I am going to keep you informed with me. The things I like, dislikes, and everything in between. This is a journey of success, failures, struggles and everything else that comes up on the path of being who you want to be and living the life you want to life. Be positive! Have faith and trust in GOD.
Friday, October 29, 2010
We can always rely on NMA News to bring us the latest headlines in animated form. This week's big story involved none other than Charlie Sheen, who police found naked and drunk in a trashed hotel room at The Plaza after his porn star date called the police. NMA has all the details about the "Two And A Half Men" star's $7,000 worth of damages and ensuing humiliation in their signature Taiwanese CGI-animation.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey
http://OathKeepers.org
Meet David Berry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyaxEw...
Meet Eddie & Ada Gilbert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49GPAK...
http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/
"This is my old, private blog that is now sadly neglected since I have launched Oath Keepers, which has truly taken off like a rocket, leaving me no time for personal blogging - not that I'm complaining. the Oath Keepers mission is very important, and worth the time and effort.
Go here: www.oathkeepers.org
However, if you want to see what prompted me to finally launch Oath Keepers, there are several posts on this blog that show my thinking.
Back in 2006 I wrote several scathing criticisms of the Bush Administration's absurd and dangerous claims of nearly unlimited executive "war" powers. Those articles built on my research at Yale Law School (where I won the Miller Prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights).
One of the most common refrains I get from Obama supporters is "where were you when Bush was violating the Constitution." Well, I was right here. Read this:"
http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/
OATH KEEPERS is a non-partisan association of Military, Veterans, and peace officers who will honor their oaths to defend the Constitution, will NOT just follow orders, will stand for liberty, and will save the Republic, so help us God. Our motto is:
"Not on Our Watch!"
SUMMARY LIST OF ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY:
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a state of emergency on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to keep the peace or to maintain control.
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
Read the full declaration at http://oathkeepers.org
This is a new version of our original video Oathkeepers Orders We Will NOT Obey Full Length Video. We have corrected various errors and made a few other changes.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Barack Obama Mocks Jesus Christ
The idea that behind the global chaos that gave rise to Obamas popularity was a secret network, a transnational hand directing the course of civilization. Yet no account of history including recent times is complete or even sincere without at least acknowledging the behind-the-scenes masters who manipulate international policy, banking and finance, securities and exchange, trade, commodities, and energy resources. Numerous works including scholarly ones have connected the dots between this ruling superclass and the integration of policy handed down to governing bodies of nation-states and supra-national organizations.
The Economist Newspaper in April 2008 pointed to research by academic David Rothkopf, whose book, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making documented how only a few thousand people worldwide actually dictate the majority of policies operating at a global scale. The Economist described this comparatively small number of elites as being groomed in world-spanning institutions [who] meet at global events such as the World Economic Forum at Davos and the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderberg meetings or the Bohemian Grove seminars that take place every July in California. [8]
Long time radio host and author of Brotherhood of Darkness, Stanley Monteith says such persons are part of an Occult Hierarchy that rules the world and directs the course of human events. The movement is led by powerful men who reject Christianity, embrace the dark side, and are dedicated to the formation of a world government and a world religion, he writes. They control the government, the media many corporations, and both [US] political parties. [9]
Before his death, it was prominent American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington who brought the uber-echelon behind the push for global government up from conspiracy theory to academic acceptability when he established that they have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the elites global operations. [10]
According to experts, international affairs, foreign and domestic politics and taxpayer funded investment economics are being largely decided by a privileged cadre of families who are dedicated to a New World Order and One World Government.
The CFR, the Trilateral Commission, Bohemians, Masons, the Bilderbergers and other Illuminatus subgroups, my original intention included several chapters on the memberships past and present of the largely unknown powers working behind public affairs. In the end I determined that enough of this type material is already available to the public and that this work would be better served in raising awareness beyond the machinations of financiers and occult ideologues who direct global institutions, by showing that behind their matrix of illusion—which most citizens perceive as reality—is an arena of evil supernaturalism under which these human conduits are willingly organized.
