It’s Official – The FCC Will Vote to Take Over the Internet in December

It’s Official – The FCC Will Vote to Take Over the Internet in December

AL GORE: A SELF PROFESSED LIAR!

Posted by Jared Law (912 Project) It has been established beyond any doubt that Al Gore is a liar and a hypocrite, and now he has finally admitted it! In a stunning revelation this past weekend, Al Gore admitted that he only supported the "not good policy" of tax breaks for corn-based ethanol to assist his eventual run for president. The question is this: WHERE IS THE MEDIA? If a Republican, especially a conservative Republican, had admitted to such, they would be the front page news for a month, the lead story in every single newscast nationwide for a week, followed by extensive stories following up for another month after the initial 'flood the zone' week. But since it's a radical "progressive" Democrat, the MSM (AKA Fringe Media) refuses to discuss the admission of dishonesty and political calculation. Many of the world's poorest have paid the price in the form of higher food prices, for this disgusting breach of trust. And let's not even get into the massive cost to our children, grandchildren, and generations even further in the future. Al Gore should be investigated and censured by Congress the moment they're sworn in...but I doubt any Congressman will have the guts to do the right thing. Here's the story from NewsBusters; kudos to them for their excellent coverage of this breaking news story! Al Gore Says He Supported 'Not Good' Ethanol Policies To Help His P...By Noel Sheppard | November 22, 2010 | 09:05 Nobel laureate Al Gore said this weekend that tax breaks for corn-based ethanol are "not good policy" and that he only supported these subsidies in order to assist his eventual run for president. Reuters Africa reported Monday the former Vice President made these comments while speaking to a green energy conference in Athens. "It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first generation ethanol," said Gore. According to the International Energy Industry, such subsidies totaled $7.7 billion last year. Yet Gore now thinks this was a mistake. "The energy conversion ratios are at best very small. It's hard once such a program is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going," he said. Readers are reminded that Gore was the tie-breaking vote in the Senate mandating the use of ethanol in 1994. So why did the man media view as one of the world's foremost environmentalists support such a program? "One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president." What a saint. So more than ten years ago, Gore supported an expensive, "not good policy" because he thought it would help him get elected president. Yet media don't believe he'd misrepresent the threat of manmade global warming in order to become extremely rich. The bigger question is whether or not this matter will get any attention here in America, or if the Gore-loving media will choose to ignore this stunning revelation. -------- Will Media Remember Gore's 1994 Tie-breaking Vote Mandating Ethanol?By Noel Sheppard | April 22, 2008 | 17:57 As the international disaster of ethanol begins taking its toll on the planet -- and, maybe more important, as press outlet after press outlet finally begins recognizing it -- will media remember that Vice President Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate requiring this oxygenate be added to gasoline? After all, regardless of recent reports blaming ethanol for world hunger problems, rising food costs, and increased greenhouse gases, it seems highly unlikely green media will want to tie any of these problems to Nobel Laureate Gore. Yet, as inconveniently reported by States News Service on August 3, 1994 (no link available, emphasis added throughout): In a move that enraged midwestern senators, Louisiana Democratic Sen. Bennett Johnston tried Wednesday to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from mandating the use of ethanol in reformulated gasoline. The Senate narrowly killed the measure, voting to table it by a margin of 51 to 50. With the vote tied, Vice President Al Gore had to come in and cast the deciding vote. [...] "This is really a gigantic flim flam to the American public," Johnston said. [...] Under the Clean Air Act, the nation's nine smoggiest cities must begin reducing auto emissions by using a cleaner-burning fuel known as reformulated gasoline in January. Reformulated gasoline contains more oxygen than regular fuel. Until the EPA announced its decision last month, oil refiners had a choice of boosting oxygen in reformulated gasoline with either ethanol or MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), a petroleum derivative. MTBE is made from natural gas. The nation's major oil companies have natural gas facilities, many of which are overseas. [...] During the four-hour debate, opponents of the ethanol mandate said the measure contains hidden costs. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the policy would cost the government $249 million during the next five years. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has predicted the ethanol rule would drain $545 million from the national highway trust fund each year. "It's highway robbery," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. "It's nothing less." Besides Gore, take a look at who else was DEAD wrong on this issue: [Democratic Illinois Sen. Paul] Simon added that the ethanol mandate would not increase costs for consumers. "The price of corn flakes isn't going to go up by one penny," he said. "Don't think you're helping consumers by voting for the amendment by my friend from Louisiana." I beg to differ, Senator. As my colleague Paul Detrick reported on April 4 (emphasis added): You're going to need a few extra bucks to pay for those corn flakes every morning. CNN's senior business correspondent Ali Velshi let viewers in on an underreported fact about rising commodities prices: the government mandate for ethanol production is making corn and other agricultural products more expensive-making inflation a top priority for Americans. "Several years ago, we made some decisions about how corn is going to be used to make ethanol, which is added to our gasoline," said Velshi on "American Morning" April 4. "A number of people think that that was meant to reduce our dependency on crude oil. What is does is it takes what is fundamentally a food source and makes it into a gasoline source. That's caused corn to go up." He went on to explain that in the recent food commodities surge, which includes products like wheat, soybeans and rice, corn has gone up to $6 a bushel-making everything from animal feed to cereal more expensive. Nice call, Sen. Simon! For those interested, here's how the New York Times reported the news (emphasis added): With a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Al Gore, the Senate upheld today an Environmental Protection Agency rule requiring that ethanol and other renewable fuels get a share of the gasoline additives market. The Senate voted 51-50 to table an amendment that would have denied financing to the agency to carry out a rule guaranteeing renewable fuels a 15 percent share of the lucrative fuel oxygenate market in 1995. That share rises to 30 percent in following years. Under the Clean Air Act, oxygenates, which make fuel burn more cleanly, are to be added to gasoline in the nation's smoggiest areas. Tabling the amendment, offered by Democratic Senators Bennett J. Johnston of Louisiana and Bill Bradley of New Jersey, in effect kills it and clears the way for E.P.A. to carry out its program. All, in the end, thanks to Nobel Laureate Al Gore. Of course, as the ethanol crisis widens, I'm sure media will be reminding the electorate of this pivotal vote fourteen years ago...not!

DON'T BE VAT STUPID

Don’t be VAT stupid By Herman Cain November 21, 2010 There’s one message from the 2010 elections that many so-called policy makers, political elites and analysts did not hear. Namely, the American people are not as uninformed and stupid as they think we are. President Obama’s Debt Commission and the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force have both floated its ideas for reducing our nation’s runaway national debt. As CNNMoney.com reports, both sets of ideas echo each other in broad strokes. And both sets of ideas could confuse and confound the leaves off a tree. These ideas are a long way from becoming law, but they are generating, as intended, much discussion about the merits of each idea. The worst idea is a proposed national sales tax, which is a disguised VAT (value added tax) on top of everything we already pay in federal taxes. Here are three of the biggest reasons the national retail sales tax is the worst idea on the table. First, we have a spending problem in Washington, D.C. not a revenue problem. The Commission claims their goal is to reduce the deficits by $4 trillion over the next decade. The task force says its plan would save $6 trillion by 2020. It’s sort of like dueling promises that would never happen, because when has a proposed cut in Washington D.C. ever produced the intended savings over 10 years? Never! Even worse is reason number two: In every country that has established a VAT with the promise of reducing their national debt, the VAT has eventually gone up or expanded on top of the existing tax structure. After discovering many of the tax grenades in the recently passed health care deform bill, which is already driving costs up and access down, it would be real easy for an overzealous bureaucrat to insert the language in the legislation “national retail and wholesale” tax. For the liberal naysayers who say that would not happen, you lose! Just look at the Social Security system, Medicare and Medicaid. Over the years since their inception, taxes have gone up, benefits have gone down and they are still on a path of insolvency. Both the Commission and the Task Force say very little about how costs would be contained, because that’s the real big bodacious problem. Even if their plans could achieve their stated goals over the next 10 years, the current administration and Congress have increased spending nearly $4 trillion in the last two years. And the only hope that it will slow down is the new change of control in the House of Representatives. Giving the administration and Congress another tool to tax us and confuse us is like giving an alcoholic a key to the liquor store with no supervision, only to discover that he locks the door after he is safely inside. A national retail sales tax on top of all the confusing and unfair taxes we have today is insane! It gives the out-of-control bureaucrats and politicians in denial one more tool to lie, deceive, manipulate and destroy this country. The third reason the national retail sales tax on top of all the taxes we already pay is a bad idea, is that there is already proposed legislation that replaces all of the federal taxes we pay. It replaces all current revenue. It supercharges our national economic growth, and puts the power of taxation back into the hands of the people who spend their money. It’s called the Fair Tax. It’s as easy to understand as ABC! That’s the problem. It’s fair. It is simple and understandable. But the politicians and bureaucrats do not want to give people more control of their own money. That’s why even though the legislation has been introduced in every session of Congress since 1999, it has not advanced. People are not stupid. Maybe they will hear us in 2012.

