Middle America's Worldview

New life is in play regarding Barry Soetoro’s (AKA: Barack Obama) birth certificate again. Recently Chris Matthews brought it up again on MSNBC. The 7 minute discussion can be viewed here.
The Washington Post had inquired in April on this subject. The poll shows 20% says no, 23% says I don’t know; with the remaining 58% believe Obama was born on U.S. soil. After 2 years of presidency, 43% does not believe, has no clue (or doesn’t care).

I have already posted some information on this subject, found here, and here. However, some additional points need to be brought up on this discussion.

It is my opinion Chris Matthews believes Barry was born in United States, hence asking for it all to be put to a rest, by providing the birth certificate (not a receipt). A simple question the so-called birthers have been asking for over 2 years. Some have even sued DNC for the original birth certificate when Obama was still in the Senate. This request and becoming issue had not started during Obama’s presidency. Rather this same concern has only come into additional light as he flew into the White House to be President.
Note these external quick links to the story back in 2008.

Hillary Clinton supporter files lawsuit:.

The DNC came in to silence the lawsuit, Berg vs. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083

Rather than providing the certificate in the beginning, Obama goes on the offense and hires a terrorist associated attorney (Joseph E. Sandler), which caused even more issues asking about his ties with terrorist.

Another source to the questionable ties.

Chris Matthews goes onto to name calling (to show he’s really not a birther), but again brings up the point, why not present the document to squash all the conspiracy.

One of the guest doesn’t answer the why, but expands on the “it would take a real conspiracy from birth to fake it, only to put him in the white house.” Well, that’s a stupid answer, considering the issue of illegal immigration we have. Many immigrants come here for our benefits. Simply having a child on our soil will provide more benefits to the immigrant than presented in their own countries. This is a fact, not a conspiracy. A logical statement would be to have a child on U.S. soil for the benefits, rather than a long-term conspiracy for a President.

The argument of Barack being too busy is also an idiot reply. They guy is filling in positions within the Federal Government now, as if it’s a ship about to leave a volcanic island. One additional position to squash this concern would not be too much of a reach. If he has the idea to ignore it (so it doesn’t give it value), then he again is mistaken. This will only continue, and rise as his approval ratings drops.

The belief the "birthers" will not believe even if the legal certificate is presented is an opinion not a fact. Some will not believe, but what about those 23% having no clue? Should the President not provide the information to those 23%? I say he should, if nothing else to support his base. Matthews brings this up as well. The receipt is not enough information, nor the actual document.

So why not present the real authentic birth certificate? I suspect two things. I suspect it doesn’t exist (since the unwillingness to present it), and Barry is being used by some group.
Discussion has already been made in detail regarding the document not existing. However, discussion of Barry being used has not.
A group using Barry to push their agenda for America might be in play. Someone is writing those speeches for Barry and he refuses to give one, without a prompter. He was the first U.S. President to use one in Indian Parliament.

Barry used one even to discuss to school children.

This makes our president a good reader, but not a good speaker.

If Barry is being used, with his ratings lower than any president before and the republicans coming into power, his usefulness is about empty. We should be seeing Barry tore down even more and cast aside. The DNC came to assist him during his run for presidency. However, all will move away from him, as he is being dismantled. Some will cheer, simply because they do not like him or his politics. This shadow president is nothing more than a puppet being pulled by strings. The hatred is thrown at him, while the real engineers are hiding in the shadows. As he is cast aside, another puppet will be brought into the stadium, while the agenda push continues. We need to send the light to the engineers hiding in the shadows, rather than focusing on the puppet.

Federal money has been issued to create “Fusion Centers” across the United States. The centers attempt to enhance communication between state, local, and federal departments. The story was released at Info Wars discussing Tennessee Watch List putting the ACLU on the terror list. http://www.infowars.com/tennessee-fusion-center-puts-aclu-on-terror-list/ ACLU posted an article regarding “What is wrong with fusion centers”. This may be the reason why they are put on the list. Source: http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/whats-wrong-fusion-centers-executive-summary

According to the report, Chattanooga Free Press reported Tennessee anti-terrorism officials placed the legislative lobbying organization on an internet map dealing “terrorism events and other suspicious activities”. There are 58 reported fusion centers across the states Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/23/fusion-centers-expand-criteria-identify-militia-members/

The map is found at http://www.globalincidentmap.com/ .
What is odd of this supposedly terrorist map, it also shows political activities and state legislations regarding “illegal alien activities”. What state legislation has to do with illegal alien actives is not known. However, if the fusion centers are placing political groups and state legislations on the map under terror concerns, every American citizen should be concerned. This type of activity is the same we seen in the 60’s and 70’s under ‘red squads’.