The objectives of the secret orders and the very real forces they serve is seldom perceived by citizens of democratic societies who view national officials as ruling their countries and representing their interests. Yet according to sacred texts, not only does an active collaboration exist between unregenerate social architects and fallen angels, but politicians in particular are vulnerable to principalities and powers. According to well-known exorcist Gabriele Amorth who has performed over 70,000 official exorcisms, Evil exists in politics, quite often in fact. The devil loves to take over those who hold political office. [11] As a result, it is not difficult to see how fleshy gloves such as US Presidents may be unaware of their role as chess pieces on a terrestrial game board sliding in and out of position as they are moved by the god of this world toward the phantasmogoric end game (see 2 Cor. 4:4). If researchers like Dr. Monteith are correct and world governments are to this day influenced by such dark angelic powers, the elite who head the current push to establish a New World Order are directly connected with an antichrist system whether they know it or not. With vivid testimony to this, Satan offered to Jesus all the power and glory of the kingdoms of this world. He said, All this power [control] will I give thee, and the glory of them [earthly cities]: for that is delivered unto me: and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine (Luke 4:6-7)
The Economist Newspaper in April 2008 pointed to research by academic David Rothkopf, whose book, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making documented how only a few thousand people worldwide actually dictate the majority of policies operating at a global scale. The Economist described this comparatively small number of elites as being groomed in world-spanning institutions [who] meet at global events such as the World Economic Forum at Davos and the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderberg meetings or the Bohemian Grove seminars that take place every July in California. [8]
Long time radio host and author of Brotherhood of Darkness, Stanley Monteith says such persons are part of an Occult Hierarchy that rules the world and directs the course of human events. The movement is led by powerful men who reject Christianity, embrace the dark side, and are dedicated to the formation of a world government and a world religion, he writes. They control the government, the media many corporations, and both [US] political parties. [9]
Before his death, it was prominent American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington who brought the uber-echelon behind the push for global government up from conspiracy theory to academic acceptability when he established that they have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the elites global operations. [10]
According to experts, international affairs, foreign and domestic politics and taxpayer funded investment economics are being largely decided by a privileged cadre of families who are dedicated to a New World Order and One World Government.
The CFR, the Trilateral Commission, Bohemians, Masons, the Bilderbergers and other Illuminatus subgroups, my original intention included several chapters on the memberships past and present of the largely unknown powers working behind public affairs. In the end I determined that enough of this type material is already available to the public and that this work would be better served in raising awareness beyond the machinations of financiers and occult ideologues who direct global institutions, by showing that behind their matrix of illusion—which most citizens perceive as reality—is an arena of evil supernaturalism under which these human conduits are willingly organized.
The objectives of the secret orders and the very real forces they serve is seldom perceived by citizens of democratic societies who view national officials as ruling their countries and representing their interests. Yet according to sacred texts, not only does an active collaboration exist between unregenerate social architects and fallen angels, but politicians in particular are vulnerable to principalities and powers. According to well-known exorcist Gabriele Amorth who has performed over 70,000 official exorcisms, Evil exists in politics, quite often in fact. The devil loves to take over those who hold political office. [11] As a result, it is not difficult to see how fleshy gloves such as US Presidents may be unaware of their role as chess pieces on a terrestrial game board sliding in and out of position as they are moved by the god of this world toward the phantasmogoric end game (see 2 Cor. 4:4). If researchers like Dr. Monteith are correct and world governments are to this day influenced by such dark angelic powers, the elite who head the current push to establish a New World Order are directly connected with an antichrist system whether they know it or not. With vivid testimony to this, Satan offered to Jesus all the power and glory of the kingdoms of this world. He said, All this power [control] will I give thee, and the glory of them [earthly cities]: for that is delivered unto me: and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine (Luke 4:6-7)
Monday, October 11, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
College Underground Radio-Atlanta
RAPIDLY BECOMING THE #1 INTERNET STATION FOR COLLEGE AND UNDERGROUND RADIO.
The best variety in music and entertainment on the internet for the Atlanta area.
Our playlist is picked by our listeners and friends!
We broadcast commercial free, worldwide twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week
It is our mission to become YOUR "go to" internet radio station. We build and change our website from your input and suggestions.
College Underground Radio is playing great unsigned or slightly signed artists/bands.You can be one of them. The idea is to give you exposure to our listeners and website visitors all over the world.
"DISCOVER" New bands and artists before they become "Mainstream"
Each month College Underground Radio brings to you some of the best non-mainstream bands and artists as suggested by you our listeners. Vote on who you think are best. The winner gets 3 of their cuts into our playlist rotation.
CHECK OUT THIS MONTHS BANDS WITH "DISCOVER"http://www.atlanta.collegeundergroundradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56&Itemid=27..
If you are a band or artist, we can help expose your music to thousands of people all over the world.
If you have a new CD, Let us help break it. Going out on tour, let us help get the word out. Check out our many BAND SERVICES to help you promote your CD, tour or band. http://www.atlanta.collegeundergroundradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99&Itemid=112..
3 WAYS TO GET YOUR MUSIC PLAYED ON COLLEGE UNDERGROUND RADIO:
“GET AIRPLAY” (The fastest way to get on our playlist). Submit a song for us to play. We are always looking for new music to add to our playlists and to give our listeners the "411" on up and coming or breaking bands. Have a new CD coming out, we can help you break it. There is a small upload fee. Click here to learn more and to send us your music http://www.atlanta.collegeundergroundradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=72&Itemid=77..
"DISCOVER" Submit your music to appear on "Discover". The bands/artist we use will each get 1 cut in our playlist rotation. The winner of each month's "Discover" will have 3 of their songs in the following months playlist rotation. Submit your music here http://www.atlanta.collegeundergroundradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56&Itemid=27..
GET BROADCASTS WORLDWIDE ON "THE UNDERGROUND"The Underground is a twenty minute infomercial made available to any individual artist, band, management company and/or record company.
The program will introduce the listeners to an artist in a twenty minute infomercial which will include three to four cuts of the artist, wrap arounds about the act, an interview with the band and band promotional information.