WHY NORTH, SOUTH KOREA ARE SLIDING DOWN SLIPPERY SLOPE TO WAR

Posted by Jared Law (912 Project) Remember the 'peace dividend' that America supposedly reaped as a reward for outlasting the Soviet Union? America, this is the indication that the second installment of our "Hope & Change" 'dividend' is on its way. Or should I say, oppressively massive "Hope & Change" Fee. The first, of course, was the massive 2009 deficit of over $4 Trillion (yes, the true deficit last year was over $4T), and the continued, ridiculous surge in spending. The second installment is increased activity by tyrannical regimes (other than the Obama Regime) since they no longer fear America. They no longer believe we'll protect those who cannot protect themselves, and the most bloodthirsty, power-hungry tyrants in the world will now seek to expand their territory as they come to realize that America has a White House occupant so incredibly weak that America has been, effectively, neutered. Today is a sad day for America; the North Korean Regime wouldn't dare to engage in such an act of war if they truly feared America, as they used to, when we had strong Commanders-In-Chief. They know that not only is the Obama Regime pathetically weak, when it comes to projecting strength against the enemies of freedom, but that the Obama Regime is actively working to 'collapse the system,' and to destroy America from within. This is what happens when we allow a radical 'progressive' leftist into the White House. Remember Jimmy Carter and America's humiliation at the hands of the Iranian Islamists who held Americans hostage until we elected a strong Conservative President, and he was sworn into office, taking the reins of the United States Armed Forces? How long until they released their American hostages, once Reagan was sworn in? Was it minutes or hours? I can't remember...my memory's a little foggy, since I was a young child. Here's the story.............. South Korea Vows ‘Enormous Retaliation’ After North’s Deadly Island...Published November 23, 2010 | Associated Press SEOUL, South Korea -- South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, who convened an emergency security meeting shortly after the bombardment by North Korea, said that an "indiscriminate attack on civilians can never be tolerated." "Enormous retaliation should be made to the extent that (North Korea) cannot make provocations again," he said. North Korea bombarded a South Korean island near their disputed western border Tuesday, setting buildings ablaze and killing at least two marines and injuring 16 others after warning the South to halt military drills in the area, South Korean officials said. South Korea said it returned fire and scrambled fighter jets in response, and said the "inhumane" attack on civilian areas violated the 1953 armistice halting the Korean War. The two sides technically remain at war because a peace treaty was never negotiated. The United Nations Security Council could hold an emergency meeting in the next day or two over the attack, saying "It's in the works for either today or tomorrow. We are for it and planning is ongoing," Reuters reports. The United States, which has tens of thousands of troops stationed in South Korea, condemned the attack and called on North Korea to "halt its belligerent action," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in Washington. He said the United States is "firmly committed" to South Korea's defense, and to the "maintenance of regional peace and stability." The North's artillery struck the small South Korean-held island of Yeonpyeong, which houses military installations and a small civilian population and which has been the focus of two previous deadly battles between the Koreas. A senior military official tells Fox News "no one is interested in escalating this, but we are taking this very seriously." Two South Korean marines were killed, three were seriously wounded and 10 slightly wounded, a Joint Chiefs of Staff official said. Island residents were escaping to about 20 shelters in the island while sporadic shelling continued, the military official said. North Korea's supreme military command threatened to continue military strikes against South Korea if it violated their disputed sea border "even 0.001 millimeter," according to the North's official Korean Central News Agency. The firing came amid South Korean military drills in the area. North Korea's military had sent a message to South Korea's armed forces early Tuesday to demand that the drills stop, but the South continued them, another military official said. During the drills, South Korean marines on the island shot artillery toward southern waters, away from North Korea, the official said. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity, citing military rules. South Korean military official Lee Hong-ki said the North's premeditated bombardments struck civilian areas and were "inhumane atrocities." There are about 30 small islands around the Yeonpyeong, and tension runs high in the area because of its proximity to North Korea. Yeonpyeong is known for its crab fishing. After the North's barrages, South Korea responded by firing K-9 155mm self-propelled howitzers, military officials said, but declined to say whether North Korean territory was hit. YTN TV said several houses on Yeonpyeong were on fire and that shells were still falling on the island, which is about 75 miles (120 kilometers) west of the coast. The station broadcast pictures of thick columns of black smoke rising from the island, which has a population of 1,200 to 1,300. Screams and chaotic shouts could be heard on the video. Lee Chun-ok, a 54-year-old island resident, said she was watching TV when she heard sounds of artillery and a wall and door in her home suddenly collapsed. "I though I would die," Lee said from the port city of Incheon, west of Seoul, where she evacuated. "I was really, really terrified, and I'm still terrified." Relations between the divided Koreas sank to their lowest point in years after the deadly sinking in March of a South Korean warship near the tense Korean sea border, which killed 46 sailors. Seoul blamed a North Korean torpedo, while Pyongyang has denied any responsibility. President Lee Myung-bak ordered officials to "sternly respond" to North Korea's action but also called on officials to make sure that the "situation would not escalate," according to a presidential official. He asked not to be identified, citing the issue's sensitivity. Lee was holding a security meeting in a presidential situation room, the official said. China, which is the North's economic and political benefactor while maintaining robust commercial ties with the South, called for calm. "We express our concern over the situation. The situation is to be verified," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said at a regularly scheduled media briefing in Beijing. He called on both Koreas without naming them "to do more to contribute to peace and stability on the peninsula." In a message to North Korea's armed forces, South Korea's military urged the North to stop provocations and warned of strong measures unless the North stopped, a Joint Chiefs of Staff official said. The countries' western maritime boundary has long been a flash point between the two Koreas. The North does not recognize the border that was unilaterally drawn by the United Nations at the close of the 1950-53 Korean War. North and South Korea have fought three bloody skirmishes near the maritime border in recent years, most recently in November 2009. That battle left one North Korean officer dead and three others wounded, according to South Korean officials. Two deadly clashes have previously erupted around Yeonpyeong. In a gunbattle in June 2002, one South Korean warship sank, killing six sailors. The North said it also suffered casualties, but didn't confirm how many. In a 1999 clash, South Korea said several sailors were wounded, and that up to 30 North Koreans died. In a sign of North Korea's anger over the South Korean drills, North Korea's state news agency said in a dispatch Monday that South Korea was readying war games with the United States for aggressive purposes against North Korea. The dispatch quoted what it said were sympathetic Swiss groups that called the drills "a criminal act of aggression for provoking another Korean war." The existence of North Korea's new uranium enrichment facility came to light over the weekend after Pyongyang showed it to a visiting American nuclear scientist, claiming that the highly sophisticated operation had 2,000 completed centrifuges. Top U.S. military officials warn that it could speed the North's ability to make and deliver viable nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, one North Korean expert believes Tuesday’s attack was nothing more than a calling card for its 26-year-old dictator in waiting. North Korean expert Zhang Liangui told the Sydney Morning Herald that the attack was a deliberate act of brinksmanship to rally the military behind Kim Jong-il’s anointed successor, Kim Jong-un. Zhang, a professor at Beijing's Central Party School, told the Herald that he doesn’t believe the attack will escalate tensions, but stressed that North Korea would do what it felt necessary to be recognized internationally as a nuclear state. The military tensions between the two Koreas also comes amid a visit to the region by U.S. special envoy on North Korea, Stephen Bosworth. He held talks with South Korean officials Monday and was also scheduled to meet officials in China. --------

FAVORITISM TOWARD THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT CONTINUES TO GROW

Poll: Tea Party support grows; USA dividedNovember 22, 2010 By Susan Page, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — Just about as many Americans want Tea Party-backed members of Congress to take the lead in setting policy during the next year as choose President Obama, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds. In a survey taken Friday through Sunday, 28% say Obama should have the most influence on government policy next year while 27% say the Tea Party standard-bearers should. GOP congressional leaders are chosen by 23%, Democratic congressional leaders by 16%. The results reflect the strength of the Tea Party movement as the GOP prepares to take control of the House of Representatives in January. The survey also underscores Obama's weakened standing. His overall job approval rating, at 42%, is 1 percentage point higher than his historic low in midsummer. His 35% approval rating on the economy is the lowest of his presidency. The nation's mood "guarantees that there will be gridlock," says Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. "The government follows public opinion and public opinion is all over the lot about who should now be running things."

MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM YOUR PRESIDENT

This news broke yesterday afternoon, but I didn't see it until a short while ago. This is a Christmas gift for the Maoists and other anti-American, pro-dictatorship tyrants within the Obama Regime: The legal cover to shut down free speech on the Internet BEFORE CHRISTMAS! An FCC source confirmed yesterday that on the 22nd of December, a mere 32 days from today, they plan to meet RE: 'Net Neutrality,' which gives the Executive branch sweeping new powers to censor the Internet, shutting down entire websites because they disagree with the Obama regime. It seems that they are piling up tools for use when they take down our ability to communicate without individual phone calls. 'Net Neutrality' could set the conservative movement back 30 years, in terms of communications abilities. This MUST NOT HAPPEN! Here's The Hill's Take: -------- FCC may regulate Internet lines days before ChristmasBy Sara Jerome - 11/19/10 04:50 PM ET The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has a Christmas gift in store for the phone and cable industry: it may move ahead on its controversial net-neutrality regulations three days before Christmas. An FCC source confirmed on Friday that the commission plans to push its December meeting back by a week, meaning it will fall on the 22nd of the month. That's the same meeting in which analysts say the agency may move forward on its controversial net-neutrality proposal. Though the FCC has not confirmed that it will vote on net neutrality this year, rumors are swirling that it will. The timing of the meeting is already raising eyebrows. Some see it as a way to move the matter along before the GOP assumes the majority and while Congress is not in session to criticize the effort. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), ranking member of the telecom subcommittee, questioned the schedule on Friday. He said "it appears that Chairman [Julius] Genachowski is trying to slip it under the radar and hope no one notices." Industry sources also suggested that political calculus is involved with the change of date for the meeting. "While many Americans will be enjoying their eggnog on that day, I'm sure the broadband providers won't be pleased to find this piece of coal in their stockings," an industry source jibed. Republicans are already mounting a campaign to oppose the potential Internet line regulations, which would aim to rein in how cable and phone companies manage Internet traffic. Nineteen Republicans signed a letter to Genachowski on Friday urging him not to move forward with net neutrality. “Reigniting the network neutrality debate will only distract us from that work and further jeopardize investment, innovation, and jobs. We ask you not to circulate such an order,” they wrote...

HOSTILE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF INTERNET

Posted by Jared Law (912 Project) So-called "Net Neutrality" is the power to regulate the Internet. And as you can imagine, the White House would love sites like http://www.the912project.us, http://www.glennbeck.com, http://www.foxnews.com, http://www.biggovernment.com, and all other blogs, websites, etc. sympathetic to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and the cause of Liberty, to simply shut up, sit down, and take it like a man, instead of daring to question with boldness, hold to the truth, and speak without fear. Here's the news this morning, but the article was written from a business analysis perspective, and it totally ignores the plight of America, of those who love the Founding Fathers, The Constitution, true American History, The Free Market, American Heritage, and Freedom itself, so brackets [ ] were added to insert what they failed to mention: MAY 6, 2010, 7:15 AM ET How the FCC Plans to Regulate Internet LinesBy Amy Schatz Worried that phone and cable company stocks could take a tumble, Federal Communications Commission officials will brief Wall Street analysts before the markets open Thursday morning to explain in greater detail how they plan to regulate Internet lines [and take control of the Internet, take the power to regulate free speech in America, especially those pesky Tea Partiers/9.12'ers]. On Wednesday afternoon, aides to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski began briefing other FCC officials and lawmakers about how the agency plans to make sure it can enforce net neutrality, or the requirement that Internet providers treat all legal Internet traffic equally [but don't pay attention to what the White House might deem unequal, or illegal, especially Glenn Beck and those who agree with him]. Mr. Genachowski plans to circulate a notice of inquiry to other FCC board members next week on his plans to reclassify Internet lines — both cable and phone Internet lines — as common carrier services under Title 2 of the Communications Act. In 2002, the FCC deregulated Internet lines, and this move basically reverses that decision. At the same time, he will propose a “notice of proposed forbearance,” which will essentially lay out details about all of the parts of Title 2 that the FCC won’t try to enforce on Internet providers. Mr. Genachowski wants the agency to act quickly on the notices so they can be put out for public comment, with an eye toward making the changes official this fall, FCC officials said. FCC officials say they don’t want to apply most of the provisions of Title 2 to Internet lines, including things like rate regulations and rules that would require phone and cable companies to share their Internet lines and facilities with competitors at regulated rates. “This is not your father’s Title 2,” says one FCC official familiar with the proposal, which has been dubbed “Title 2 lite” by some analysts. Although consumer advocates [and progressives who can't wait to shut down free speech opposing the White House] couldn’t be more thrilled, phone and cable companies [, not to mention Tea Partiers, 9.12'ers, limited government advocates, and other Principled Constitutionalists] aren’t exactly happy about the plan. Mr. Genachowski may not want to wade into rate regulation, but future FCCs can easily reverse forbearance decisions, raising uncertainty about how companies and investors might be able to recoup billions of dollars in investments they’ve made in Internet networks. “We would expect a profoundly negative impact on capital investment,” warned Stanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett in a research note to clients Wednesday night titled “The FCC Goes Nuclear.” “The only potential winners are the satellite providers, DirecTV and Dish Network, for whom incremental broadband regulation would dramatically reduce the risk of competitive foreclosure in the video business at the hands of bottleneck broadband providers,” he wrote. Other analysts noted there’s almost 100% certainty that phone and cable companies will challenge the FCC’s decision in court, and the litigation could take several years. (Although, to be fair, almost every major thing the FCC does ends up in a federal appeals court anyway.) “We believe the FCC’s attempt to reclassify broadband will create a prolonged period of regulatory uncertainty and invite protracted litigation in a way that could complicate various high-priority policy initiatives,” wrote Jeffrey Silva, a telecom analyst for Media Global Advisors in a research note. Click the link in the story title to read the story in original context. UPDATE: Republicans prepare to fight possible FCC net-neutrality push by ye...By Sara Jerome - 11/19/10 10:51 AM ET Republicans are preparing to make things very difficult for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman if he tries to push ahead on net neutrality in December. Chatter that the agency may move to create net-neutrality rules before year's end has put the GOP on high alert, crafting plans this week how it would oppose any such effort. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) is preparing a letter, expected to go out Friday or Saturday, urging the FCC to back down, according to House aides. The aides say they expect the letter to hit the traditional anti-net-neutrality notes: that there is no need to rush on rules for Internet lines and that there is no clear case for regulation. They also said they expect it to extol the growth of the broadband sector. Barton, the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce panel, is a candidate to lead the committee in the next Congress. Republicans are also speaking up individually to oppose the potential effort. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), who wants to lead the committee if Barton's bid fails, issued a statement on Friday panning the possibility that net neutrality could come in December. “Ramming through Internet regulations would ignore the will of a bipartisan majority of Congress and the American public," he said. "It would further impede economic growth and job creation." The political calculus that might push the FCC to move in December is that Congress would be out of session and the Republicans would not yet have the House majority to immediately fight the effort. Stearns suggested the timing is crafty. "Since the December meeting agenda will be released next week when Congress is in recess, it appears that Chairman Genachowski is trying to slip it under the radar and hope no one notices,” he said, referring to the standard set of agency procedures. FCC officials said this week they have heard rumors that net neutrality, a proposal delayed since last October, could be featured on the agency's December agenda; however, certainty and direct knowledge were scarce. Jen Howard, the spokesperson for the chairman, would neither confirm nor deny the possibility. Telecom industry analysts also began saying this week that they think the commission seems "likely" to act.

WHEN BILL MAHER SPEAKS WHO REALLY CARES?

