion between the Cincinnati Public Schools and the Democratic Party, who, in a one-sided way, seeks to indoctrinate the children for their electoral purposes," said Finney, who alleges that some school system employees are explicitly tasked to "turn out the vote" for Democratic candidates during election season.
"We intend to put a stop to that once and for all," he said.
Mark Stepaniak, an attorney for Cincinnati Public Schools, acknowledged that the district transported about a "score" of students to the polling place, an arrangement put in place by Robinson and a teacher he declined to identify.
In previous years, Stepaniak said, students were transported using donated bus tokens from a local YMCA. But due to budget shortfalls, the YMCA was unable to provide the tokens this year, prompting Robinson to arrange to have buses from a local church transport the students. He acknowledged that the students were given sample ballots by Robinson as they exited the buses.
"In isolation, it's like, 'How'd that happen?' But the district is not interested in partisan politics," he said. "That's not what they're supposed to do and that's not what they did."
Stepaniak said the activity was not occurring at other schools in the district.
"No one from the district distributed campaign material, or knew that campaign material would be distributed or sought to advance a political candidate," he said. "It happened the way it happened. We're now on alert to make sure that everything's tightened down."
Stepaniak continued, "I wouldn't say it's much ado about nothing, but it's definitely a one-off event and not emblematic of Cincinnati Public Schools to advance a particular party or candidate.
"You can see where the worry was, but this wasn't some massive plan by the district."
School Buses Students to Vote, Gives Them Democrat-Only Sample Ballot
By Joshua Rhett Miller Published October 21, 2010 | FoxNews.com
The Cincinnati Public Schools system "expressly denies" that it did anything wrong when it allowed a group of high school students to be bused during school hours to the Board of Elections, to be shown sample ballots that included only Democrats, and then to vote.
And it promises never to do it again.
Thomas Brinkman, a Republican candidate for county auditor, and a group called the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending & Taxes filed a legal complaint after three van loads of students from Hughes High School were bused on Oct. 13 to the Hamilton County Board of Elections. The students, all registered voters, were given sample ballots that listed only Democratic candidates -- "clearly with the intention of instructing [them] how to vote," according to the complaint -- before they cast their ballots.
Then the kids were then taken for free ice cream, a move Brinkman and the coalition said was tantamount to "bribery."
Brinkman's attorney, Chris Finney, said a teacher at the high school coordinated with Gwen Robinson, a former principal within the district, to allow a local church to provide three vans to transport the students to a local polling location.
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Authorities Investigate Gunshots Fired Into South Side of Pentagon Ten Worst Places to Live Is Taking Social Security Morally Just? Fox Programming Pulled From Cablevision As Contract Ends Carrie Fisher Did Cocaine on Set of 'Empire Strikes Back' "We wanted to stop this activity, to stop the buses from rolling and the one-sided nature of the contact," Finney told FoxNews.com. "We want academic freedom."
On Wednesday, attorneys for the school district and Brinkman filed an agreed order that calls for the district to "not use any personnel or property" for advocating any particular political candidate or party.
We want these kids exposed to the full range of ideas, and this order from the judge requires that," Finney said.
He isn't convinced, however, that the busing is limited to Cincinnati.
"We suspect this activity is going on throughout the state of Ohio," said Finney, who was unable to provide additional details. "And it just needs to stop."
The agreement, which was signed by Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Beth Myers, states that "All future efforts to transport students of the Cincinnati Public Schools to a polling place so that those students may vote as part of an educational activity shall comply with all policies of the Cincinnati Public Schools and Ohio law concerning field trips for students."
But school officials "expressly" denied any wrongdoing, and Finney said a lawsuit against the school system will continue despite Wednesday's order. It seeks to have the incident declared a violation of Ohio law and district policy and to have a permanent injunction issued to never allow students to be subjected to partisan political activities during school hours. It also seeks to have Cincinnati Public Schools pay Finney's attorney fees, or at least $10,000. The case is scheduled to continue on Nov. 30.
"We're going to use this lawsuit to expose the depth of collusion between the Cincinnati Public Schools and the Democratic Party, who, in a one-sided way, seeks to indoctrinate the children for their electoral purposes," said Finney, who alleges that some school system employees are explicitly tasked to "turn out the vote" for Democratic candidates during election season.
