Say Anything Blog

Finally, an actor-entertainer with brains!

Andy Williams, the veteran pop singer, has accused Barack Obama of “following Marxist theory” and “wanting the country to fail”.

Williams, a lifelong Republican whose hits include Moon River and Music To Watch Girls By, told the Radio Times he thought Mr Obama wanted to turn the US into a “socialist country”.

The 81-year-old was a friend of the Kennedy family during the 1960s and was present at the Los Angeles rally where Robert F Kennedy was assassinated in 1968.

“I was very close to Bobby and he asked me to be a delegate for him when he ran for president,” he said.

“He knew about me being a Republican, but just laughed and said, ‘Sign yourself in as a Democrat and then change back afterwards’. Sadly, I never got to do that.

“I was very close to Teddy Kennedy, too, and his death recently brought it all back. What a tragedy. Had he lived, I think Bobby would have been a great president.”

But Williams had a less favourable opinion of the current president.

”Don’t like him at all,” he said, “I think he wants to create a socialist country. The people he associates with are very Left-wing. One is registered as a Communist.

”Obama is following Marxist theory. He’s taken over the banks and the car industry. He wants the country to fail.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6241196/Andy-Williams-accuses-Barack-Obama-of-following-Marxist-theory.html

The U.S. Secret Service is investigating a “poll” posted on Facebook that asked users the most unsocial, unspeakable question: Should President Obama be assassinated?

Edwin Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said the agency will take “appropriate investigative steps” in connection to the survey, which was posted on Saturday and was quickly removed when Facebook employees were alerted to its existence.

“We are continuing our investigation,” Donovan told FOXNews.com, declining further comment.
The poll asked respondents: “Should Obama be killed?”

The possible answers were “no,” “maybe,” “yes,” and “yes if he cuts my health care.”

Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt said a “third-party application” enabled an individual user to create what he said was an “offensive poll.”

“The application was immediately suspended while the inappropriate content could be removed by the developer and until such time as the developer institutes better procedures to monitor their user-generated content,” Schnitt said in a statement to FOXNews.com.

Facebook is now cooperating with the Secret Service, Schnitt said.

Bob Beckel, a Democratic Party strategist and FOX News contributor, said the individual responsible for the poll should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

“This is the kind of garbage that’s generated from the extreme right against Obama, and it’s going way over the line,” Beckel told FOXNews.com. “It’s got to be stopped. Find him, prosecute him and put him in jail.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/28/secret-service-probes-facebook-poll-asked-obama-assassination/

It is wholly inappropriate, wrong and grossly immoral to even ask such a question, I am totally, unqualified against this sort of rank stupidity. But, a question occurs to me in reading the story that someone here might answer, “Is it illegal, unconstitutional or in the nature of a criminal threat to simply ask this idiotic question in a poll?” Remember I am against the poll and question and any such act, I am just curious about whether the question alone constitutes a crime?

It is also a matter of concern to me that Beckel, absent any evidence of the source of this poll, quickly blamed it on someone on the political right. Isn’t that to incite anger and possible violence against people on the Right?

Quite frankly, I am more than a little concerned that some nut case out there, not a conservative or liberal - an insane fool, might try to kill Obama and not only am I morally against such a vile act, I think it would almost destroy this country with subsequent riots all over America, directed at whites generally and I hope and pray it will never happen.

Kevin Jennings, the radical homosexual activist who founded one of the biggest organizations in the nation to promote “gay” activities in public schools, needs to “come clean,” according to the Washington Times.

”A teacher was told by a 15-year-old high school sophomore that he was having homosexual sex with an ‘older man.’ At the very least, statutory rape occurred. Fox News reported that the teacher violated a state law requiring that he report the abuse. That former teacher, Kevin Jennings, is President Obama’s ‘safe school czar.’ ... Clearly, the process for vetting White House employees has broken down,” the Times editorial board said.

“In this one case in which Mr. Jennings had a real chance to protect a young boy from a sexual predator, he not only failed to do what the law required but actually encouraged the [man-boy] relationship.”

The editorial cited Jennings’ statement that in the case of the 15-year-old there wasn’t any evidence he knew the student was involved in sex with the older man. But the Fox report uncovered an audiotape contradicting that assertion. It indicates Jennings told the student to make sure “to use a condom” in his activities.

