Have Our Chickens Finally Come Home?

 
Amazing, isn’t it? Right away, I have two thoughts.

First, people such as those presented in the video, are demonstrating an inability to process truth even when the facts are carefully laid out before them. Their minds have been corrupted to the point where that capability has been taken from them. They are no longer independent thinkers capable of engaging in critical analysis. In a sense, they are truly drones, zombies, the walking unconscious.

As a visible case for this point, in Greece, the populace run into the streets to protest and riot against austerity measures designed to pay off their astronomical level of debt. In effect, these people are protesting against the outcome of their own design, the result of generations who voted for politicians who have promised them benefits they could never afford. Their chickens have come home.

Second, Nikita Kruschev was absolutely correct when he addressed the Western Ambassadors at the Polish embassy in Moscow on November 18, 1956, where he said the following:

We will take America without firing a shot…….We will BURY YOU! We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism. “We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within.

Conclusion

I would have to say the process of subversion which has produced a population unable to process and accept truth has been very, very successful. In addition, our education system has performed superbly at keeping the voting population as dumb as a box of left-handed crayons while at the same time the media expertly performed their duties by continuing to pump pablum into the brains of American voters.

 
 

Some Elected Democrats are Abandoning their Party

Hard Lessons from Mid-Terms and National Census

The Democrat’s devastating mid-term defeat resulted in the Republicans gaining more than 60 seats in the House. The 2010 census shows that Americans also voted with their feet by abandoning Democrat controlled states in favor of states governed by Republicans or embracing more conservative policies.

What is clearly apparent is what drove voters in the mid-term election cycle. By and large their votes showed anti-incumbent and anti-Democrat attitudes. In addition, they were motivated further by concerns about the jobless recovery, lingering recession, a perceived lack of focus on job creation and preservation, as well as the perception of government overreaching (health care reform) and wasteful spending (bailouts, stimulus). While the Republican Party leadership was lacking in its conviction that it shared the same conservative viewpoint the abandonment of which angered so many conservative Americans, the Tea Party movement embraced these themes and when one looks at the incoming Republican freshman class, although not homogenous, it will generally be large, eager, and opposed to the size and intrusiveness of government.

The over-arching message given to the Democrats by the mid-terms and the census is that America in general is rejecting liberal policies which are being understood and judged as the reasons behind the bulk of the nation’s problems. The other message is that if you’re a Democrat seeking reelection, you had better find a way to distance yourself from the policies embraced by the Democrat Party to which you belong.

Conservatives in Democrat Clothing, Switching Ideology or Subverting their Enemy?

In the South, a number of Democrats elected to state offices have switched parties. At least 18 Democratic state legislators have jumped to the Republican Party and officials from both parties say more defections are likely in coming months.

While Democrats in other states are abandoning their party, most of the defections are occurring in Southern states. Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas have already seen cross-overs with more being anticipated.

In Georgia, where Republicans control all state offices as well as the legislature, nine Democratic legislators—eight representatives and one senator—have changed sides, strengthening solid GOP majorities. On the local level, even a black county commissioner who was once national president of the College Democrats of America has switched.

In Texas, where officials aren’t allowed to formally change parties until January, Republicans expect to pick up two state representatives and “around a dozen” county officials, judges and commissioners, state party spokesman Chris Elam said.

With the continuing shift away from the failed ideology of the left as shown by the mid-terms and census, the exodus of elected officials who abandon their party’s policies to embrace more conservative policies of their opposition creates a new set of questions regarding their loyalty to their beliefs and about their true intentions. If we can take the outcry from the left over Bush’s Patriot Act and the silence they observe about the intrusive policies of Obama’s TSA and policies which are exacerbating economic recovery it is apparent liberals generally do not like to stick to their own principles. Movements seen by their leadership only serve to enforce that view. On the other hand, perhaps the simple explanation is that defecting Democrats are beginning to recognize the failure of their policies and are abandoning their political belief system, but I really doubt that point of view.

There is yet another point of view; the population making their way out out of the rust belt’s liberal states and into the sun belt’s conservative states may represent the very voting base causing the rust belt in the first place. After all, they’ve crapped in their bed, now they’re looking for a new place to stay.