"We intend to put a stop to that once and for all," he said.
Mark Stepaniak, an attorney for Cincinnati Public Schools, acknowledged that the district transported about a "score" of students to the polling place, an arrangement put in place by Robinson and a teacher he declined to identify.
In previous years, Stepaniak said, students were transported using donated bus tokens from a local YMCA. But due to budget shortfalls, the YMCA was unable to provide the tokens this year, prompting Robinson to arrange to have buses from a local church transport the students. He acknowledged that the students were given sample ballots by Robinson as they exited the buses.
"In isolation, it's like, 'How'd that happen?' But the district is not interested in partisan politics," he said. "That's not what they're supposed to do and that's not what they did."
Stepaniak said the activity was not occurring at other schools in the district.
"No one from the district distributed campaign material, or knew that campaign material would be distributed or sought to advance a political candidate," he said. "It happened the way it happened. We're now on alert to make sure that everything's tightened down."
Stepaniak continued, "I wouldn't say it's much ado about nothing, but it's definitely a one-off event and not emblematic of Cincinnati Public Schools to advance a particular party or candidate.
"You can see where the worry was, but this wasn't some massive plan by the district."
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Elliot Spitzer shouldn't be on TV!.....get him a prostitute!
Elliot Spitzer doesn't deserve to be on TV....and to even imply that he isn't a flaming liberal and totally biased is nuts....another example of national media and it's State-Run bent....
Vote Against Obama, his agenda and the Democrats!
Get out and Vote and vote for everyone that DOES NOT SUPPORT Barack Obama, his Agenda or the Democrats!!!!
Obama is Destructive to America.....If you don't feel threatened, read the article below...
IF you don't feel threatened by Obama and Left, then you are just not paying attention....this man and his agenda is anti-American....he may call himself a Christian and not a Muslim, but his actions do NOT prove that....He,his agenda and his supporters have to be stopped of we will not recognize this great country. These midterm elections are very important to send a clear message that the American People will NOT stand for this....Vote Conservative Republican...it's our only chance to stop Obama and his destructive Agenda!.....and the next time Michelle goes out on the campaign trail and asks for folks to "pray" for Barack...don't take her seriously....!
From today's Heritage Foundation -
What the Left Doesn't Understand About America
Monday night in Rockville, Md., President Barack Obama told Democratic Senate candidate donors: "As wonderful as the land is here in the United States, as much as we have been blessed by the bounty of this magnificent continent that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, what makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'"
At first blush, that seems like a fine statement about what makes America exceptional. But look at President Obama's "quote" from the Declaration of Independence again. Here is what the Declaration actually says: "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." If you think that President Obama's abandonment of the Creator was an accident, think again. Monday was the third time in a little over a month that President Obama wrote the Creator out of one of our nation's founding documents. He omitted the exact same phrase at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's 33rd Annual Awards Gala on September 15 and again at a September 23 fundraiser in New York City.
Remember this is the same President who admonished "small towns in Pennsylvania" and "a lot of small towns in the Midwest" because they "get bitter" and "cling to guns or religion." And the President is not alone. MSNBC's new "Lean Forward" Progressive Movement branding campaign also leaves out "by their Creator" from their reading of the Declaration. Again, this is no accident. Writing faith in God out of the public sphere allows and encourages Big Government to replace it. The Heritage Foundation's Ryan Messmore explains:
[G]overnment power is inherently limited by the role of other social institutions, such as families, religious congregations, schools, and businesses. The rightful authority of these institutions helps to check the authority of the state. ... As government claims responsibility for more tasks, it absorbs the allegiance that citizens once placed in other relationships and forms of association. When the federal government assumes more responsibility for fulfilling the moral obligations among citizens, it tends to undermine the perceived significance and authority of local institutions and communities.
This encourages citizens, instead of looking to their families, churches, or local communities for guidance and assistance, to depend on the government for education, welfare, and various other services. As individuals begin to look more consistently to the government for support, the institutions that are able to generate virtues like trust and responsibility begin to lose their sway in the community. Excessive bureaucratic centralization thus sets in motion a dangerous cycle of dependence and social decay.