“Jennings … has not admitted that he made mistakes … and he now refuses to answer any questions about the scandal. … Encouraging and covering up man-boy sexual activity are serious offenses,” the editorial said.

Another incident was the “fistgate” scandal in which he led discussions at a seminar where “young teens were guided on how to perform dangerous homosexual perversions including ‘fisting,’” the website said.

Yet another was Jennings’ address in a New York City church on March 20, 2000. He said:

“Twenty percent of people are hard-core fair-minded [pro-homosexual] people. Twenty percent are hard-core [anti-homosexual] bigots. We need to ignore the hard-core bigots, get more of the hard-core fair-minded people to speak up, and we’ll pull that 60 percent [of people in the middle] over to our side. That’s really what I think our strategy has to be. We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit — I’m trying to find a way to say this. I’m trying not to say, ’[F—] ‘em!’ which is what I want to say, because I don’t care what they think! [audience laughter] Drop dead!”

Jennings also said: “If the radical right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language ‘promoting homosexuality’ is one example – is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are ‘after their kids,’” he told the conference.

He continued, “In Massachusetts the effective reframing of this issue was the key to the success of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. We immediately seized upon the opponent’s calling card – safety – and explained how homophobia represents a threat to students’ safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report ‘Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,’ we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111347

So, a principle adviser on education for Lord Obama supports man-boy sex (statutory rape). He teaches how-to classes to teenagers on such perversity as “fisting,” he has deliberately perverted language to make his promotion of homosexuality in our public schools about protecting children to hide his real child recruiting intent and he is rabidly, hateful of Christians.

This is why these Czars are not a good idea, they are not subjected to the vetting process of Congress and thereby Lord Obama steps around Congress and is ruling America by Czars.

The commonly referenced “God gap” between Republicans and Democrats is disappearing.

Polls released before the 2008 election demonstrated America’s Christian voters are no longer synonymous with the political right: a George Barna survey showed born-again Christians evenly split between John McCain and Barack Obama, and a Public Religion Research study
found that even among white Evangelicals, touchstone issues like abortion and same-sex marriage weren’t in their top five voting considerations.

If Christian voters share common morals and values, how is it that their voting patterns and priorities aren’t more unified?

According to a new study, the answer is that Christians don’t share a common worldview, their morals and values sprayed across the spectrum by differing views in a handful of key areas.

Practically speaking, the differences between the two groups plays out in the causes and the priorities considered important to each.

For example, when asked about the most important issues among a set of eight choices, conservative activists pegged as priorities abortion (83 percent) and same-sex marriage (65 percent). Fewer than 10 percent of their progressive counterparts, however, identified those issues as “most important,” choosing instead to focus on poverty (74 percent), health care (67 percent) and the environment
(56 percent).

The activists not only differed on their priorities, but also on the positions they took, despite their professed common religious beliefs.

For example, 95 percent of the conservative religious activists responded that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, while 80 percent of the progressives answered that abortion should be legal in most or all cases.

Similarly, only 13 percent of conservative activists supported additional environmental protection at the cost of raised prices or lost jobs, while 87 percent of progressive activists would rather suffer the price in exchange for increased environmental protections.

The disparity between the two groups was also reflected on the issues of same-sex marriage (82 percent of conservatives opposed, 59 percent of progressives in favor), government health care, the Iraq war, the use of extreme interrogation techniques and so on.

And despite being divided in their voting patterns (93 percent of progressives voted for Obama in 2008, while 90 percent of conservatives report voting for McCain), the majority of both groups affirmed that faith was “an important factor” in their voting decision.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111154

The truth is the title and premise of this study is faulty. This study is only partially a reflection of Christian values and world view.

Since most so-called Progressive Christians identified herein do not even believe the Bible is God’s Word and as to faith and morals inerrant, I must seriously question their being Christians at all. They may feel like they believe in God and even feel they have some faith in Christ, but how can they have an intimate relationship with Christ, to know Him personally and deny His Word on any point? Remember, He is the Word, He not only inspired every word of Holy Writ, He is the personification of the Word of God, to deny the all-sufficiency of the Word is to deny Christ.