Free Speech vs Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009

On October, 28, 2009, President Obama signed into law HR-1913 – Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

The law is designed to help local law enforcement agencies who are operating with small budgets and resources by providing funding “or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of a violent crime, a hate crime, or a crime that constitutes a felony under state, local, or tribal law….at the request of a state, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, to provide technical, forensic and prosecutorial assistance” and limits “the amount of any grant to $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any one-year period.”

The law focuses on the term “hate crime” and defines it as “a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person”.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and prohibits Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion”, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech and infringing on the freedom of the press.

In the 20th century, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.

Conscious of this, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 provides “that any provision of this Act that is held to be unconstitutional shall be severable from the remaining provisions of this Act.” (Section 7 of HR-1913) In addition, it declares “that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the exercise of constitutionally-protected free speech.” (Section 8 of HR-1913).

Officially Preferred Victims

Liberty University law professor Shawn Akers writes that if H.R. 1913, the federal “Hate Crimes” bill, becomes law, “local and state law enforcement would have the incentive of federal funds to prosecute cases involving … preferred victims to the exclusion and neglect of less valuable victims.” Membership in the “preferred” category is “based not on immutable characteristics but on the class member’s choice of sexual conduct… and subjective gender self-identity.”

Following is Akers’s analysis of the federal “Hate Crimes” bill, HR 1913.

The “Hate Crimes” Bill

H.R. 1913, the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009”

I. Characteristics

A. “This bill would create a federal offense imposing federal criminal penalties – potentially in addition to criminal penalties imposed under state law” – on any defendant who chooses his victim in whole or in part because of the victim’s “actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin” or “actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.” “Violations would be punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment of up to 10 years, or imprisonment for life if the offense results in death or ‘includes kidnaping [sic] or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.’” See Legislation Detail: http://www.overcriminalized.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?id=441.

B. The bill includes the terms “Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity” – ambiguous terms that the drafters of the bill have refused to define. It places those descriptions on par with race, color, religion and nationality.

C. As a matter of mechanics, the bill provides financial grants to state and local entities, provides additional personnel for investigation and prosecution, creates new federal criminal offenses, and creates a new evidentiary rule (no evidence of speech or associations is admissible to prove motive of defendant unless the speech or association is “specifically related” to the “hate crime”).

D. The bill is couched in terms of providing assistance to state local and Indian governments but it reserves the right to act if they fail to exercise their jurisdiction, or leave “demonstrably un-vindicated the federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.”

II. Status

A. The version of the bill titled HR 1913 RH passed out of Judiciary committee on a 15-12 vote. It appears that the only change from the prior version, HR 1913 IH, was the dropping of the original section 2 – the findings section which included exaggerated figures of so-called hate crimes and included the interstate commerce language.

B. Rep. Steve King, Rep. Bob Goodlatte and others offered and argued persuasively for several amendments all of which were defeated. One that was particularly interesting was Steve King’s amendment to merely exclude pedophiles from the protected class based on “sexual orientation” – it was voted down 13-10.

III. Major Concerns

While the bill’s supporters have very effectively framed the bill as one that will protect victims from criminal acts, the bill actually has very little to do with protection. Indeed, if the bill’s drafters and supporters are to be believed, the bill only becomes relevant after a criminal has committed an already illegal act. On closer analysis, the bill does not merely provide stiffer penalties for certain crimes but, rather, represents a substantive and fundamental shift away from the American ideas of free speech and God given immutable equality and toward the European ideas of state approved speech, state endorsed morality, state-given egality. The particular concerns with the bill are numerous, but a few of the most troublesome are listed below.

A. Unequal Protection of Laws Under 14th Amendment

1. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires that all citizens be extended equal protection under the law. HR 1913 in effect creates two classes of victims, i.e. those who are a member of the preferred and protected class created by the bill and those who are not. Inclusion in the preferred class is to a great extent based not on immutable characteristics but on the class member’s choice of sexual conduct, subjective gender, and subjective gender self-identity.

2. The practical effect of the carrot and the stick of federal funds, federal promotion and federal oversight is the promotion of the preferred class and the neglect of non-class members. Specifically, local and state law enforcement would have the incentive of federal funds to prosecute cases involving these preferred victims to the exclusion and neglect of “less valuable” victims. Additionally, with federal funds available when the requisite “hate” connection can be alleged, the bill creates a powerful incentive to force cases into the “hate crimes” mold. This heavily incentivized increase in reported “hate crimes” would artificially inflate the number and apparent prevalence of so called “hate crimes.” The natural and very political result of such a perceived increase in “hate crimes” would undoubtedly be an increase in the political influence of the preferred class, and as night follows day, a corresponding increase and expansion of even more intrusive “hate crime” and “hate speech” legislation to address the perceived crisis.