For far too long the American people have allowed the Progressive Movement to read out of existence the checks that America's Founders placed in our founding documents. That is why The Heritage Foundation is now distributing a series of pamphlets titled "Understanding America" that explores how the United States’ commitment to the universal truths of human equality and the right to self-government—as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence—requires a vigilant defense of the cause of liberty, both at home and abroad. In the first volume, Heritage's Matthew Spalding writes:
America's principles establish religious liberty as a fundamental right. It is in our nature to pursue our convictions of faith. Government must not establish an official religion, just as it must guarantee the free exercise of religion. Indeed, popular government requires a flourishing of religious faith. If a free people are to govern themselves politically, they must first govern themselves morally.
The United States did not grow from a small thirteen colonies to a vast 50 states that produce almost a quarter of the world's wealth due to an all powerful federal government. It was American civil society, led by families, churches, businesses, communities and associations that built this country. According to the latest Gallup poll, 58% of Americans believe that "the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses." Contrast that with President Obama who recently told a Democratic campaign rally in Philadelphia, the very place where the Declaration of Independence was signed, that the United States Chamber of Commerce was "a threat to our democracy." With all due respect to the President, the American people have a much different view of where the threat to our democracy is coming from.
From today's Heritage Foundation -
What the Left Doesn't Understand About America
Monday night in Rockville, Md., President Barack Obama told Democratic Senate candidate donors: "As wonderful as the land is here in the United States, as much as we have been blessed by the bounty of this magnificent continent that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, what makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'"
At first blush, that seems like a fine statement about what makes America exceptional. But look at President Obama's "quote" from the Declaration of Independence again. Here is what the Declaration actually says: "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." If you think that President Obama's abandonment of the Creator was an accident, think again. Monday was the third time in a little over a month that President Obama wrote the Creator out of one of our nation's founding documents. He omitted the exact same phrase at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's 33rd Annual Awards Gala on September 15 and again at a September 23 fundraiser in New York City.
Remember this is the same President who admonished "small towns in Pennsylvania" and "a lot of small towns in the Midwest" because they "get bitter" and "cling to guns or religion." And the President is not alone. MSNBC's new "Lean Forward" Progressive Movement branding campaign also leaves out "by their Creator" from their reading of the Declaration. Again, this is no accident. Writing faith in God out of the public sphere allows and encourages Big Government to replace it. The Heritage Foundation's Ryan Messmore explains:
[G]overnment power is inherently limited by the role of other social institutions, such as families, religious congregations, schools, and businesses. The rightful authority of these institutions helps to check the authority of the state. ... As government claims responsibility for more tasks, it absorbs the allegiance that citizens once placed in other relationships and forms of association. When the federal government assumes more responsibility for fulfilling the moral obligations among citizens, it tends to undermine the perceived significance and authority of local institutions and communities.
This encourages citizens, instead of looking to their families, churches, or local communities for guidance and assistance, to depend on the government for education, welfare, and various other services. As individuals begin to look more consistently to the government for support, the institutions that are able to generate virtues like trust and responsibility begin to lose their sway in the community. Excessive bureaucratic centralization thus sets in motion a dangerous cycle of dependence and social decay.
For far too long the American people have allowed the Progressive Movement to read out of existence the checks that America's Founders placed in our founding documents. That is why The Heritage Foundation is now distributing a series of pamphlets titled "Understanding America" that explores how the United States’ commitment to the universal truths of human equality and the right to self-government—as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence—requires a vigilant defense of the cause of liberty, both at home and abroad. In the first volume, Heritage's Matthew Spalding writes:
America's principles establish religious liberty as a fundamental right. It is in our nature to pursue our convictions of faith. Government must not establish an official religion, just as it must guarantee the free exercise of religion. Indeed, popular government requires a flourishing of religious faith. If a free people are to govern themselves politically, they must first govern themselves morally.
The United States did not grow from a small thirteen colonies to a vast 50 states that produce almost a quarter of the world's wealth due to an all powerful federal government. It was American civil society, led by families, churches, businesses, communities and associations that built this country. According to the latest Gallup poll, 58% of Americans believe that "the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses." Contrast that with President Obama who recently told a Democratic campaign rally in Philadelphia, the very place where the Declaration of Independence was signed, that the United States Chamber of Commerce was "a threat to our democracy." With all due respect to the President, the American people have a much different view of where the threat to our democracy is coming from.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)