This study does not in my opinion reflect the values of the true Church, it is a poll mostly of ‘religious” minded people, for the most part not people walking in a close relationship with Jesus, not people born of his Spirit. The true Church cannot be divided in these matters, for if that were true Christ would have to be divided, He would have to have left the Church to twist in the wind, without its Shepherd and be guilty of child neglect which means He cannot be God at all. Lastly, remember the Church, the children of God are NOT citizens of this nation or world, they are citizens of Heaven NOW in spirit! They are not here to change or redeem the world, but to change themselves into disciples of Christ and to be used of the Spirit to win souls to Christ.  This world has already been judged, it is set for destruction in the end, while Christians are to have our hearts set upon Christ and eternity and His last words were that we were to moment by moment look up for Him to return as He Left.

It is sad so many people are deceived, thinking if they believe Jesus was a good philosopher and are ‘spiritual” they are Christian, when they do not know Him at all. This is a bad study, poorly designed and offers us no real insight into the thinking of Christians.

Dozens of pastors around the nation are challenging an Internal Revenue Service rule that anti-Christian activists often invoke when they want to silence the message of churches, according to the Alliance Defense Fund.

The organization has announced that more than 80 preachers are taking part in its second annual Pulpit Freedom Sunday this weekend.

The pastors will preach Sunday sermons related to biblical perspectives on the positions of electoral candidates or current government officials, exercising their constitutional right to free religious expression, the ADF said.

They will do so despite a “problematic” IRS rule that activists use when they want to silence the message of Christians, the ADF said.

”Pastors have a right to speak about biblical truths from the pulpit without fear of punishment. No one should be able to use the government to intimidate pastors into giving up their constitutional rights,” ADF senior legal counsel Erik Stanley explained.

The censorship for church pastors has been in place since the Johnson Amendment was added to the Federal Tax Code in 1954. However, enforcement has been spotty and the results have been vague, even though critics of Christian churches contend it limits what they can say from the pulpit.

”Churches were completely free to preach about candidates from the day that the Constitution was ratified in 1788 until 1954,” explained Stanley. “The real effect of the Johnson Amendment is that pastors are muzzled for fear of investigation by the IRS. Rather than risk confrontation, many pastors have self-censored their speech, afraid to be critical of blatant immorality in government and foregoing opportunities to praise moral government leaders. The participants in Pulpit Freedom Sunday refuse to be intimidated into sacrificing their First Amendment rights.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111038

First for you Christian haters, I am actually not in favor of tax exempt status for Christian churches and only Christian churches. I do not care about such tax exempt status for Muslims or even witchcraft. Such entanglements by the Christian with the evil world system only and always pollutes and contaminates the pure Gospel. The Gospel needs to be preached boldly, without fear and in defiance of the State.

Next for you Christian haters, it is a violation of the Bill of Rights to use the tax code or any involvement by any organization, even schools, with the government as a reason to deny them free political speech or freedom of worship. The Bill of Rights prohibited Congress from passing ANY laws that in any manner infringe upon these basic human rights.

Next for you Christian hating liberals, while it is unconstitutional, if such laws are to be enforced, it must be enforced against black churches equally as well, which daily use their pulpits to endorse liberal political candidates and make their pulpits available for politicians to use to promote liberal social programs.

I have said it until most of you are sick of it, but the Bill of Rights, and I know how much most of your passionately hate the idea, applies to Christians as well as non-Christians.

Mothers are banned from looking after each other’s children

Two working mothers have been banned from looking after each other’s toddlers because they are not registered childminders.

The close friends’ private arrangement had let them both return to part-time jobs at the same company.

However, a whistleblower reported them to the education watchdog Ofsted and it found their informal deal broke the law.

This was because little-known rules say friends cannot gain a ‘reward’ by looking after a child for more than two hours outside the child’s home without agreeing to a number of checks including one from the Criminal Records Bureau.

Although the mothers never paid each other, their job-sharing deal was judged to be a ‘reward’. Campaigners fear thousands of working families could be innocently breaking the rules by relying on close friends for informal childcare.

‘There is no conceivable rationale behind it. It’s like making the assumption that all parents are pedophiles and they have to prove that they aren’t. As soon as we create a society like that then family life ceases. Parents have to have the confidence to make their own choices about their own children. This is absolutely extraordinary.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216220/Mothers-banned-looking-children.html#ixzz0SEQq8sR7

I just thought this was interesting, this new law in Britain to protect children demands that anyone looking after children for more than two hours a day must undergo a criminal background check and other steps to be certified as being safe. How about saying, “mom I need you to look after your grandchildren would you step over here so I can take your fingerprints please?”