B. Punishes Thought (Potentially Religious or Political thought) rather than Mere Intent To Commit a Crime.

1. Ironically hate is not even an element of a “hate crime” in the bill. Rather, the definition of a “hate crime” is borrowed from the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 – requiring only that the defendant selects a victim because of the membership or perceived membership in one of these proposed protected classes. Proponents of the bill argue that the criminal is being punished for his or her intent to terrorize an entire class of people (i.e. all homosexuals) but no such intent to terrorize is actually required. Indeed, despite the framing of the term “hate crime” the bill does not even require a showing of animus toward the victim or the preferred class. Under existing law, the criminal would be punished if he or she possessed the requisite intent to commit the act. The additional criminal fines and prison sentences that would be created by HR 1913 are based not on whether the defendant intended to commit the act but on whether the defendant considered the victim’s membership in the preferred class in choosing the victim. In other words, because penalties already exist for those who commit criminal acts, HR 1913 serves only to punish individuals for the beliefs, opinions, or convictions held at the time an act is committed. As such, HR 1913 does not punish criminal intent, but criminalizes thought.

C. Wider Immediate Application than Claimed.

This bill will certainly be construed in light of existing federal law including specifically United States Code Title 18, Section 2, that says that : “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.”. This is the feared immediate nexus between the speech of a pastor or radio commentator and the actions of a deranged parishioner or listener. Proponents of the bill argue that it clearly, under its own language, applies only to acts of violence. This argument is misleading and naïve in that it implies that criminal liability would be available only for the person physically committing the violent act, while ignoring completely the likelihood that courts, especially ideologically driven, activist courts, will impose criminal liability on those deemed complicit in the violent act whether or not they physically contributed to the act.

D. Federal Power Grab

The bill, if passed into law, would as a practical matter federalize virtually every sexual crime in the United States. This federalization would occur even in the absence of any evidence of failure by states and municipalities to prosecute. Under the bill, membership in one of the preferred classes does not have to be the impetus for the criminal act but merely a factor in the defendant’s selection of his victim. This is almost always the case. Muggers invariably choose little old ladies as victims precisely because they are little old ladies and unlikely to be able to fend them off. Under the bill, consideration of the gender of the victim effectively creates the potential for federal jurisdiction. Considering both the extreme breadth of the bill and the built-in incentives to bring crimes under the bill, the likely result is the practical federalization of large swaths of state and local criminal law.

E. Trend of Nationalization of State and Local Law and the Internationalization of Federal Law; And a Corresponding rise in Anti-Semitic and Anti-Christian activity.

1. The recent report by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) widely increased the number of people who may be classified as terrorists and who almost by definition would be members of hate groups. Under the HR 1913, the speech of a criminal defendant and the mere membership of the defendant in a given group may be used as evidence of his or her biased motive so long as a prosecutor can show that the speech or association was “specifically related” to the criminal act.

2. Substance and methods similar to that offered in the DHS report have recently been echoed by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That group provides influential lists of alleged hate groups relied upon by state and federal law enforcement. The reports have begun to blend among its lengthy list of true hate-based groups such as neo-Nazi groups and the Ku Klux Klan, other organizations based on little more than their opposition to homosexuality. The effect of listing a pro-family organization along side several neo-Nazi groups is to create guilt by the artificial manufactured appearance of association.

3. Additionally the appointment of Harold Koh as legal advisor to the State Department and the rise of acceptability of his stance that international laws should be used to interpret American laws, even among such figures as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, creates the danger and likelihood that judicial activism would further increase the power, reach, and tyrannical effect of HR 1913 by bringing its application in line with its counterparts in Canada, the Netherlands, etc.