For more information or to submit your band/artist for broadcast consideration http://www.atlanta.collegeundergroundradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=63..
Friday, October 8, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Black GOP Poised to Score Historic Election Victory
By: David A. Patten
Riding a fierce anti-incumbent wave, Republicans have an opportunity to make history by electing a record number of black conservatives to Congress in November.
Fourteen black Republicans have received the GOP’s nomination in their respective congressional districts. If just three of them win, it would mark the first time since Reconstruction that more than two African-Americans from the Republican Party have served in Congress, according to The Frederick Douglass Foundation.
"We're pretty confident that at least two of those individuals will make it for sure,” Timothy Johnson, co-founder of The Frederick Douglass Foundation, tells Newsmax. “And I'm looking upwards to as many as five or six. I could be surprised, it could be more."
Many black Republicans eschew the hyphenated African-American modifier when describing themselves, emphasizing the point that they are Americansfirst and foremost .
The foundation, a public-policy and educational group that promotes free markets and helps bolster black GOP candidacies, says the last time more than one black Republican served in Congress was in 1995-1997, when GOP Rep. Gary Franks and Rep. J.C. Watts were elected.
“This will be the most successful election cycle for African-American Republicans in at least the last 20 years,” Republican Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, tells Newsmax.
Blackwell estimates there is a 75 percent chance that at least three black Republicans will win national office this cycle.
“I think you're going to have three to five winners, and the number of real competitive races will be greater than that,” he says. “I think that would be a substantial victory and a nice benchmark from which to start a major realignment as we go forward.”
Five or more victories by black Republicans would signal that the long-awaited dream of a Republican big tent — the opening up of the party to greater ethnic and gender diversity — finally could be coming true.
Frances Rice, head of the National Black Republican Association, recently told Newsmax that the increase in black GOP candidates is noteworthy. But she blames the mainstream media for ignoring black Republicans in previous election cycles.
“You have to keep in mind black Republicans have been running for a number of years,” she said. “They've been ignored because talking about them as Republican candidates didn't fit into the media template."
Headlining this year’s group of black Republicans are Tim Scott in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District and Allen West in Florida’s 22nd.
Scott defeated eight other candidates in the GOP primary including Paul Thurmond, son of late South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond. Scott, who is heavily favored to defeat perennial Democratic candidate Ben Frasier Jr., would become the first black congressman to represent South Carolina since Reconstruction.
West is the Iraq war hero and retired Army lieutenant colonel who has turned into a fund-raising powerhouse for the Republican Party. His fiery speech to the Florida tea party went viral, and has attracted more than 2.2 million page views.
“The Constitution says promote the general welfare, not provide welfare,” West declares in the video. “We have a class warfare going on. You’ve got a producing class, and you’ve got an entitlement class.”
West is locked in a slugfest with incumbent Rep. Ron Klein, who voted the Democratic Party line about 98 percent of the time.
In the first quarter of 2010, West actually out-fundraised Klein, who in 2006 defeated GOP Rep. Clay Shaw in District 22, which leans slightly Republican.
In an interesting twist, leading members of the Congressional Black Caucus have announced they will be campaigning against West.
“There’s no doubt [Klein] and West are locked in close combat,” Politico reports.
Beyond Scott and West, Johnson says this cycle’s roster of black Republicans is the strongest field the GOP has ever presented. The candidates have deep resumes, extensive political experience in their local communities, and most of them have demonstrated the ability to raise enough campaign cash to run competitive races.
Johnson says electing three black Republicans would send a powerful message.
“It would change the dynamics and change the way that people view the black community as it relates to representation in Congress,” he says.
Beyond Scott and West, the other 12 black GOP candidates looking to make history in this year’s midterms:
GOP leaders have been talking for years about expanding the GOP tent to include more minorities.
There are 42 African-American Democrats in Congress, a number that includes the lone black senator, Sen. Roland Burris of Illinois, and non-voting delegates from the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
One reason more black Republican candidates haven’t run for office may be that they usually end up on the receiving end of brickbats and outright slurs from progressives, who react to any rivalry for the black vote, more than 90 percent of which traditionally goes to Democrats.
Johnson says the latest example of mistreatment involves West.
The Florida Democratic Party distributed a flyer to untold thousands of voters echoing the Klein campaign’s attacks on West. The flyer reproduced a 2005 tax lien from Indiana that displayed West’s Social Security number, making West a prime candidate for identity theft. West called it “an unprecedented new low in American politics.”
The state Democratic Party dismissed the flier as an “oversight” and agreed to defray the cost of identity-theft monitoring for West for two years.
Black Republicans are facing another frustration this year: The mainstream media insists on crediting Barack Obama, of all people, for their ascendancy.
Johnson says the media could be right but not in the way they think.
He contends more qualified black Republicans have stepped up to run this year because they have been alarmed by the direction America’s first black president is taking the country.