Poland’s government has approved a law that will make chemical castration mandatory for pedophiles.

The new law will see those convicted of raping children under the age of 15 years undergo chemical therapy, in which they are made to take drugs to reduce their sex drive, following their release from prison.

The move has sparked criticism from human rights groups, but in a statement, the government defended its decision.

The purpose of this action is to improve the mental health of the convict, to lower his libido and thereby to reduce the risk of another crime being committed by the same person,’ it read.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has been calling for obligatory castration for pedophiles since late last year. Branding them ‘degenerates’, he said that he did not believe ‘one can use the term ‘human’ for such individuals, such creatures’. ‘Therefore I don’t think protection of human rights should refer to these kind of events,’ he said.

Mr Tusk’s comments at the time prompted criticism from human rights groups. Today, the Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights said: ‘Introducing any mandatory treatment raises doubts as such a requirement is never reasonable.

’If somebody is of sound mind, we punish him. If he is sick, we try to cure him - that’s how it works in Polish law.

‘This bill introduces both approaches. As far as I know, this makes our law the strictest in Europe on this issue,’ said spokesman Piotr Kladoczny. The bill, which also increases prison sentences for rape and incest.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1216301/Chemical-castration-compulsory-paedophiles-new-Polish-law.html#ixzz0SEM5byRV

This sounds like the humane way to reduce the recidivism of pedophiles, which is often beyond their sick control, protect children and not bloat our prisons and public costs for these people. These people will not choose to voluntarily submit to such chemical castration so it seems reasonable to make it mandatory.

I am concerned about the state controlling people with chemicals, as in another thread I made the case that one small open door to the state in undermining liberty soon becomes a flood gate. Why not use chemicals to deal with those damnable Christians and their religious nonsense? Why not chemically treat conservatism or better yet, chemically treat everyone blogging. I am also concerned that it could be misused for cases of statutory rape that were consensual and approved by the family and other cases where it really wasn’t pedophilia.

Yet, because this protects innocent children from rape, incest and sexual molestation, a serious crime that has negative effects for a lifetime, I would like to see us consider this procedure and sentence in America.

’Hostage situation’ portrays killers as Christians.’

‘We need to practice under conditions
as real as possible,’ says superintendent.

School officials in Burlington, N.J., who wanted to stage a “hostage situation” drill have portrayed the attackers as Christians, including one who was upset that his daughter was expelled for praying before class.

Supt. Chris Manno praised the exercise to test the response of the school and police, explaining, “You perform as you practice. We need to practice under conditions as real as possible in order to evaluate our procedures and plans so that they’re as effective as possible.”

Lifesite News reported that the Christian students in the school were offended when the student body was told the alleged gunmen were “members of a right-wing fundamentalist group called the ‘New Crusaders’ who don’t believe in separation of church and state.”

The Burlington County Times said the mock gunmen pretended to shoot several students in the hallways before taking 10 students hostage in the district’s media center.

Organizers of the drill said the “Christian” gunmen had gone to the school “seeking justice because the daughter of one had been expelled for praying before class.”

“So what allegedly real condition was imagineered? A grotesque scenario saturated with Christian-bashing prejudice and bigotry; a scenario which could never possibly occur,” he said.

It doesn’t even meet the logic test, he said. “As all Burlington school officials know full well: It is perfectly legal for any student or staff member to pray in a public school. They know that no student can ever be expelled for praying before class. Hence, the contrived reason for the mock attack is bogus.”

http://wnd.ha-hosting.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=40936

This is just more official government hostility towards people of the Christian faith in the march toward making the Christian faith a crime and all Christians enemies of the State. This along with hate crimes laws and other restrictions by the state are openly attacking Christ and the Church, something they would not dare to do against Muslims.

This is not about religion, the state has no fear of religion, it is unadulterated Christian bigotry by the Democrats and Liberals representing the new Secular, Socialist Order in America.

These people are anarchists, they engage in violent physical acts, they are obnoxious in the extreme and their efforts are counterproductive to their cause. They create a significant cost to the city, fear and inconvenience to the public on the streets and private citizens in their homes. They are a danger to life and property. So, this is how we react . . .