4. Proponents of HR 1913 argue or imply that the law would provide greater protection for members of all faiths, presumably including Judaism and Christianity. The application of hate crimes laws in the countries they are most prevalent (and the countries to which Harold Koh would likely look for interpretive guidance), produce exactly the opposite result. The application of hate crimes laws in countries like the Netherlands experiencing the increased influence of Shariah – stringent Islamic religious law — is patently and consistently anti-Semitic. The most concrete example of this is the stark contrast in the application of the hate crimes laws in the Netherlands between those who criticize Shariah and those who call for violence against Israel and the Jewish people. For instance, Geert Wilders, who produced a 17-minute film critical of Shariah, is being vigorously prosecuted under the Netherlands’ hate crimes laws — while the blatant and violent anti-Semitism of others such as Dutch MP Harry van Bommel, who called for intifada against Israel earlier this year, and Doekle Terpstra, who sponsored an “Olive Tree Campaign” rally in Amsterdam where the participants chanted “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas!” are apparently immune from hate crimes prosecution.

5. The same is likely true of the UN Anti-Blasphemy measures which realistically can be seen only to forbid criticism of Shariah while allowing wholesale anti-Semitism.

6. Christians who vocally oppose homosexuality and the state endorsement of homosexuality in Holland, Canada, and Brazil routinely receive similar treatment, finding themselves on the prosecuted and persecuted end of hate crimes legislation while the anti-Christian actions of other groups are ignored.

7. Historically an increase in Shariah influence and/or a rise in economic problems have consistently shown a corresponding rise in anti-Semitism. The growing national and international acceptance and preferential treatment of the pro-homosexual movement has likewise shown a similar increase in anti-Christian activity (such as the threats of violence against Proposition 8 supporters in California and the recent attack launched by homosexual activist Perez Hilton against a contestant in the Miss USA competition). Were the United States under the leadership of Harold Koh, Janet Napolitano, etc., to follow the hate crimes trends and precedents established in the international community, the actual application of HR 1913 and its certain coming hate crimes and hate speech progeny, would likely undermine the rights of Christian and Jewish citizens.

F. Incremental Move Toward Making Speech a Federal Crime.

1. All of the above can reasonably be expected to lead to a quickly spawned progeny of hate crime legislation demanding greater and greater control of thought, expression and association. This is the pattern in the international community. HR 1913 would firmly brand one’s thoughts on the issues of human sexuality as potentially criminal activity. The logical next step is to recognize the “harmful impact of hateful speech” on preferred classes and to begin outlawing speech that would communicate what members of preferred classes find offensive. Proponents of HR 1913 have argued that this is preposterous but tellingly, in the April 23, 2009 Judiciary Committee hearings on HR 1913, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) said unequivocally that “We need to protect victims against hateful words, hateful acts and even violent acts.”

IV. Action Steps
Since the bill was signed into law by President Obama coupled with the fact that Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh was confirmed 06/25/2009 as the State Department’s legal advisor in a roll-call vote, 62-35, the relevant items below have been struck.

1. Encourage constituents to participate in immediate, continued, and persistent contact with both personal senators and congressmen and those of other districts and states (Congressional Switchboard: 202-225-3121; or 202-224-3121; http://www.congress.org).

2. Support, promote and demand a filibuster if the measure reaches the floor of the Senate.

3. Record and hold to account every member of Congress supporting the bill in the coming elections.

4. Actively oppose the confirmation of Harold Koh.

5. Vigorously hold Janet Napolitano responsible for the libelous report issued by the DHS.

Source:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1913&tab=summary

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/show

How to unelect a Governor

There is a tactic being applied designed to usurp the will of the people. It is both simple yet effective. It is the tactic of litigating an elected official out of office.

There is an independent investigator who has accused Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin of violating state ethics laws. The interesting part is that he is a major donor to the Democratic Party as well as a partner in a law firm that represented Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

Thomas Daniel was hired by the Alaska Personnel Board in late April to investigate several complaints against Palin, including one filed by an Alaska resident who claims the governor used her official position for personal gain by authorizing the creation of a trust to use as her legal defense fund.

Palin’s supporters say the governor, who will resign on Sunday, needs the legal fund because of a quirk in Alaska law that prevents state officials from defending the state’s chief executive against ethics allegations.

“The whole situation is nuts,” said John Coale, a prominent Washington attorney who helped set up the legal fund, which so far has accepted $500,000 in donations. “Alaska has an ethics law that is unsustainable.”

Coale also accused the personnel board of being “either vicious or idiotic” to hire Daniel, whose law firm is closely tied to the Democratic Party.