Bill Maher appeared on Tuesday’s “Countdown” with Keith Olbermann to talk about the election. So what happens when two liberals get together to lick their wounds? Terms such as “crack baby,“ ”nut bag,“ ”incestuous,“ and ”poop” get thrown around — the first describing voters, the second Tea Party candidates, and the third the liberal media. First, the crack baby and nut bag. When Olbermann asked if Maher takes comfort in America not electing Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle and other Tea Party candidates, Maher had this to say about voters in general: Well, I’m a cock-eyed optimist Keith, so of course I take a lot of comfort in that. Yes, I think America did draw a line. When the nuts started falling out of the nut bag this year, they said, “yeah, even us — the electorate of America, the crack baby that we are — is going to say enough is enough.” Later, he eased up on the electorate and focused his ire on Republicans: There are no Republicans on the moderate side. … At some point, the left moved into the center. The right moved into a mental hospital. The left is at the center of politics? If that wasn’t a jarring enough statement, he went to say that this past Congress is one of the most “successful” since LBJ, and even had time for some self reflection when he described liberal news coverage as “incestuous.” And as an added bonus, he said Keith Olbermann sticks to the facts while while Glenn Beck “is close to playing with his poop”:

MICHAEL STEELE SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED

Top RNC aide quits, blasts Steele By: Jonathan Martin November 16, 2010 01:06 PM EST Republican National Committee political director Gentry Collins resigned from his post Tuesday morning with a stinging indictment of Chairman Michael Steele’s two-year tenure at the committee. In a four-page letter to Steele and the RNC’s executive committee obtained by POLITICO, Collins lays out inside details, previously only whispered, about the disorganization that plagues the party. He asserts that the RNC’s financial shortcomings limited GOP gains this year and reveals that the committee is deeply in debt entering the 2012 presidential election cycle. “In the previous two non-presidential cycles, the RNC carried over $4.8 million and $3.1 million respectively in cash reserve balances into the presidential cycles,” Collins writes, underlining his words for emphasis. “In stark contrast, we enter the 2012 presidential cycle with 100% of the RNC’s $15 million in lines of credit tapped out, and unpaid bills likely to add millions to that debt.” The short version of the RNC's 2010 troubles as described by Collins: The committee couldn’t afford to run an independent expenditure ad campaign on behalf of their candidates, didn’t fund a paid voter turnout operation for Senate and gubernatorial races, left its vaunted 72-Hour turnout program effectively unfunded, offered only a fraction of the direct-to-candidate financial contributions they made four years ago and dramatically scaled back its support of state parties. Steele has not indicated whether he will seek another term at the helm of the committee and an array of Republicans are already maneuvering to ensure that he does not win re-election in the event he runs. The depth of the party’s problems his political director reveals is likely to make it considerably more difficult for the embattled chairman if he does pursue a second term. That’s in part because Collins is not one of the committee’s persistent Steele critics but a respected operative and senior staffer inside the RNC building who was given authority over the $15 million line of credit the party took out this fall. In addition to the normal duties of his job, Collins spent much of the summer and fall quietly travelling the country and meeting with major donors in an effort to boost the party’s lackluster fundraising. It was a highly unusual task for a political director and, coupled with his primary job responsibilities, effectively made the Iowa native the operational head of the party. The letter is even more damaging because the aide doesn’t just lay out a bill of particulars about the troubled committee but specifically rebuts the pushback deployed by Steele to defend his tenure. Alluding to the chairman’s oft-cited explanation about the RNC’s financial difficulties this year, for example, Collins writes that the party’s “low cash-on-hand figures are not simply the result of early spending or transfers to state parties.” “While the RNC spent $11 million more in 2009 than in 2005 to secure important off-year victories in New Jersey, Virginia and Pennsylvania, that accounts for only one-quarter of the $43.6 million shortfall from the last non-presidential cycle,” he notes. “And while we did make large in-kind contributions of phones and equipment to state parties, more than 85% of that equipment was left over from 2008 – not acquired in the 2010 cycle.” Collins’ parting blast is also damning simply by virtue of the sheer volume of data the aide reveals and the degree of precision he uses to paint a picture of a dysfunctional RNC. “For the 2010 election year itself, RNC cash transfers to state parties for political purposes were just $13.1 million—less than a quarter of the $56.7 million cash transfers to state parties in 2006 for political purposes,” Collins writes. “And in 2010, the RNC went $15 million into debt to fund these programs.” He makes the case that the party’s lack of money directly resulted in missed opportunities in an otherwise stellar year for the GOP. Collins cites a study that he says found that the GOP could have won the Washington and Colorado Senate races with a better field operation and says that he’d chalk up narrow gubernatorial losses in Connecticut, Minnesota and Vermont to the same lack of funds for a ground game. The veteran Republican operative also tallies 21 House contests in every corner of the country that he asserts “could have been competitive if not for lack of funds.” In some of the states where the GOP picked up House seats, Collins notes it was partly because of outside help the party got for field funding. “The [Republican Governors Association] spent $18 million on GOTV-related expenses in 18 gubernatorial states,” he writes. “$13.2 million of those dollars went directly to state parties—more than the RNC transferred to state parties for political spending in all 50 states. More than half our US House pick-ups (31 of 60) and five of our most crucial holds were won in those 18 states.” And in the case of the two missed Senate opportunities, Washington state didn’t have a governor’s race and the RGA didn’t play in the Colorado gubernatorial contest. Collins lays the party’s fundraising shortfall squarely at the feet of Steele. “In the last two non-presidential cycles of 2002 and 2006, the RNC raised $284 million and $243 million respectively,” he writes, without noting Republicans held the White House in those two campaigns. “So far this cycle, the RNC has reported raising just $170 million. Less than $18 million (10.53%) of that total came from contributions of $1,000 or more, collected from a mere 5,379 donors. This is a fraction of either the previous cycles.” Of the $170 million raised to date, Collins points out that much of it came from low-dollar donors giving online and in the mail, suggesting Steele can’t claim credit for it. “These contributions do not result from personal solicitation by the Chairman but, like other macro-political trends, are reflective of the anti-Obama/Pelosi/Reid wave that drove energy and intensity to historic highs this cycle,” Collins writes. And without the major donors giving to the party, the cost of fundraising overhead soared. “Historical fundraising costs have been less that 50 cents per dollar raised: Estimates for cost-of-funds this cycle were much higher, and some estimate that they were closer to 70 cents on the dollar,” the aide writes, underlining his words. But the problem, Collins adds, wasn’t just a lack of money to state parties and candidates – it was also a lack of communication. Of the 72-Hour Program, devised by President George W. Bush’s political team, Collins recalls that the states didn’t even know that the turnout effort had been shelved until days before it was to begin this year. “States were not notified of RNC Chief of Staff Mike Leavitt’s order that no 72-hour funding would be made available to them until October 22, 2010 – just one week before the 72-hour window opened,” he writes. Collins concludes his letter to Steele and the 11 members that comprise the party’s executive committee by noting that the party must regain its financial footing heading into 2012 to help underwrite a presidential campaign, pay for a presidential convention, costs associated with redistricting and all the House, Senate and gubernatorial races that will be held. “These are huge opportunities requiring massive obligations,” he writes. “And this Committee can meet them. But to meet them, we must dig out from huge debts, be focused and disciplined about spending wisely, only spend to win elections, and adopt a laser-like focus on the hard work of reviving our major donor fundraising network.”