In the afternoon, protesters trying to march toward the convention center where the gathering is being held encountered roaming squads of police officers carrying plastic shields and batons. The police fired a sound cannon that emitted shrill beeps, causing demonstrators to cover their ears and back up, then threw tear gas canisters that released clouds of white smoke and stun grenades that exploded with sharp flashes of light.

City officials said they believed it was the first time the sound cannon had been used publicly. “Other law enforcement agencies will be watching to see how it was used,” said Nate Harper, the Pittsburgh police bureau chief. “It served its purpose well.”

The protesters, who did not have a permit to march, rolled a large blue metal trash container down 37th Street. It stopped short of police vehicles and in front of a women’s clothing and shoe boutique called Pavement.

“It was scary,” said Alissa Martin, the shop’s owner. “You feel like you’re living in a war zone.”

In every way I strongly support the idea these people must be stopped from destroying property and presenting a risk to life and limb. The city and police have a public responsibility to react; so what is my problem here? I do have a constitutional problem with the idea that they should not be allowed to protest because they do not have a PERMIT to march.

A permit means we, the citizens of the United States need the permission of the government to peacefully assemble to protest that government and to demand a redress of grievances. Yes, these people are not peacefully assembling, I am not talking about what they are doing which is wrong and the response which is probably appropriate. I am solely talking about the narrowly defined idea that a permit by the government is required to engage in free political speech in the public square against that government. It is the permit that offends me and my idea of liberty and our freedom to protest against our government.

One thing stood out here, O’Donnell said these word, “she didn’t understand,” which to me should be followed by “almost anything under the Sun.” Anyway, she got smacked down.

Of course we are all convinced that her class sending jelly beans to Reagan is equivalent to praising Lord Obama and equal pay for equal work.

It is also of interest to me that these liberals object to parents expressing any concerns about what their children are being taught at taxpayer supported schools or concerned if they “may” be exposed to political indoctrination. Obviously, to the Left these damn parents should keep their noses out of the school day and leave their children in unmonitored control of the teachers.

Lastly, as happened with ACORN it always amazes me that rather than people in leadership being grateful for transparency and any exposure to the light of day of even “potential” misdeeds by people under their supervision, they, like this school superintendent, are angry and hostile because someone video taped these matters.

What is it about a California-based Christian evangelist from New Zealand that makes him irresistible to even the most sophisticated secularist?

“You sir, are a fool who could not lie straight in bed. It is beneath me to even address you,” wrote an online respondent to Ray Comfort’s weblog Friday, “but I was passing by and saw this tripe, I could not constrain myself.”

“Some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”

“All you have to do,” Comfort told WND, “is push them into a corner and say, ‘So, you’re an atheist?’ ‘Yep.’ ‘So you believe that nothing created everything, a scientific impossibility?’ And they’ll say, ‘Well, no.’ ‘So you believe something created everything?’ And they say, ‘Well, yeah. Something did, obviously.’ ‘So you’re not an atheist?’ ‘OK, I’m not an atheist.’

”’This something you believe created everything,” Comfort continued, “do you think it was intelligent? I mean, could you create a bird or a flower or a tree or a blade of grass from nothing?’ And they’ll say, ‘No, I can’t do that.’ ‘Well, is this something you believe created everything intelligent?’ And they’ll say, ‘Obviously.’ And I’ll say, ‘Congratulations, you’ve just become an anti-science, knuckle-dragger in the eyes of our learning institutions, because you believe in intelligent design.’

Dawkins, in his 2004 book “The Ancestor’s Tale” wrote, “The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.”

Among others, Comfort cites physicist Robert A.J. Matthews of Ashton University in England, who wrote, “It is now becoming clear that everything can – and probably did – come from nothing.”

American physicist Paul Davies of Arizona State University wrote, “Even if we don’t have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific.”

”The whole thought that nothing created everything is an intellectual embarrassment for atheists,” Comfort told WND.

He writes in his book: “There’s no way to say it kindly, but such thoughts show that the atheist doesn’t think, and proves the Bible right when it says that the fool has said in his heart that there is no God.

”All you have to do is present unbiased facts about the unscientific and unthinking nature of atheistic evolution, and then watch people change their minds.”

Creation proves there’s a creator,” Comfort argues. “And once you’ve established that, the fact is that every single human being is without excuse.”