This should serve to make all of us livid, but it escapes most people.

What amazes me about the “Let’s Bash Palin” crowd is the attraction to the minutia and lack of ability to stop consuming the pablum and gaze upon the bigger picture.

It’s clear to me that the majority of voting Americans are easily tempted and fooled by slick speaking car salesmen only to discover that after they get into office they deliver us into ruin the likes of which this country has never seen.

Like Palin, Bush was vilified for the lack of oratory skills and his mannerisms. Compared to what we now have, I’d go for an honest speaking common American without charm and charisma in a heart-beat.

California dreamin’

For this post, all I have are the abstract points, so bear with me on this one.

Flashback… 1960’s heck… late ’50’s … beatniks.. the precursor to the hippies of the ’60s…

Ok… California… Berkley, utopian-based belief systems, Peace, Love, Dove…. Free sex, free drugs, free Rock-n-Roll Free… get it? Free.

Radical thinking, communes, my campus-based subversion theory of professors and the continued infusion into society of corrupted leadership / captains of industry / media moguls / CNN .. are ya with me?

Now, let all of that simmer in the California sun for say 350 degrees for – oh – about 50 years.

Ok, that should be long enough… open the oven and *Wam*… let’s see what we have here. Oh, look! We’ve got Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters just to name a few of the better known crazies from California.

Reflect on the current condition of the state of California. … it’s printing IOU’s like there’s no tomorrow. (They’re probably right about that one.) Then reflect on who is pushing these insane, treasury-busting bills through congress so fast the ink from the printer is still wet. Why, it’s none other than Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

They’re not happy with ph*cking their own state; Oh, no. They have to ph*ck up the rest of the country, too.

I wanna invite California to secede from the nation. Like, right now.

Yet another ethics charge against Palin

After following a few cars on this apparently never ending train of ethics charges against Palin, this flimsy excuse for yet another charge only serves to make it clear to anyone drawing breath that all you have to do to unseat a state governor is to heap a pile of lawsuits upon them until they can no longer afford the office.

It should serve to make all of us livid, but I doubt most people grasp it.

This isn’t an isolated case, either. Another barrage of ethics charges were thrown up against Tom Delay. His crime? After being notified by his Houston office that the office worker there had erroneously deposited a check into his campaign account he simply acknowledged the procedural faux pas with “Ok.” The result: Conspiracy and money laundering charges were levied against Mr. Delay ultimately leading his party to successfully persuade him to resign the office. All charges have been thrown out.

All of us should be aware of the legal machine being used by the Democratic Party designed to remove political leaders by circumventing the election process replacing it with no due process.

Again, it should make us livid, no matter which party you associate yourself with because it means our votes mean nothing.

The famous meltdown began in what!!? 1977??

Let the meltdown begin

The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining. The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation. To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions.

Where did this bill get started?

The CRA was passed as a result of national pressure to address the deteriorating conditions of American cities particularly lower-income and minority neighborhoods. Community activists, such as Gale Cincotta of National People’s Action in Chicago, had led the national fight to pass, and later to enforce the Act.

Hmmm… community activist. Rings a faint bell.

And who signed this beautiful piece of legislation into law?

The original Act was passed by the 95th United States Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977.

A democrat. Who woulda thunk?

…and the effects?

Some economists, politicians and other commentators have charged that the CRA contributed in part to the 2008 financial crisis by encouraging banks to make unsafe loans. Others however, including the economists from the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, dispute this contention. The Federal Reserve and the FDIC holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis.

You can read the time line of events here.

The thought police are coming – again.

The fairness doctrine – the initiative which required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues – was scrapped by the FCC as unconstitutional in 1987. However, if Barack Obama has his way, it could come back in another form.

FCC commissioner Robert McDowell suggested the doctrine could be woven into the fabric of policy initiatives with names like localism, diversity or network neutrality. “According to some, the premise of any of these initiatives is similar to the philosophical underpinnings of the Doctrine: the government must keep electronic conduits of information viewpoint neutral,” he said.

For anyone out there who is not aware of the arrival of America’s version of Tass or Pravda consult the following links on the topic.

FCC’s McDowell Warns Against Fairness Doctrine.