Big Sis Caught Lying RE: Airport Security

Posted by Jared Law on November 16, 2010 First of all, many of us simply assume the Government is lying when they attempt to allay our fears about privacy and security, since they have lied to us so many times in the past. As the saying goes, "fool me once..." So we would be foolish to believe the Government when it comes to these porno scanners and the sexual assault pat-downs. I thought the other discussion I posted, "Hope? Change? TSA Molesting Passengers Nationwide" would cover this story well enough, but the news keeps getting worse. The first of two articles below makes the case against the deception of Big Sis quite nicely; below, you'll also find an article exposing the free pass Muslims get with the security procedures! Here's the first article: -------- 11/15/10 08:06 PM Big Sis Caught Lying To American People By Americans4Truth Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano, now forever known as Big Sis – a reference to George Orwell’s 1984 – has been caught telling some big lies in an attempt to quell an enormous public backlash against the full body scanning technology and invasive pat-down procedures that have been implemented by the TSA in airports nationwide. In a blatant propaganda piece published by USA Today, Napolitano describes the scanning machines as safe and the pat-downs as “discreet”, in the face of a flood of complaints from scientists, pilots, flight attendants, privacy groups, parents, Muslim groups and everyday passengers, all rebelling against over the top security. “AIT machines are safe, efficient, and protect passenger privacy.” Napolitano writes in an article in which every single claim she makes can be easily disproved and revealed to be outright lies. Lie: The scanners are safe “They have been independently evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, who have all affirmed their safety.” Napolitano claims, expecting the public to simply swallow the claim that NIST and the FDA are somehow “independent” of the federal government. As for Johns Hopkins University declaring the scanners safe, tell it to Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at the Johns Hopkins school of medicine. Love told AFP two days ago that “statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays”. “…we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner,” he added.So, unless you count skin cancer as safe, Napolitano is lying to you. According to other numerous real “independent” scientists who continue to speak out over the health hazards associated with the x-ray technology, the body scanners are far from safe. Sedat, a University of California at San Francisco professor of biochemistry and biophysics and member of the National Academy of Sciences tells CNet that the machines have “mutagenic effects” and will increase the risk of cancer. Sedat previously sent a letter to the White House science Czar John P. Holdren, identifying the specific risk the machines pose to children and the elderly. The letter stated: “it appears that real independent safety data do not exist… There has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations.” The TSA has repeatedly stated that going through the machines is equal to the radiation encountered during just two minutes of a flight. However, this does not take into account that the scanning machines specifically target only the skin and the muscle tissue immediately beneath. The scanners are similar to C-Scans and fire ionizing radiation at those inside which penetrates a few centimeters into the flesh and reflects off the skin to form a naked body image. The firing of ionizing radiation at the body effectively “unzips” DNA, according to scientific research by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The research shows that even very low doses of X-ray can delay or prevent cellular repair of damaged DNA, yet pregnant women and children will be subjected to the process as new guidelines including scanners are adopted. The Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety concluded in their report on the matter that governments must justify the use of the scanners and that a more accurate assessment of the health risks is needed. Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, according to the report, adding that governments should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.” “The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” reported Bloomberg. Scientists at Columbia University also entered the debate recently, warning that the dose emitted by the naked x-ray devices could be up to 20 times higher than originally estimated, likely contributing to an increase in a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma which affects the head and neck. “If all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with X-rays then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk. The population risk has the potential to be significant,” said Dr David Brenner, head of Columbia University’s centre for radiological research. Lie: The scanners are effective “…the weapons and other dangerous and prohibited items we’ve found during AIT screenings have illustrated their security value time and again.” Napolitano claims in her propaganda piece. In reality, the machines would not have prevented the Christmas Day bomber from boarding Flight 253, according to their designers, and other security experts who have dismissed the devices as “useless”. The imaging machines cannot even detect explosive material, so claiming, as Napolitano does, that they are “our best defense against such threats” is misleading at best and at worst a complete lie. If the machines had detected “dangerous items” “time and again”, rest assured that the DHS and the TSA would make sure it was all over the news – such success stories have been decidedly absent from the media, unless you count “dangerous items” as baby milk, tubes of toothpaste or contact lens fluid. The idea that the machines are effective flies in the face of the viewpoint of surveillance experts who note that the scanners will do nothing to make air travel safer. Lie: The scanners cannot store/print/transmit images At first we were asked to believe that the imaging machines did not produce crisp images of naked bodies. In an effort to downplay the intrusion of privacy they really represent, the TSA routinely claimed that the images produced by the scanners are “ghostly” or “skeletal”. The passenger’s face is blurred and the image as a whole “resembles a fuzzy negative,” the TSA spokeswoman Kristin Lee told the media last year, prior to the underwear bombing attempt. After months of researchers, reporters and everyday travelers outing this as a complete lie, the DHS/TSA abandoned that approach and instead claimed that, although they were detailed naked images, it’s fine and dandy because they cannot be saved or transmitted. “The imaging technology that we use cannot store, export, print or transmit images.” Napolitano claims in her latest propaganda piece. Again not true. As we have previously detailed, the images that show in detail the naked genitals of men, women and children that have passed through the scanners can be transmitted and printed.As reported by Declan McCullagh of CNET earlier this year, “The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.” The proof comes in the form of a letter (PDF), obtained by The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), in which William Bordley, an associate general counsel with the Marshals Service, admits that “approximately 35,314 images…have been stored on the Brijot Gen2 machine” used in the Orlando, Fla. federal courthouse. EPIC says it has also obtained more than 100 images of electronically stripped individuals from the scanning devices used at federal courthouses. The disclosures come as part of a settlement of an EPIC Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the U.S. Marshals Service. Brijot, the manufacturer of the body scanning equipment in question, also admits that its machine can store up to 40,000 images and records. EPIC, has filed two further lawsuits against the Department of Homeland Security over the scanners, claiming that the DHS has refused to release at least 2,000 images it has stored from scanners currently in use in U.S. airports. EPIC’s lawsuit argues that the body scanners violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “unreasonable” searches, as well as the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, referencing religious laws about modesty. The group points to a further document (PDF) it has obtained from DHS showing that the machines used by the department’s TSA are not only able to record and store naked body images, but that they are mandated to do so. The TSA has admitted that this is the case, but claims that it is for training and testing purposes only, maintaining that the body scanners used at airports cannot “store, print or transmit images”. “In complying with our Freedom of Information Act request, the Marshals Service has helped the public more fully understand the capabilities of these devices,” EPIC President Marc Rotenberg said in a statement. “But the DHS continues to conceal the truth from American air travelers who could be subject to similar intrusive recorded searches in U.S. airports.” As if it was needed, further evidence also points to the fact that the images are actively being transmitted and printed in airports. Lie: Pat-downs are “discreet” In her headline, Napolitano calls the pat-down procedure offered as an alternative to the naked body scanners, or used in addition to them, as “discreet”. “Pat-downs have long been one of the many security measures used by the U.S. and countries across the world to make air travel as secure as possible.” she writes. What she does not explain is that the new pat down procedure, which now allows TSA agents to forcefully feel around breasts and genitalia, is currently conducted in full view of queuing passengers and has been described by many, including New York Times reporter Joe Sharkey, as a deliberate form of humiliation to discourage others from refusing the full body scans. The TSA also claims that the pat-downs are discreet, yet multiple accounts and reports prove otherwise. Flight attendants and pilots unions in particular have taken up issue with the pat-downs, with one union declaring “We don’t want them in uniform going through this enhanced screening where their private areas are being touched in public… They actually make contact with the genital area.” As reported by Reuters, parents are now demanding that the procedures be changed for children, after witnesses have described their children’s genitals being touched by men and women working for the TSA. “I didn’t think it was going to be as horrible as he was describing,” one father noted after an agent told him what he was going to do to the child before conducting the full body search. “At some point the terrorists have won.” the father added. The TSA says it is currently “reviewing” the procedure for children. Perhaps it should first review it’s policy on background checking its own employees, which by all accounts is woefully inadequate. Lie: “Risk based” security procedure Napolitano calls the TSA’s system “risk-based,” another total fallacy given the fact that the primary targets of airport oppression have been women, children, the elderly, and the physically disabled, all the categories of people who characteristically would pose the least risk in terms of terrorism. The procedure is completely random, emphasizing the fact that everyone is categorized as a potential terrorist. Lie: The scanners are popular with the public “These machines are now in use at airports nationwide, and the vast majority of travelers say they prefer this technology to alternative screening measures.” Napolitano writes. Another unsubstantiated claim, particularly given that a new Reuters poll shows that over 95% of Americans are now less likely to fly due to the crackdown in the wake of the dubious toner cartridge and underpants bombing scares. Furthermore, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act before the issue recently hit headlines again, and before the majority of airports even had the machines installed, have revealed that there were more than 600 formal complaints about the devices last year. Hardly a shining example of how popular the machines are. Lies Lies Lies Napolitano and the TSA have consistently lied to the American people about the open implementation of tyranny in our airports. They will continue to do so in an effort to make it appear that those who are revolting against their procedures are just a small minority, when in reality the the vast majority of sick and tired of being treated like slaves and having their fundamental freedoms trashed. On November 24th, ‘national opt-out day’, the world will see thousands and thousands standing up against measures that are not only set to become commonplace in airports everywhere, but are also scheduled to be implemented on our streets if we do not resist... -------- This next story makes no sense; if it weren't for Islamist Radicals, we wouldn't NEED these ridiculous security measures! CAIR: TSA CAN ONLY PAT DOWN MUSLIM WOMEN’S HEAD, NECK Posted on November 12, 2010 at 9:43pm by Meredith Jessup The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has issued a travel notice to Muslim airline passengers, warning them that new regulations from the Transportation Security Administration violate certain religious rules. According to CAIR, the TSA’s new “enhanced pat down” policy should be limited to searching only around Muslim women’s head and neck if they are wearing a hijab and that Muslims objecting to the enhanced full-body scans have the right to request the pat-down procedure be done in a private place. From CAIR’s press release: Special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab: * If you are selected for secondary screening after you go through the metal detector and it does not go off, and “sss” is not written on your boarding pass, ask the TSA officer if the reason you are being selected is because of your head scarf. * In this situation, you may be asked to submit to a pat-down or to go through a full body scanner. If you are selected for the scanner, you may ask to go through a pat-down instead. * Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down. * You may ask to be taken to a private room for the pat-down procedure. * Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands. In February, the Figh Council of North America, a group of Islamic scholars, issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, that full-body scanners violate Islamic law. “It is a violation of clear Islamic teaching that men or women be seen naked by other men and women,” the ruling states. “Islam highly emphasizes haya (modesty) and considers it part of the faith. The Qu’ran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts.” According to the Detroit Free Press, CAIR endorsed the fatwa. If any passenger refuses the full-body scan, new regulations call for new, enhanced “head to toe” pat down procedures. “Pat downs are one important tool to help TSA detect hidden and dangerous items such as explosives,” a TSA statement issued on Oct. 28 stated. “Passengers should continue to expect an unpredictable mix of security layers that include explosives trace detection, advanced imaging technology, canine teams, among others.” According to the TSA’s “Head-to-Toe Screening Policies,” the agency may carry out closer inspections, depending on what a passenger is wearing. Baggy or loose clothing often draws extra scrutiny from security screeners.