He contends that while many atheists and agnostics assert religious believers abandon science and reason, defenders of Darwinian evolutionary theory actually must have a “childlike faith” to accept its tenets.

Comfort said “time is the god of evolutionists,” who believe that with enough time anything can happen. “Time performs miracles. Time is the creator,” he said.

“You can say to them, ‘OK, there’s nothing in your garage, could you believe in 10,000 years a Mercedes would evolve out of nothing? You’d say, No, that’s ridiculous.’ ‘So, what about 100,000 years?’ ‘No, that’s stupid.’ But if you start talking billions of years, they’ll suddenly go glaze-eyed and, ‘Yeah, I could believe that, a Mercedes could evolve out of nothing over billions of year.’ So time is their miracle worker.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110293

It is amazing that Comfort gives out copies of Darwin’s “Origin of Species” free at colleges with his own forward just to open the debate, to encourage others to at least question the asinine theory of evolution and consider alternative explanations, which is the foundation of all good science and he meets with hostility by academics; and at the same time he sees the eyes of atheistic, evolutionary minded people open in amazement that they had never considered the implications of evolutionary theory, how it impossible it is to believe.

Atheist evolutionists so called sceintifically minded people don’t even agree with their chief apostle Darwin that said; “Charles Darwin, in his own Introduction in 1859, said, ‘A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.’” Well not to atheists and evolutionists, they demand no other possible explanations even be considered or discussed in academic circles.

What is the danger of such closed minded promotion of such an insane theory as evolution? “So many young people are being convinced that atheism is right, that evolution is right, there’s no god, there are no moral absolutes,” he said. “Who cares if you marry a dog? What’s the big deal? And that’s what atheism believes, too. It’s very sad.”

This is pure liberal genius! Let the federal government financially rescue newspapers in the name of serving the public interests and for countering conservative internet lies and then the newspapers become a State Regulated Media subject to Federal Government controls.

President Obama indicated he would support federal aid to stop the death of newspapers – but critics warn a bill in Congress could mean strict regulation of political content and IRS scrutiny of newspapers that step out of line. 

“Journalistic integrity, you know, fact-based reporting, serious investigative reporting, how to retain those ethics in all these different new media and how to make sure that it’s paid for, is really a challenge,” Obama told the reporters. “But it’s something that I think is absolutely critical to the health of our democracy.”

In the midst of the newspaper decline, more Americans are looking to the Internet for their information. Obama said the trend worries him.

“I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding,” he said.

He told reporters, “What I hope is that people start understanding if you’re getting your newspaper over the Internet, that’s not free and there’s got to be a way to find a business model that supports that.”

Obama said he would be “happy to look at” bills before Congress that would give struggling newspapers tax breaks if they restructure as non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations similar to public broadcasting.

”Unless something is done, and done fast, it’s likely that many metropolitan areas may soon have no local daily newspapers – and that would damage our democracy,” Rep. Maloney said in a statement. “Providing this option to structure their business would be a way for a community or local foundations to preserve their local paper.”

Maloney said studies have shown that in areas where daily newspapers have gone out of business there has been a rise in corruption in government and plummeting civil engagement in politics.

“Any newspaper that would surrender its First Amendment right to collect, disseminate and comment on the news would, in reality, cease to be a newspaper at all.”

Some argue newspapers would be required to refrain from supporting candidates or expressing political opinions that could cost them their non-profit status. Tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations are subject to limits or prohibitions on political activities. According to the Internal Revenue Service website:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
The IRS states that it “actively monitors compliance by section 501(c)(3) organizations with the prohibition on political campaign intervention, and addresses prohibited activity that occurs.”

The Daily Times warned that nonprofit status could mean IRS scrutiny of any newspaper that steps out of line.

With this bill Lord Obama could effectively control all the news print in the country. They are already going after restoration of the Fairness Doctrine to stop successful conservative programming on radio and they are looking at even controlling commerical advertisement content to make sure it considers alternative social views.

Brilliant! All in the name of the people, making sure newspapers stay active in each community is to make them non-profit and subject to government control. From all the liberals can we get a cheer?

School children in New Jersey have been taught to both chant and sing praises to President Barack Obama, with a YouTube video revealing them singing, “Mr. President, We Honor You Today” to the tune of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic.”