“Yeah,” says Johnson, “you had a bunch of blacks who said, 'We're tired of being stereotyped that all of us think like him.’”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Fourteen black Republicans have received the GOP’s nomination in their respective congressional districts. If just three of them win, it would mark the first time since Reconstruction that more than two African-Americans from the Republican Party have served in Congress, according to The Frederick Douglass Foundation.
"We're pretty confident that at least two of those individuals will make it for sure,” Timothy Johnson, co-founder of The Frederick Douglass Foundation, tells Newsmax. “And I'm looking upwards to as many as five or six. I could be surprised, it could be more."
Many black Republicans eschew the hyphenated African-American modifier when describing themselves, emphasizing the point that they are Americansfirst and foremost .
The foundation, a public-policy and educational group that promotes free markets and helps bolster black GOP candidacies, says the last time more than one black Republican served in Congress was in 1995-1997, when GOP Rep. Gary Franks and Rep. J.C. Watts were elected.
“This will be the most successful election cycle for African-American Republicans in at least the last 20 years,” Republican Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, tells Newsmax.
Blackwell estimates there is a 75 percent chance that at least three black Republicans will win national office this cycle.
“I think you're going to have three to five winners, and the number of real competitive races will be greater than that,” he says. “I think that would be a substantial victory and a nice benchmark from which to start a major realignment as we go forward.”
Five or more victories by black Republicans would signal that the long-awaited dream of a Republican big tent — the opening up of the party to greater ethnic and gender diversity — finally could be coming true.
Frances Rice, head of the National Black Republican Association, recently told Newsmax that the increase in black GOP candidates is noteworthy. But she blames the mainstream media for ignoring black Republicans in previous election cycles.
“You have to keep in mind black Republicans have been running for a number of years,” she said. “They've been ignored because talking about them as Republican candidates didn't fit into the media template."
Headlining this year’s group of black Republicans are Tim Scott in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District and Allen West in Florida’s 22nd. Scott defeated eight other candidates in the GOP primary including Paul Thurmond, son of late South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond. Scott, who is heavily favored to defeat perennial Democratic candidate Ben Frasier Jr., would become the first black congressman to represent South Carolina since Reconstruction.
West is the Iraq war hero and retired Army lieutenant colonel who has turned into a fund-raising powerhouse for the Republican Party. His fiery speech to the Florida tea party went viral, and has attracted more than 2.2 million page views.
“The Constitution says promote the general welfare, not provide welfare,” West declares in the video. “We have a class warfare going on. You’ve got a producing class, and you’ve got an entitlement class.”
West is locked in a slugfest with incumbent Rep. Ron Klein, who voted the Democratic Party line about 98 percent of the time.
In the first quarter of 2010, West actually out-fundraised Klein, who in 2006 defeated GOP Rep. Clay Shaw in District 22, which leans slightly Republican.
In an interesting twist, leading members of the Congressional Black Caucus have announced they will be campaigning against West.
“There’s no doubt [Klein] and West are locked in close combat,” Politico reports.
Beyond Scott and West, Johnson says this cycle’s roster of black Republicans is the strongest field the GOP has ever presented. The candidates have deep resumes, extensive political experience in their local communities, and most of them have demonstrated the ability to raise enough campaign cash to run competitive races.
Johnson says electing three black Republicans would send a powerful message.
“It would change the dynamics and change the way that people view the black community as it relates to representation in Congress,” he says.
Beyond Scott and West, the other 12 black GOP candidates looking to make history in this year’s midterms:
- Charlotte Bergmann, Tenn.-9 — Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen is in such a safe district that Bergmann’s campaign slogan is “Charlotte Bergmann Can Win.” She has been demanding that Cohen debate her, but so far he’s turned a cold shoulder to those entreaties, apparently sensing his best chance of surviving a wave election is to ignore her existence. Bergmann is owner of a Memphis-based marketing firm, Effective PMP, LLC. In 2003, she was named Tennessee Business Woman of the Year.
- Robert Broadus, Md.-4 — A small-business leader and Naval Academy graduate, Broadus has written that, as a young person growing up in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C., he was taught that all Republicans were racists. But his interest in politics motivated him to learn and decide for himself. Over time, he says, he came to conclude that Republicans historically have done more to promote freedom and liberty than Democrats.
- Stephen Broden, Texas-30 — Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has called it “an honor” to endorse Broden, who has pastored a church in the Dallas area for over 20 years. Broden’s campaign has won national attention, with other endorsements coming from Rep. Pete Sessions and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, among others. Broden is a passionate defender of conservative principles and limited government, which he identifies as the key to American greatness. Broden’s opponent is Eddie Bernice Johnson, who has been caught in the ethics spotlight for distributing college Congressional Black Caucus Foundation scholars to her four relatives and a top aide’s two children. Johnson denies any favoritism, and said she couldn’t find any other children in her district who were “very worthy.” This sparked a broadside from Broden that all the children in his district are worthy. CBC Foundation general counsel Amy Goldson told the Dallas Morning News Johnson’s actions violated its nepotism rules, and are “of great concern.”