Lynn Woolley: Obama’s planned assault on talk radio

On February 4, 2009, Senator Debbie Stabenow (Democrat of Michigan) told radio host and WorldNetDaily columnist Bill Press, when asked whether it was time to bring back the Doctrine, “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else – I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.” When Press asked if she would seek Senate hearings on such accountability in 2009, she replied, “I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.”

An unjust exercise of authority or power

On the evening of April 14, 2009, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill police released pepper spray and threatened to use a Taser on student protesters when a crowd disrupted a speech by former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo opposing in-state tuition benefits to unauthorized immigrants.

Hundreds of protesters converged on Bingham Hall, shouting profanities and accusations of racism while Tancredo and the student who introduced him tried to speak. Minutes into the speech, a protester pounded a window of the classroom until the glass shattered, prompting Tancredo to flee and campus police to shut down the event.

Tancredo was brought to campus by a UNC chapter of Youth for Western Civilization, a national organization of students who oppose mass immigration, multiculturalism and affirmative action.

Inside the classroom, several student protesters screamed curses at Tancredo and Riley Matheson, president of the UNC-Chapel Hill chapter of Youth for Western Civilization.

“This is the free speech crowd, right?” Tancredo joked.

“Fascists are fascists,” Tancredo said. “Their actions were probably the best speech I could ever give. They are what’s wrong with America today. … When all you can do is yell epithets, that means you are intellectually bankrupt.”

UNC graduate student Tyler Oakley, who had organized the protest, said he regretted the broken window but not silencing Tancredo. “He was not able to practice his hate speech,” said Oakley. “You have to respect the right of people to assemble and collectively speak.”

ED:
A former congressman is invited to speak on a very important topic for all of us only to be shouted down by oppressive, emotionally immature, idealistic youth agitated by their professors to disrupt. Very nice.

Tancredo spoke about the shout-down on Fox News and said their professors were in the audience and incited and participated in the ensuing mini-riot.

So what are our professors teaching our youth? Is it that it’s acceptable to oppress free speech? Or perhaps it is to use emotion and violence as a tool of debate instead of engaging in intellectually driven dialog and – oh God – usher in real and meaningful change?

Folks, we are at a cross roads here. These kids – these morons taught by intellectually lazy professors bent on saving their tuition-driven salaries are our future. Some of them will even find their way into politics. These are our future leaders.

To know what this brings, we only have to look at the White House.

Who benefits from this meltdown?

Since 1989, Rep. Frank has received $42,350 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, Senator Reid has received $77,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, Sen. Dodd has received $165,400 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, more than any other Member of Congress. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, Sen. Carper has received $55,889 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

In just four years, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has received $126,349 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, more than any Member of Congress except for Sen. Dodd. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) has received $111,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has received $76,050 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has received $56,250 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) has received $51,750 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

A watershed moment

Clinton signs banking overhaul measure

November 12, 1999

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The biggest change in the nation’s banking system since the Great Depression became law Friday, when President Bill Clinton signed a measure overhauling federal rules governing the way financial institutions operate.

“This legislation is truly historic and it indicates what can happen when Republicans and Democrats work together in a spirit of genuine cooperation,” Clinton said at a White House signing ceremony. The event brought together the president and several Republican members of Congress who have been among Clinton’s sternest critics — a sign of the bipartisan support that eventually developed for the package.

Congress passed the bipartisan measure November 5, opening the way for a blossoming of financial “supermarkets” selling loans, investments and insurance. Proponents had pushed the legislation in Congress for two decades, and Wall Street and the banking and insurance industries had poured millions of dollars into lobbying for it in the past few years.

“The world changes, and Congress and the laws have to change with it,” said Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm (R-Texas), who has fought for years for the overhaul. Gramm said the bill would improve banking competition and stability.

“This is a bill that is bipartisan, bicameral and tri-institutional,” said Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa), chairman of the House Banking and Financial Services Committee. He noted that the House, Senate and White House had worked together on the compromise that became law.

Clinton said the measure will “save consumers billions of dollars a year through enhanced competition.” He said it also would protect consumers’ rights and require banks to expand the availability of funds for community development.

At stake is an estimated $350 billion that Americans spend annually on fees and commissions for banking, brokerage and insurance services. Proponents say the legislation will save consumers some $15 billion each year, offering them greater choice and convenience and spurring competition. Consumer groups and other opponents maintain it will bring higher prices and jeopardize consumers’ financial privacy.