They also are seen being taught the chant: “Barack Hussein Obama.”

The children are lined up in front of a stage, and an adult is teaching them the chant:

Uhm, uhm, uhm, Barack Hussein Obama
He said all should lend a hand to make the country strong again
Uhm, uhm, uhm, Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be fair today, equal work means equal pay
Uhm, uhm, uhm, Barack Hussein Obama
He said take a stand, make sure everyone gets a chance
Uhm, uhm, uhm, Barack Hussein Obama
He said red, yellow, black and white, all are equal in his sight
Uhm, uhm, uhm, Barack Hussein Obama
YEAH. Barack Hussein Obama
“OK, now let’s do the song,” said the adult leader.

The lyrics appear to include:

Hello Mr. President, We honor you today
For all your great accomplishments, we all do say hooray
Hooray, Mr. President you are No. 1
The first black American to lead this nation

Such adulation of Obama is not new, even among school children. During the campaign a video appeared showing a drill team of students marching to Obama’s praise, chanting “Alpha, Omega.” [In the Holy Bible Alpha Omega refers to and only refers to Jesus, the Messiah]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110898

None of this is brand new, it is just seeing more light of day as the cult of Obama invades our schools and the teachers (Obama’s Priests) are indoctrinating our children in various ways in Obama worship.

No commentary, just my salute to some fellow soldiers, men much braver than I could ever hope to be. God bless you guys! Here is my Salute!

It was a day that he set aside his personal agony for the sake of friendship and honour.
Plastered in bandages and in excruciating pain, Fusilier Thomas James left his hospital bed for the funeral of the comrade who was fatally wounded alongside him.

In a humbling symbol of the suffering of our troops in Afghanistan - one which the Ministry of Defence might have preferred to keep out of public view - he paid his respects to Fusilier Shaun Bush.
Fusilier James lost his right arm in the same Taliban bomb blast that killed his friend five weeks ago.

He carries many other wounds that are yet to heal. But he asked for no sympathy as he was helped into his uniform and placed in an ambulance for a 20-mile drive to pay tribute to his dead friend.
Within the hour, he had arrived on time at Coventry Cathedral, where he was pushed into the church to pay his respects to his friend.

Hero: Fusilier Bush died trying to save his friends following an explosion

Yesterday, wheeled around by an unnamed colleague, Fusilier James used his own mutilated left hand, with half the little finger gone, to hold on his lap a portable ‘negative pressure wound therapy’ device, which encourages healing.
The machine creates a vacuum around a wound, sucking the edges together and keeping the flesh moist to encourage quicker healing, while draining off excess fluid. His injured right eye was covered by a patch, there was a large wound on his left arm, cuts and scratches continued to scar his face, and a dressing was placed on the stump of his right arm, above the elbow.
But that tally of injuries was put to one side for the sake of the late Fusilier Bush, 24, who was the 207th British victim of the war in Afghanistan.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1215612/Pictured-Heartbreaking-courage-injured-soldier-pays-respects-bravest-brave-killed-Afghanistan.html#ixzz0Ryzp1bqK

ACORN filed suit today in Maryland against conservative filmmakers James O’Keefe, Hannah Giles and conservative Web site Breitbart.com for secretly taping the organization’s employees at its Baltimore office.

In the complaint, ACORN alleges that the filmmakers entered into the organization’s offices in July with a “hidden camera and microphone” and taped employees Tonja Thompson and Shera Williams. Both employees are listed as plaintiffs on the complaint, filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

The crux of the lawsuit centers around a Maryland law which makes it illegal to tape someone without their consent – ACORN is alleging O’Keefe and Giles did so. ACORN is asking for $500,000 in damages to be awarded to each of the employees filmed by O’Keefe and Giles, and ACORN itself wants $1 million in damages.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27501.html#ixzz0Ryp4WiZ1

Gee, you don’t think lust for money has anything to do with this, do you?

If they had any honor, if they cared about their employees really obeying the law and their organization being honest and aboveboard, they would have expressed their gratitude for these people uncovering criminal behavior by their employees. The fact is, they just care that they were caught and that alone is a crime in their tiny minds.

I suspect that Breitbart will fight it on the basis of Freedom of the Press and Speech and win, and we will pick up the bill for ACORN’s attorney’s.

Hopefully, ACORN is toast!