- Michel Faulkner, N.Y.-15 — Faulkner is offering voters in New York’s heavily Democratic 15th Congressional District a conservative alternative to returning ethically challenged Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel back to Congress. Faulkner has signed the anti-tax pledge promulgated by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. After 22 years as a New York City pastor, Faulkner promotes small businesses, rather than the government, as the best chance for a strong economic recovery.
- Ryan Frazier, Colo.-7 — Bush campaign “architect” and Fox News commentator Karl Rove hosted a fundraiser Friday for Frazier and two other GOP candidates in Colorado. Frazier is a military veteran and small businessman who advocates lower taxes, reduced government waste, and securing the borders.
- Isaac Hayes, Ill.-2 — An ordained minister and community activist, Hayes faces a tough battle to unseat Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. in Illinois' 2nd Congressional District. There are growing indications that Jackson's connection to the Rod Blagojevich scandal may have alienated Illinois voters. Hayes could be poised to score a major upset. Hayes has received the endorsement of the American Conservative Union and the National Right to Life PAC.
- Charles Lollar, Md.-5 — A U.S. Marine combat veteran, Lollar describes himself as a fiscal conservative who wants to “rein in the out of control spending by the Pelosi Congress.” He faces an uphill battle against House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. His campaign is focusing on the economy, and he states low taxes are the key to a robust economy.
- Bill Marcy, Miss.-2 — Marcy is a retired security director and Chicago cop who says his time on the beat taught him just how much liberal agenda has devastated American families. His opponent is Rep. Bennie Thompson, an African-American who has served in Congress since 1997, and who has been widely criticized in recent years for taking free junkets to the Northern Mariana Islands, Mexico City, Honduras, the Virgin Islands, Key West, and St. Martin.
- Star Parker, Calif-37 — Founder of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, Parker is a high-profile columnist and author with an inspiring personal story. Parker is the founder and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. She’s running against incumbent Democrat Rep. Laura Richardson in California's 37th congressional district. One watchdog named Richardson to its report on congressional corruption after she reportedly accepted favorable loans and failed to properly disclose them. In July, the Office of Congressional Ethics cleared Richardson of wrongdoing. Among those who have endorsed Parker’s candidacy: Steve Forbes, GOP Rep. Marsha Blackburn, GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, among many others.
- Bill Randall, N.C.-13 — After growing up in New Orleans' lower 9th Ward, Randall knew what it was like to face tough challenges. He attained the U.S. Navy’s highest non-commissioned rank, command master chief, before launching a political career. He’s been endorsed by Tea Party PAC USA and supports the Fair Tax.
- Marvin Scott, Ind.-7 — Marvin Scott has been a professor of sociology at Butler University for nearly 20 years. He also ran the Marvin Scott Associates consulting firm for nearly a decade. Scott recently hired Jerry Alexander, former political director for Rep. Mike Pence’s 2008 campaign, to serve as his campaign manager. His opponent is incumbent Rep. Andre Carson, a Democrat.
- Chuck Smith, Virginia-3 — A former U.S. Marine and longtime attorney, Smith is running in Virginia's 3rd Congressional District against incumbent Democrat Rep. Bobby Scott. Smith is a staunch opponent of taxes and big government. Former Virginia Sen. George Allen is aiding his fundraising efforts.
GOP leaders have been talking for years about expanding the GOP tent to include more minorities.
There are 42 African-American Democrats in Congress, a number that includes the lone black senator, Sen. Roland Burris of Illinois, and non-voting delegates from the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
One reason more black Republican candidates haven’t run for office may be that they usually end up on the receiving end of brickbats and outright slurs from progressives, who react to any rivalry for the black vote, more than 90 percent of which traditionally goes to Democrats.
Johnson says the latest example of mistreatment involves West.
The Florida Democratic Party distributed a flyer to untold thousands of voters echoing the Klein campaign’s attacks on West. The flyer reproduced a 2005 tax lien from Indiana that displayed West’s Social Security number, making West a prime candidate for identity theft. West called it “an unprecedented new low in American politics.”
The state Democratic Party dismissed the flier as an “oversight” and agreed to defray the cost of identity-theft monitoring for West for two years.
Black Republicans are facing another frustration this year: The mainstream media insists on crediting Barack Obama, of all people, for their ascendancy.
Johnson says the media could be right but not in the way they think.
He contends more qualified black Republicans have stepped up to run this year because they have been alarmed by the direction America’s first black president is taking the country.
“Yeah,” says Johnson, “you had a bunch of blacks who said, 'We're tired of being stereotyped that all of us think like him.’”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Drive in the ditch MR. PRESIDENT OBAMA YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!!
Obama's car has a teleprompter for the mirrors. Pushing, pushing, pushing the car deeper into the ditch. The numbers don't lie. Deficits, unemployment, foreclosures, bankruptcies, poverty and the number of Americans on food stamps are at record levels. All while the Democrats have been driving that beat-up car since 2007.
President Obama came to Bowie State University and was met by a student that spoke out against his speak concerning how conservatives and Republicans are the reason for today's economic condition. The student screamed out "you're a liar", causing the president to pause his speech. Then the student was physically beaten up by supporters, cursed down, and thrown side to side. Obama then immediately changed his speech to start to defend himself and policies.