The overhaul measure is one of the few major pieces of bipartisan legislation to emerge from the Republican-controlled Congress this year.

Clinton’s support for the legislation comes despite warnings from Democratic critics and consumer activists that it could lead to price-gouging of consumers and the erosion of their privacy by newly formed financial conglomerates that are too big and powerful.

“The bill is anti-consumer and anti-community,” advocate Ralph Nader declared. “It will mean higher prices and fewer choices for low-, moderate- and middle-income families across the nation.”

In addition, he said, “Personal privacy will be virtually eliminated” under provisions allowing affiliated businesses of the newly merged companies to share customers’ personal financial data as they offer one-stop shopping.

And up until a few weeks ago, the Clinton Administration itself had threatened a veto of the legislation as it took various forms that raised a series of White House objections. In recent months, the administration objected most sharply to the issue of rules requiring that banks make loans in minority and low-income communities where they operate.

Gramm, an outspoken conservative who opposes the rules, last year managed to kill a similar bill that would have overhauled the community lending laws. The White House insisted that banks be required to have a strong track record in local loan-making as a condition for being allowed to expand into other financial activities.

The big breakthrough came in the wee hours of October 22 when administration officials — including Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers — and key Republican lawmakers reached a compromise after negotiating for days behind closed doors. The White House then lifted its longstanding veto threat.

“It was sweaty, it was tense, but it had momentum,” Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York) said of the final bargaining session. He and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut) whose states are home to Wall Street and the banking industry (New York) and the insurance industry (Connecticut), helped broker the agreement.

Dodd: General Motors Executive Should Resign in Exchange for Bailout

Sen. Chris Dodd called on the CEO of General Motors to be replaced if the auto company is to receive any bailout money from the federal government.

U.S. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd called on a top auto executive to resign in exchange for bailout money from the federal government.

Dodd said General Motors’ chief executive officer Rick Wagoner — who has been with GM since 1977 — should be replaced if the faltering auto company is to receive any money from the government.

“I think he has to move on,” the Democratic senator said of Wagoner during an interview Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

“If you are really going to restructure this, you’ve got to bring in a new team to do this,” he said.

Dodd also said he is hopeful Congress will pass a short-term $15 billion aid package for the automakers in the next several days. But the Connecticut Democrat says the companies should have to restructure if they want a more significant bailout from Congress next year.

He added that the companies need quick cash to avoid collapse in the next several weeks. But over the long-term, Dodd said Chrysler probably ought to merge with another company.

Dodd said Ford is the healthiest of the Big Three U.S. automakers.

—-

ED:

If Dodd’s reasoning for calling upon a top auto executive to resign his position as head of a faltering company rests on claims of mismanagement, incompetency, dereliction of duty, lack of vision, failing to accurately gauge and correct failed policies, then for the same reasons Dodd should likewise resign his position as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Dodd’s leadership and failed policies for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac served to usher in the credit debacle tax-payers are to pay for.

In my opinion, both Dodd and Barney Frank are at the top of the pyramid and both should be the first in the long line of many Democrats (please give me a name of a Republican – an no, Bush does not count) to be removed from office.

If Dodd wants accountability from auto company leadership we should all be screaming from the mountain tops for Dodd’s and Frank’s heads.

We should show no mercy two years from now.

America – no principles, no scruples, no honor.

Polls are showing that Obama’s association with Bill Ayers – bomber of the U.S. Capitol building during the late 60’s and therefore a domestic terrorist – carries no importance to the majority of Americans. Of those polled 87% do not believe Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers is a valid campaign issue.
View the poll here.

Why is that?   Why is it not important that a possible future president of the most powerful and greatest country in the world launched his political career from the living room of a domestic terrorist, a self-described communist?

Why would anyone seek out and align with racists, anti-Americans and Marxists unless they considered themselves to be a sympathizer of their beliefs, motivations and ideals.

We have a presidential candidate who actually makes it a personal policy to associate with individuals like Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright.

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists. – Barack Obama

But what can we expect from a country with a growing population who has over the past few decades grown to hate her country, has popular cultural figures publicly sympathize with her enemies and encourages others to do the same? What else can we expect from a country that believes it is more important to abandon her founding principles to embrace socialist/Marxist policies?