PAY ATTENTION PEOPLE!

When asked today if she will insist that Muslim women wearing hijabs must go through full body pat downs before boarding planes, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano did not say yes or no, but told CNSNews.com there will be “adjustments” and “more to come” on the issue.

HOPE AND CHANGE? YOU ASKED FOR IT..........................

Posted by Jared Law (912 Project) In addition to the common-sense concerns about repeated doses of radiation from the 'forced porn scanners,' AKA 'naked body scanners,' making people submit to molestation by government employees to be able to travel by air is tyrannical, it's a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America: Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't know about you, but refusing to be submitted to radiation which isn't necessary for medical care, the certainty of being molested by government employees if you refuse the radiation, is a ridiculous violation of the Fourth Amendment; it is unreasonable to insist that gov't employees see me naked, and if I refuse, they get to molest me. NO THANKS! True, it IS our choice to travel by air or not, but if they refuse to profile terrorists, they will convince many that this is necessary for our own safety. "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." -Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack (1738) Benjamin Franklin is also credited with the following quote: "Those who are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither, and will lose both." This is precisely what he was talking about. It's time to do some actual terrorist profiling. I CANNOT WAIT for Republicans to take control of the United States House of Representatives in January; hopefully we have elected enough principled patriots that we can restore the liberty of Americans who travel by air! Here are the related news stories: -------- Flight attendants union upset over new pat-down procedures By: Christopher Sign PHOENIX - A flight attendants union with 2,000 members is upset over what it calls "invasive pat-downs" recently implemented by the TSA. "We're getting calls daily about peoples' experiences, our members are concerned," said Deborah Volpe, Vice President of the Association of Flight Attendants Local 66. Volpe confirmed that the union is offering advice to its flight attendants, who mostly work for Tempe-based USAirways, involving the security moves. According to a union email obtained by ABC15, it tells flight attendants if they opt out of using the body scanner through security and are required to undergo a pat-down to ask the pat-down be conducted in a private area with a witness. "We don't want them in uniform going through this enhanced screening where their private areas are being touched in public," said Volpe. "They actually make contact with the genital area." Some passengers have told ABC15 they've already encountered flight delays due to crew members having problems with TSA employees. "It (delay) was over three hours when they finally found a crew member to take her place," said Les Johnson who says his Charlotte bound flight was delayed. "She (flight attendant) felt that she was groped and supposedly filed a claim." According to Volpe, complaints from flight attendants are expected to continue to increase and said some flight attendants are planning to file lawsuits. "They've already contacted the ACLU," said Volpe when referring to some members of the union. "We don't know if somebody may have had an experience with a sexual assault and its (pat-down) going to drudge up some bad memories." Volpe made it clear the union is not against security. "Security is the most important aspect, our offices were used as murder weapons," said Volpe. "Keep in mind we undergo extensive background checks and we fly quite often." Volpe said she has been a flight attendant for nearly 25 years and she and other union leaders are pushing for a "crew pass" system that would allow flight attendants and pilots to essentially by-pass security. "We don't want to delay anyone, we just feel this pat-down is a little much." -------- Airport screeners get more aggressive with pat By Gary Stoller, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — The government's aggressive new pat-down searches at airports are raising privacy concerns and dividing frequent fliers. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) security screeners last week began more aggressively patting down airline passengers as a matter of policy across the country. The agency calls it one of its several layers of security to keep travelers safe. "Pat downs are one important tool to help TSA detect hidden and dangerous items such as explosives," the agency says. The new searches are done with screeners' hands sliding over a passenger's body. However, the searches require screeners to touch passengers' breasts and genitals. And that's prompting some fliers and the American Civil Liberties Union to question the policy's intrusiveness and effectiveness. Frequent business traveler Richard Boyd of Beverly Hills says the pat downs "serve no real purpose." "It's another TSA delusion of enhancing security," Boyd says. "It will accomplish nothing other than adding to a traveler's frustration and time required to clear security. It should be abandoned before implemented." Pat-down searches are used when a passenger sets off a metal detector, chooses not to go through a "full-body" scanning machine or the machine detects something suspicious. 'Invasive' techniques Frequent flier Leslie Ashor says she advocates "anything that keeps us safe," but she's concerned about a search she underwent Thursday at Denver's airport. "I stood there thinking that this is somewhat humiliating, even though I didn't know all the people around me," says Ashor, an architect from San Diego. "As a woman, it is somewhat unnerving to have someone touching you in these areas in full public view." The TSA has private screening areas, but Ashor says she doesn't opt to use them to save time. An effective pat down "has to be invasive" and touch both breasts and genitals, says Billie Vincent, a former security director for the Federal Aviation Administration. "It is clearly a technique that most people would consider an invasion of their privacy." Vincent says the new procedures were instituted because the TSA wants to make pat downs as effective as the full-body scanning machines. The machines — considered by some fliers to be virtual strip searches — were installed at many airports in March after a Christmas Day airline bombing attempt. The TSA plans to have about 1,000 installed by the end of next year. Chris Calabrese, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, says the more aggressive pat downs should be stopped until a thorough analysis of the policy is done. "Are we giving people two intolerable actions at airports?" Calabrese asks. "They can be virtually strip-searched or endure a really aggressive grope?" The TSA says privacy is an important consideration and stresses that the searches are done by personnel of the same gender as passengers. "We look to ensure people's privacy while ensuring the skies are safe," says TSA spokesman Nicholas Kimball. The more aggressive pat-down procedures were tested this summer at airports in Boston and Las Vegas before implementation at all airports. The new pat-down method is as "ineffective as any other method they use," says flier Patrick Mathiowetz of Middleton, Wis. Mathiowetz, a sales director in the dairy products manufacturing industry, says he gets patted down whenever he refuses to go through a "full-body" scanning machine or a carry-on baggage screener detects something suspicious in his briefcase. Some support searches Some frequent fliers support the more aggressive pat downs. Rob Newman of Los Angeles supports the TSA's attempts to improve security. He says a terrorist could conceal a weapon in the buttocks and welcomes more thorough searches. "I'm all for whatever is most effective in ensuring the plane I get on is safe," he says. Frequent flier Jay Burns of the Village of Loch Lloyd, Mo., agrees. "If this stops a terrorist, I am in favor," Burns says. The TSA won't discuss details of pat-down procedures or its overall security policies. However, it warns in a statement: "Passengers should continue to expect an unpredictable mix of security layers that include explosives trace detection, advanced imaging technology, canine teams, among others."

DEM POLLSTER: OBAMA NEEDS ANOTHER OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING TO RECONNECT

Posted by Jared Law on November 8, 2010 at 10:19am Glenn has said over and over that the 'progressives' NEED us to be violent; this is yet another confirmation of this fact. Let's just hope they don't dare to attempt a false flag operation; if they do, let's pray the casualties will be light, and either way, they's pray they are exposed! Here's the video clip & commentary from Eyeblast.TV: http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdSUkUkUpr Dem Pollster: Obama Needs Another Oklahoma City Bombing to ReconnectPosted on Friday, November 5th, 2010 at 11:16 am by Joe Schoffstall Democrat pollster Mark Penn appeared on MSNBC’s Hardball and said that President Clinton reconnected with his speech after the Oklahoma City bombings, and Obama needs a similar situation to do the same. “President Clinton reconnected with Oklahoma. And the President right now he seems removed. And it wasn’t until that speech that he really clicked with the American people. Obama needs a similar kind of, yeah” said Penn. --------

GOOD NEWS FROM TEXAS!

Posted by Jared Law 912 Project

One of the many fruits of our activism over the past year and a half, of the historic Republican wave on November 2nd, 2010, is that the Texas State Legislature is going to be considering a bill which if it were passed, like the Arizona law, would restore sanity and common-sense to the enforcement of the law in Texas with respect to illegal aliens.

While such a law should have been passed years ago, we must play the cards we're dealt, so it is only now, after principled patriots all across America have been elected to their state legislatures, that we have the opportunity to right such ridiculous wrongs as the refusal to enforce the laws of the land when the perpetrators are illegal aliens who have invaded our country!

'Arizona Style' Immigration Law Proposed in TexasConservative Lawmaker Files Bill In First Hour Of Filing Period For 2011 Session
By Jim Forsyth
Monday, November 8, 2010

Less than an hour after the period began for filing bills for consideration in the 2011 Legislative session, State Rep. Debbie Riddle (R-Tomball), a leader of the newly muscular conservatives in the Legislature, filed an 'Arizona style' measure that would crack down on illegal immigration, 1200 WOAI news reports.