Bill Clinton Wants to Dedicate Ground Zero Mosque to Muslims Who Died on 9/11
October 6, 2010
Bill Clinton Wants to Dedicate Ground Zero Mosque to Muslims Who Died on 9/11
Posted by Van Helsing at October 6, 2010 11:07 AM
I didn't think my opinion of Bill Clinton could get any lower. I was wrong:Former President Bill Clinton strongly supports Park51, the mosque and community center planned near Ground Zero, he said in an interview posted on YouTube Sunday.For Slick Willy, who has received massive amounts of money from Muslims, just building a victory mosque on the ashes of Americans killed by Islam isn't enough.
"Much or even most of the controversy … could have been avoided, and perhaps still can be, if the people who want to build the center were to simply say, 'We are dedicating this center to all the Muslims who were killed on 9/11,'" Clinton said.You know, like Mohamed Atta.
Somewhere in the world there has got to be a toilet large enough to flush this creep down.
With this face, I could rest my case against Democrats.
On a tip from Ummah Gummah.http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/10/bill-clinton-wa-1.html
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Democrat Leaders in Trouble
Posted by Right Change — Wed, October 06 at 1:55PM
A trend is emerging across the country. Americans are growing tired of the big-government policies that are being pushed by the Democrat leadership in Washington, D.C. For a while, most of the flak was being taken by the likes of President Obama, Vice-President Biden, House Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Reid. Now it appears that the more Americans hear about the rest of the Democrat leadership, the more they don’t like it either. These days, several House committee chairmen are in trouble as well.These Democrats, in previous election years, would be considered as safe as can be, but this year Republicans are firing away at these committee chairmen rather than focusing on just the most vulnerable Democrats.
What are some of the effects of this attack on the most powerful Democrats in the House? Appropriations Chairman Dave Obey decided to retire rather than seek re-election. Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank is in jeopardy in his race in Massachusetts, of all places. Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall has to fight for his seat in West Virginia thanks to this years Republican attacks. Chet Edwards, Chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies has had a week of ads pulled by the DCCC as he looks less and less likely to hold his seat this election.
As these previously safe Democrats are having to use precious resources to hold on to their seats (which will be quite a struggle for many of them), they are making the already vulnerable seats that much more vulnerable. If you haven’t yet, please contribute so RightChange can help defeat these liberal Democrat leaders and bring a conservative wave to Washington, D.C. that is willing to work for the people and not to grow government.
Ain't Stopping us Now from Voting out the Progressive Dems and RINOs! Please Repost!
Only 26 Days Until Nov 2 2010!Remember in November to Vote out the Progressive Liberal Dems and the RINOs!Your Job is to Get 10 People to Vote with You on Nov 2!Don't just look at the links! You must open them to get the Full Stories!Follow the Links ...below, get the Latest info on every Race in the Nation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np3DAtJ_DYE
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keyhouseraces.com%2F&h=82cae
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/http://www.gallup.com/poll/127439/Election-2010-Key-Indicators.aspx
https://www.senateconservatives.com/support?c=WJ4CA7332E218A9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np3DAtJ_DYE
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keyhouseraces.com%2F&h=82cae
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/http://www.gallup.com/poll/127439/Election-2010-Key-Indicators.aspx
https://www.senateconservatives.com/support?c=WJ4CA7332E218A9
Don't call it a tax!!!!President Obama denied charges that his healthcare law was a tax on citizens, but 20 states disagreed and brought the government to court. The White House lawyers had no choice but to call it a tax in order to win their case. This administration is hijacking Liberty and the Constitution with the laws they are jamming down our throats, so check out www.theplainfacts.com to see the details.
Media admits true nature of bill!!!! Despite being a vocal supports of the notion of providing health insurance to the unisured, the moment the bill was signed into law, the media unveiled the true intent of healthcare: Redistribute the wealth in the US. This administration is hijacking Liberty and the Constitution with the laws they are jamming down our throats, so check out www.theplainfacts.com to see the details.
Friday, October 1, 2010
New digital camera? Know how, where you can use it (good info to know)
New digital camera? Know how, where you can use it
Digital cameras were one of the hot gifts these holidays — the first one for some people, an upgrade for others. Cell-phone cameras are everywhere too, and sites like Flickr and Buzznet — not to mention photoblogs — make it easy for anyone to share the zillions of photos they're taking.
With all these cameras snapping around us, I started to wonder about the laws regarding using them. Where can you shoot? What can you shoot?
A blogger I know shot a picture in an office building. One of the tenants had boxes of medical records sitting around in an unlocked office, visible from the hall. He published a picture of the boxes, which started a little brouhaha: He didn't have permission from the building's landlord, someone said, so he wasn't allowed to take or publish the photos.
That turns out not to be the case.
What I discovered is that a lot of people have ideas — often very clear ones — of what is legal and what isn't, based on anything from common sense to wishful thinking to "I always heard…"
Trouble is, they aren't always right. If you've got a digital camera and like to shoot in public, it pays to know the real deal.
So I went looking for it. I checked with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and found its Photographers' Guide to Privacy.
The Missouri Bar has a terrific Journalists' Right of Privacy Primer by attorney Mark Sableman.
Bert P. Krages, an attorney in Portland, Ore., and author of the Legal Handbook for Photographers, has a short but excellent PDF document called The Photographer's Right.
I also had e-mail conversations with both Mssrs. Sableman and Krages (who were both careful to point out that they were only speaking in general terms, and not offering legal advice).
Finally, I got some background from the American Law Institute's A Concise Restatement of Torts on the Harvard Law website.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer; in this case I'm a researcher. But lemme tell you: All these sources jibed, which I take to be a good sign. Just don't take this as legal advice; it's one columnist's researched understanding of the law.
If you can see it, you can shoot it
Let's get the easy stuff out of the way. Aside from sensitive government buildings (e.g., military bases), if you're on public property you can photograph anything you like, including private property. There are some limits — using a zoom lens to shoot someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy isn't covered — but no one can come charging out of a business and tell you not to take photos of the building, period.
Further, they cannot demand your camera or your digital media or film. Well, they can demand it, but you are under no obligation to give it to them. In fact, only an officer of the law or court can take it from you, and then only with a court order. And if they try or threaten you? They can be charged with theft or coercion, and you may even have civil recourse. Cool. (For details, see "The Photographer's Right.")
It gets better.
You can take photos any place that's open to the public, whether or not it's private property. A mall, for example, is open to the public. So are most office buildings (at least the lobbies). You don't need permission; if you have permission to enter, you have permission to shoot.
In fact, there are very few limits to what you're allowed to photograph. Separately, there are few limits to what you're allowed to publish. And the fact that they're separate issues — shooting and publishing — is important. We'll get to that in a moment.
You can take any photo that does not intrude upon or invade the privacy of a person, if that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Someone walking in a mall or on the street? Fair game. Someone standing in a corner, looking at his new Prozac prescription? No. Using a long lens to shoot someone in an apartment? No.
Note that the limits have nothing to do with where you are when you take the shots; it's all about the subject's expectation of privacy. You can be on private property (a mall or office-building lobby), or even be trespassing and still legally take pictures. Whether you can be someplace and whether you can take pictures are two completely separate issues.
Chances are you can publish it
Publishing photos has some different restraints, although they're civil, not criminal. Break one of these "rules" and, while you won't go to jail, you could find yourself on the short end of a lawsuit. (Although, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, "the subject's remedy usually will not include the ability to bar the publication of the picture.")
Revealing private facts about someone is a no-no. As the American Law Institute put it, "One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that A) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and B) is not of legitimate concern to the public."
Here the private property issue comes a bit more into play. Publishing a recognizable photo of someone at an AA meeting could be a problem, even if that meeting is open to the public. (An elected official, perhaps, but not of Joe Citizen.)
You also can find yourself in civil court if you publish a shot that places a person in a false light. That might be more of an issue with the caption than with the photo; running a shot of the mayor and his daughter labeled "Mayor meets with porn star" could land you in hot water. (Assuming his daughter isn't a porn star.)
Finally, you can't use someone's likeness for a purely commercial purpose — using a photo of someone in an ad, for example. That isn't to say you can't publish a photo in a commercial environment, such as a newspaper or a blog that accepts ads. If the photo is being used in a news or artistic sense as opposed to a commercial one you're OK.
Risk factors
The fact that taking a photo and publishing it are separate things might go against some folks' common sense.
Let's say you're banned by the local mall for taking photos there, but you go back anyway and take more. Now you're trespassing. But unless the photos you take violate someone's expectation of privacy, your taking photos isn't illegal — only being there.
That said, if you're arrested and convicted, a judge might use the fact that you were taking photos to increase the penalty, but shooting on private property isn't a crime in and of itself. As one lawyer told me, "I don't see why the act of trespass would turn something that occurs during the trespass into a tort if it wasn't one already."
There are some other risks to taking and publishing 'problematic' photos. But, as you'll see, they're easy to avoid.
Trespassing is an obvious problem. If you're not supposed to be someplace — you see a sign or you're told by the property owner, for example — you can get arrested. Sure, you might be able to publish the photos you take, but Web access from jail is limited. (Trespassing is almost always a misdemeanor, by the way.)
You might be charged with your state's variation of intrusion — using technology (e.g., a long lens, hidden camera, or parabolic microphone) — to access a place where the subject has an expectation of privacy.
Beyond trespass, the major risks you run are civil, not criminal. You can lose an invasion of privacy lawsuit if your photographs reveal private facts about a person that are offensive and not newsworthy when the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Ditto if they place the person in a false light, or inappropriately use the specific person's image for commercial purposes, e.g., stating that the mayor endorses a product by publishing a photo of him using it.
All of this should be good news for amateur and professional shutterbugs. Carry your camera, shoot to your heart's content, and know your rights — and your risks.
Andrew Kantor is a technology writer, pundit, and know-it-all who covers technology for the Roanoke Times. He's also a former editor for PC Magazine and Internet World. Read more of his work at kantor.com. His column appears Fridays on USATODAY.com.