Riddle says her measure is a response to what she says is the escalating violence caused by Mexican and Latin American gangs in Texas.

"It is absolutely out of control with the gang related crime, which is going through the roof, so, yes, we are addressing this, and quite frankly, I am not worried about political correctness," Riddle told 1200 WOAI news.

The measure would be similar to Arizona's controversial SB 1070, in that it would require that local police work with federal immigration officials in determining the legal status of a person who is in their custody.

"If that individual is already being detained, because of another crime, then that officer can inquire as to one's immigration status," Riddle said.

The Arizona law has been placed on hold pending a court challenge. Riddle says her measure would help it withstand similar legal challenges.

Republicans will hold 99 of the 150 seats in the Texas House when the biennial session is gaveled into order January 11th, the largest GOP majority in the Texas House in 140 years. The conservative landslide last week is expected to result in several measures on the conservative wish list which have been killed by Democrats and moderate Republicans being passed in the coming legislature.

Riddle's measure would also deny all state funds to any community which declares itself a 'sanctuary city' and refuses to aggressively enforce immigration laws.

"The gang related crime which does have a connect with the Mexican drug cartels has gone up 250 percent in this state," Riddle said. "People are sick and tired of political correctness. They want their communities safe."

In addition to the healthy majority in the Texas House, Republcians will still control almost 2/3 of the seats in the 31 member State Senate, as well as Republicans in control of all statewide elected offices.

KEITH OLBERMAN ELIGIBLE FOR OBAMA-PAYROLL!

By SAM SCHECHNER

MSNBC suspended talk-show host Keith Olbermann indefinitely Friday afternoon following a report that Mr. Olbermann donated to three Democratic candidates in the recent midterm elections.

"I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night," Phil Griffin, president of the General Electric Co. news channel, said in a statement Friday. "Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."

Mr. Olbermann's contributions emerged Friday in an article on Politico, the Web site and newspaper owned by Allbritton Communications Co. In the article, Mr. Olbermann acknowledged that he had given the maximum legal donations in late October to two Arizona members of Congress, and failed U.S. senate candidate Jack Conway in Kentucky.

A representative for Mr. Olbermann could not immediately be reached for comment.

NBC News generally prohibits staff from overtly political activity, such as contributions, and requires employees to seek permission in questionable situations, an MSNBC spokesman said.

The MSNBC spokesman said political writer and MSNBC contributor Chris Hayes would substitute for Mr. Olbermann in his 8 p.m. time slot on Friday

ELECTORAL FELONY: Bag of Uncounted Ballots Found in Bridgeport, CT!

BY BOB CONNORS

In what has become one of the stranger twists in an already bizarre Governor's race, a bag of uncounted ballots was found in Bridgeport Thursday night.

Republican officials were approached by Democratic operatives and told about the surprise ballot bag, according to Bridgeport GOP Chairman Marc Delmonico.

“It adds to the inconsistencies from the Democratic Party in Bridgeport. It just keeps adding to it,” said Delmonico. “There’s nothing odd about it; there’s certainly nothing missing about it,” said Ed Maley, a representative for the Democratic Party.

Delmonico said Democrats asked to have several people deputized to count the uncounted ballots, but Republicans objected, claiming that wasn't proper procedure in the vote-counting process.

“These ballots are getting extraordinarily heightened scrutiny. They’re being dealt with in a public fashion, an open public process so that everyone can witness it,” said Mark Anastasi, the city attorney for Bridgeport.

Instead the GOP asked police to take custody of the bag of ballots until the matter could be sorted out.

The votes could be pivotal in the race for Governor, in which neither candidate has conceded defeat.

Wednesday, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz declared Democrat Dan Malloy the "unofficial" winner, but numbers released by her office show Republican Tom Foley still leading Malloy by more than 8,000 votes. Those totals do not include any of the vote totals from the City of Bridgeport.

Bridgeport has become the focal point of what has turned into a circus of an election.

A ballot shortage led to long lines on Election Day, and a judge issuing an order to keep polls open until 10 p.m. Tuesday, two hours longer than every other town in the state.

Because of the shortage, many of the votes cast Tuesday were done so on photocopied ballots.

Election officials began counting those ballots just after 5 p.m. Thursday when the new bag of uncounted ballots was discovered.

Bysiewicz said she didn't expect the vote totals from Bridgeport to be submitted to her until Friday at the earliest.

Senator Murray expands lead, but counting drags on.............

By Shane D'Aprile - 11/04/10 01:34 PM ET


Don't expect a quick verdict in Washington state's Senate contest between incumbent Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Republican Dino Rossi.

Murray has padded her vote lead over Rossi — she now leads by some 27,000 votes, according to unofficial numbers from the state board of elections. So far, more than 1.6 million ballots have been counted.

Democrats see positive signs in the numbers for Murray, pointing to her commanding margin over Rossi in King County. Some 171,000 ballots are still uncounted in that Democrat-heavy county.

Still, close to 600,000 ballots have yet to be counted statewide with elections officials continuing the count throughout the day Thursday.

It's a typically slow process in Washington given the state's system of mail in balloting. The vast majority of voters cast their ballots via mail and as long as the ballot is postmarked by midnight on Election Day, it counts. In addition, some counties in the state are without ballot sorting machines, forcing a manual count of votes.

On top of the nearly 600,000 ballots still uncounted, thousands more are likely on their way, according to the state board of elections. There's also a total of 55,000 overseas and military ballots that have until November 22 to reach elections officials.

Given the current count University of Washington Political Science Professor Matt Barreto is forecasting a sizable win for Murray when all is said and done. Based on the counties where ballots are still outstanding, he predicts the incumbent will only continue to increase her lead as the votes are counted, making a Rossi comeback unlikely.

For an automatic recount, Rossi would have to whittle Murray's margin down to less than 2,000 votes.

Sen. Murray expands lead, but counting drags on - The Hill's Ballot Box

Sen. Murray expands lead, but counting drags on - The Hill's Ballot Box

WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

With thirty-eight of Washington’s thirty-nine counties having adopted a vote-by-mail system, the results of the election may not be known for some time. The Secretary of State’s office estimates a 66% voter turnout. There are currently 3.6 million registered voters, meaning that nearly 2.4 million ballots will be counted statewide. We can expect a number of close races to remain undecided as ballots are counted over the coming days and weeks.

Here is a brief overview of where things stand on Election night, November 2.

U.S. Senate

With most polls leading up to the election within the margin of error, incumbent Senator Patty Murray (D) has been locked in a contentious race with former state senator and two-time gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi (R).

Murray 50.59% v. Rossi 49.41% (Raw vote count: Murray 703,637 v. Rossi 687,102)

U.S. House of Representatives

Four of Washington’s nine Congressional Districts have been closely contested with the potential of changing control from one party to the other. It looks like the result of the election may result in a net pick-up of two congressional seats for Republicans (2nd, and 3rd Congressional Districts).

2nd Congressional District – Rep. Rick Larsen (D) 49.57% v. John Koster (R) 50.43%

3rd Congressional District – Denny Heck (D-open seat) 47.08% v. Jaime Herrera (R) 52.92%

8th Congressional District – Rep. Dave Reichert (R) 54.2% v. Suzanne DelBene (D) 45.8%

9th Congressional District – Rep. Adam Smith (D) 53.92% v. Dick Muri (R) 46.08%

State Senate

Twenty-five of the state’s forty-nine senate seats are up for re-election this year, with Democrats defending nineteen of those seats. Democrats currently outnumber Republicans 31-18, meaning Republicans would need to win seven seats to take the majority.

Preliminary results indicate the Senate will have 25 Democrats, 23 or 24 Republicans, with 1 or two races remaining too close to call.

State House of Representatives

All ninety-eight seats of the House of Representatives are up for re-election this year, with Democrats currently holding a 61-37 majority. Several seats have been vacated by retirement and many incumbent Democrats are facing strong challenges.

Preliminary results indicate the makeup of the House will be 52 Democrats, 44 Republicans, with four or five races still too close to call.

State Supreme Court

Of the three State Supreme Court positions up this year, only one member of the bench faces a challenger in the general election: Justice Richard Sanders 51.1% v. Charlie Wiggins 48.9%

Ballot Measures

I-1053: Restates existing statutory requirements that tax increases must be approved by two-thirds legislative majorities or receive voter approval. 65.6% Yes 34.4% No

I-1082: Authorizes employers to purchase private industrial insurance. 41.3% Yes 58.1% No

I-1098: Institutes state income tax over $200,000 (individuals) and $400,000 (joint-filers). 34.5% Yes 65.4% No

I-1100: Authorizes the sale, distribution and importation of liquor. 48.1% Yes 51.9% No

I-1105: Privatizes the sale and distribution of liquor, maintaining “3-tier” distribution system. 36.75% Yes 63.25% No

I-1107: Repeals the tax on candy, bottled water, soda and processed foods.

62.8% Yes 37.2% No

Referendum 52: authorizes bonds to finance energy efficiency projects for public schools. 43.2% Yes 56.88% No

HJR 4220: Authorizes courts to deny bail for certain offenses. 85.5% Yes 14.5% No

SJR 8225: Changes the definition of interest for the purpose of calculating the constitutional debt limit. 51.12% Yes 48.87% No

SUMMARY............

It’s over.

The rhetoric is over. All the mud that was to be slung has been slung. Now it’s time to get to work.

Most disappointing and most important to the insurance industry — not just in Washington where the votes were cast — but to agents everywhere, is the decision by Washington State voters to keep private insurers out of the increasingly expensive workers’ compensation insurance system.

The rate increases that will soon be announced may have the voters wishing they’d made a different decision.

Nationally Republicans won big. Even more interesting, the Tea Party made a mark. How they work with the Republicans in the House and in the Senate, and with Democrats, and how they will wield their newfound power remains to be seen. It will be interesting.

So Republicans took control of the U.S. House of Representatives and made significant gains in the U.S. Senate. Two questions: why and now what? And what does that mean for insurance?

For insurance health care reform is the top news item. Can the Republicans stop ObamaCare or slow it down, or change it significantly. That certainly is the goal of some in the Grand Old Party.

A bigger issue for you personally is how insurance agents will be used in the exchanges that will be set up in each individual state and be in operation by 2014.

Political experts say what we saw yesterday is a course correction. The people have spoken. They really do want change. And they want change — if you’ll pardon us stealing a slogan — they can believe in. Republicans need to remember that.

The people want solutions, not rhetoric. They want a government they can trust and leaders of both parties that they can trust. They want jobs. They want a sound economy. They want to end government waste and big government spending, and on the list goes.

Like the Democrats, the Republicans don’t have a great track record. Polls say the GOP is nearly as disliked as the Democrats. And neither party scores all that well.

The people want the two parties to come up with compromises that solve problems, not that further the party’s goals or ambitions. The people want Congress and the president to work together.

Time will tell whether that message has finally sunk into those running our country. We hope they do get the message and that they do understand.
As far as Insurance commissioners go, democrat Dave Jones won over republican Mike Villines in California.

Oklahoma voters have elected Republican John Doak as their insurance commissioner. Doak has unseated Kim Holland. Holland was recently elected as vice president of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). The organization will now have to find a replacement.
Nationally, Louisiana’s Charlie Melancon lost his bid for the U.S. Senate to Republican David Vitter.

Brain Freeze | TobyToons

Brain Freeze | TobyToons

RedState Morning Briefing For November 3, 2010

This is an unusual Morning Briefing because you need to understand what happened while you've been sleeping.

Republican gains are massive. And when I say Republican gains are massive, I mean tsunami.

No, the GOP did not take the Senate and some races are still outstanding, but the Senate GOP has moved to the right. More so, the Republicans picking up, in the worst case, seven seats is historically strong.

But consider that as you wake up this morning the Republican Party has picked up more seats in the House of Representatives than at any time since 1948 - that is more than sixty seats. Ike Skelton, Class of 1976, is gone. Many, many other Democrats are gone.

That, in and of itself, is significant. But that's not the half of it. The real story is the underreported story of the night - the Republican pick ups at the state level.

There will be 18 states subject to reapportionment. The Republicans will control a majority of those - at least ten and maybe a dozen or more. More significantly, a minimum of seventeen state legislative houses have flipped to the Republican Party.

The North Carolina Legislature is Republican for the first time since 1870. Yes, that is Eighteen Seventy.

The Alabama Legislature is Republican for the first time since 1876.

For those saying this is nothing because it is the South, consider these:

The entire Wisconsin and New Hampshire legislatures have flipped to the GOP by wide margins.

The State Houses in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Montana, and Colorado flipped to the GOP.

The Maine and Minnesota Senates flipped to the GOP.

The Texas and Tennessee Houses went from virtually tied to massive Republican gains. The gains in Texas were so big that the Republicans no longer need the Democrats to get state constitutional amendments out of the state legislature.

These gains go all the way down to the municipal level across the nation. That did not happen even in 1994.

This was a tsunami.

Sincerely yours,



Erick Erickson
Editor, RedState.com

--------

ADVICE THAT HAD BETTER BE LISTENED TO...................

NOVEMBER 3, 2010
Welcome, Senate ConservativesRemember what the voters back home want—less government and more freedom.
By JIM DEMINT

Congratulations to all the tea party-backed candidates who overcame a determined, partisan opposition to win their elections. The next campaign begins today. Because you must now overcome determined party insiders if this nation is going to be spared from fiscal disaster.

Many of the people who will be welcoming the new class of Senate conservatives to Washington never wanted you here in the first place. The establishment is much more likely to try to buy off your votes than to buy into your limited-government philosophy. Consider what former GOP senator-turned-lobbyist Trent Lott told the Washington Post earlier this year: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them."

Don't let them. Co-option is coercion. Washington operates on a favor-based economy and for every earmark, committee assignment or fancy title that's given, payback is expected in return. The chits come due when the roll call votes begin. This is how big-spending bills that everyone always decries in public always manage to pass with just enough votes.

But someone can't be bribed if they aren't for sale. Here is some humble advice on how to recognize and refuse such offers.

First, don't request earmarks. If you do, you'll vote for legislation based on what's in it for your state, not what's best for the country. You will lose the ability to criticize wasteful spending. And, if you dare to oppose other pork-barrel projects, the earmarkers will retaliate against you.

In 2005, Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) offered a measure to kill funding for the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere." Before the vote, Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.), an appropriator, issued a warning on the Senate floor.

"If we start cutting funding for individual projects, your project may be next," she said. "When Members come down to the floor to vote on this amendment, they need to know if they support stripping out this project, Senator Bond [a Republican appropriator] and I are likely to be taking a long, serious look at their projects to determine whether they should be preserved during our upcoming conference negotiations."

The threat worked. Hardly anyone wanted to risk losing earmarks. The Senate voted 82-15 to protect funding for the Bridge to Nowhere.

Second, hire conservative staff. The old saying "personnel is policy" is true. You don't need Beltway strategists and consultants running your office. Find people who share your values and believe in advancing the same policy reforms. Staff who are driven by conservative instincts can protect you from unwanted, outside influences when the pressure is on.

Third, beware of committees. Committee assignments can be used as bait to make senators compromise on other matters. Rookie senators are often told they must be a member of a particular committee to advance a certain piece of legislation. This may be true in the House, but a senator can legislate on any matter from the Senate floor.

Fourth, don't seek titles. The word "Senator" before your name carries plenty of clout. All senators have the power to object to bad legislation, speak on the floor and offer amendments, regardless of how they are ranked in party hierarchy.

Lastly, don't let your re-election become more important than your job. You've campaigned long and hard for the opportunity to go to Washington and restore freedom in America. People will try to convince you to moderate conservative positions and break campaign promises, all in the name of winning the next race. Resist the temptation to do so. There are worse things than losing an election—like breaking your word to voters.

At your swearing-in ceremony, you will, as all senators do, take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution." Most will fail to keep their oath. Doing these five things will help you maintain a focus on national priorities and be one who does.

Congress will never fix entitlements, simplify the tax code or balance the budget as long as members are more concerned with their own narrow, parochial interests. Time spent securing earmarks and serving personal ambitions is time that should be spent working on big-picture reforms.

When you are in Washington, remember what the voters back home want—less government and more freedom. Millions of people are out of work, the government is going bankrupt and the country is trillions in debt. Americans have watched in disgust as billions of their tax dollars have been wasted on failed jobs plans, bailouts and takeovers. It's up to us to stop the spending spree and make sure we have a government that benefits America instead of being a burden to it.

Tea party Republicans were elected to go to Washington and save the country—not be co-opted by the club. So put on your boxing gloves. The fight begins today.

Mr. DeMint is a Republican senator from South Carolina.

AMERICAN HERO

WE THE PEOPLE

Find out how you can further the cause
of American Liberty
Please send this completed form and/or your questions
to:
We The People - Vancouver
P.O. Box 2636
Vancouver, WA 98668
e:Mail: info@WeThePeople-Vancouver.org

YOU CAN FIND A GROUP IN YOUR AREA! GET OFF THE COUCH OR FROM BEHIND THE COMPUTER PLAYING GAMES! GET INVOLVED BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!