Usually I don't run two update columns so close together, but some things I've seen lately tell me I need to clarify what I wrote in December.
Back then, I wrote a column on photographer's rights, in which I explained where you were allowed to shoot pictures and what you were allowed to do with them. I was glad to see people were reading and spreading it.
Since then, I've seen an incredible amount of misinformation bandied about, and I've had a lot of questions posted on my blog that tell me people aren't getting the message. Worse, I've read accounts of photographers being harassed for perfectly legal behavior by people whose ignorance of the law ought to get them in trouble.
The most notable was the story of Neftaly Cruz, a senior at Penn State who on July 19 was not only harassed but taken into custody by Philadelphia police for obstructing an investigation. How did he do this? By taking pictures of the cops while standing on a public street.
Cruz's actions were absolutely and undoubtedly legal, and not surprisingly he was released without being charged with anything.
It's not just cops who need reeducation classes. Last week I received a note from a reader:
"Today I was stopped by a security guard with the North County Transit District in Solana Beach, California, and prevented from taking photos of a great new train station they have," he wrote. "The guard said they don't allow it since 9/11."
Note to security guard: Just because you or your boss "don't allow" something doesn't mean it's not legal. I can post a sign on my lawn, "Hopping on one foot in front of this house is prohibited," but I'll have a tough time enforcing it.
Stories like these all have something in common. Invariably, it seems, the guards or cops either invoke non-existent laws (e.g., "It's illegal to shoot any building on 3rd Street"), or they use the all-encompassing "security."
Well guess what: Neither "security" nor "9/11" are magic words that will cause everyone to follow your every unjustifiable instruction. Say either as often or as loud as you want. It doesn't let you take away someone's rights.
Keeping it simple
The law in the United States of America is pretty simple. You are allowed to photograph anything with the following exceptions:
• Certain military installations or operations.
• People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, people who are some place that's not easily visible to the general public, e.g., if you shoot through someone's window with a telephoto lens.
That's it.
You can shoot pictures of children; your rights don't change because of their age or where they are, as long as they're visible from a place that's open to the public. (So no sneaking into schools or climbing fences.)
Video taping has some more gray areas because of copyright issues, but in general the same rules apply. If anyone can see it, you can shoot it.
And yes, you can shoot on private property if it's open to the public. That includes malls, retails stores, Starbucks, banks, and office-building lobbies. If you're asked to stop and refuse, you run the risk of being charged with trespassing, but your pictures are yours. No one can legally take your camera or your memory card without a court order.
You can also shoot in subways and at airports. Check your local laws about the subway, but in New York, Washington, and San Francisco it's perfectly legal. Airport security is regulated by the Transportation Security Administration, and it's quite clear: Photography is A-OK at any commercial airport in the U.S. as long as you're in an area open to the public.
Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Restrictions
There are a few more restrictions on publishing photos or video, though, as mentioned back in December.
You can't show private facts — things a reasonable person wouldn't want made public — unless those facts were revealed publicly. So no long-lens shots of your neighbors' odd habits.
You also can't show someone in a negative false light by, for example, using Photoshop tricks or a nasty, untrue caption.
And you can't put someone else's likeness to commercial use without their permission. This is usually mentioned in terms of celebrities, but it applies to making money from anyone's likeness.
For example, if you shoot individual kids playing in a school football game, you can't try to sell those shots to the parents; the kids have a right to the use of their likeness. You can sell photos of the game in general, though, and any shots where what's happening ("A player celebrates a goal") is more important than who's doing it ("Star running back John Doe takes a momentary rest").
Sound like a gray area? It is if you're planning to sell the pictures, but not if you're simply displaying them. And if you're using them for news purposes, all bets are off — you can pretty much publish whatever you want if it happens in public view.
The other gray area is copyrighted material. Even if it's in public, you can't sell pictures of copyrighted work — a piece of art, for example. But if the art is part of a scene you can probably get away with it.
All this in mind, it's almost always a good idea to get permission where you can and to be polite and friendly with anyone you deal with. Like good urban legends, people are absolutely sure they know the law about photography, and they're absolutely wrong.
If you want to know more, I've got a PDF on my site with all this spelled out, and you shouldn't miss Bert Krages's "The Photographer's Right." Print 'em and carry 'em.
Andrew Kantor is a technology writer, pundit, and know-it-all who covers technology for the Roanoke Times. He's also a former editor for PC Magazine and Internet World. Read more of his work at kantor.com. His column appears Fridays on USATODAY.com.
| Posted 8/11/2006 10:12 AM ET | |
Red Skelton Pledge of Allegiance
Red Skelton recites the Pledge Of Allegiance and the meaning of same. This is a MUST watch video! I'm posting this for those who believe the Pledge should not be spoken in our school systems of today. Please pay close attention to this because Red was so far ahead of this time. I believe this to have been filmed sometime in the early part of 1969? I remember this because that was the year my oldest daughter was born. Please pass this video around to your friends and loved ones! Long Live The Pledge Of Allegiance!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)