“Red Squads were police intelligence units that specialize in infiltrating, conducting counter-measures and gathering intelligence on political and social groups during the twentieth century. Dating as far back as the Haymarket Riot in 1886, Red Squads became common in larger cities such as Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles during the First Red Scare of the 1920s. They were set up as specialized units of city police departments, as a weapon against labor unions, communists, anarchists, and other dissidents.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_squad.

We as a society wish to perpetuate empathy to all manner of characteristics including those individuals who cannot feel compassion for others.

The hit show “Dexter” revolves around a Miami forensic specialist who specializes in blood splatter, moonlighting as a serial killer. The character can feel neither emotions nor empathy for anyone around him, because of a tragic event at an early age. As the story develops, the audience learns more of the character as Dexter unravels why he cannot feel anything. We as the audience are drawn into the storyline as empathetic viewers for this unsettling character, as he journeys to find himself and his place in our society. The adopted father, who is a police officer, shows his son how to hide his killings and monstrous characteristics. Doing it so well, Dexter becomes a vigilante type serial killer, his own sister cannot even see.

Personally I am always more fascinated with character driven shows and movies, I find this show even more fascinating due to the fans falling in love with a serial killer. The show began in 2006 on the pay channel ShowTime. The show continues to get top ratings and provides Showtime its first or second most watched show. According to Nielson Co., a total of 1.8 million viewers turned in to view the season premier of Season 5, whereas another 575,000 watched the rebroadcast at 11 p.m., for the same night. This brings season fives premier of Dexter a total of 2.3 million viewers in one night.

The audience of Dexter actually shows empathy for the serial killer as he draws us into his world. The definition of empathy is “identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives”. We walk with Dexter to learn as he does how be becomes an unfeeling monster with compulsions to kill. His release of killing begins on animals as a child, and moves toward humans as he matures. The father, with a feeling of need takes him in and tries to protect his mentally challenged adopted son the only way he knows how. As the story unfolds, the father becomes sickened in what he has created. The audience empathy comes to Dexter, as this character does not understand why he has these compulsions, but also cannot help but release them. So Dexter releases them on other monsters in our society. This self given idea of moral justice provides him a means to live in our society. The audience understands these parameters set by his code of ethics. The storyline still puts Dexter in dilemmas of choice to follow his code of ethics or break them. The audience is given a ride of emotion, because consequences are made regardless of the provided set of chosen ethics.

Tonight we watched Obama address the cadets of West Point and, over their shoulder, the American people. I kept asking myself: if I were in the audience did I hear anything worth risking my life for?

There is a lot in Afghanistan worth risking one's life for, but Obama sure didn't summon it.

Watching President Obama address the nation, the right probably recognized the incongruity of sending additional troops on a difficult mission and setting, at the same time, a very short timetable for their withdrawal. The right doubtless wondered why the Taliban won't just wait Obama out and move in after he leaves.

But the political cost of this speech will not come on the right. Obama will get the support of everyone who won't ever vote for him. But it is with his base on the left that he will be in trouble.

His volunteers, his backers, his donors have to have watched that speech and asked themselves "why did we win the election?" Obama sounded just like Bush. More articulate, perhaps, but substantively precisely the same.

His decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, an odd move for a peace candidate, his failure to close Guantanamo, our continued military presence in Iraq, and his failure to act on liberal priorities like gays in the military and immigration reform, are all sapping his support from those who voted for him.
For those with memories of Vietnam, the task of backing a corrupt regime summons the most unpleasant of comparisons.

Obama looked out of place giving a speech he didn't believe in. He seemed like he was reading a communiqué. His focus on pulling out, even as he was going in, reminded one of Bill Clinton defining what the meaning of 'is' is.

This speech will inflame the left and that is the real threat to Obama's base.

Even in the health care debate, the under 30 voters are learning that they are targeted -- just like the elderly -- for special punishment in Obama's health care bill. When they realize that they must spend $15,000 on average per family for health insurance or face a fine of 2.5% of their income or go to prison, the bill loses its appeal. And, when they find out how shallow the subsidies are (only after they spend 8% of their paychecks if their household income is $45,000 a year and 12% if it is $65,000), they begin to turn off both the bill and the president for whom they were once so enthusiastic.

Then he is losing popularity on issues that have nothing to do with ideology. It all begins with unemployment. While voters still believe by 50-42 (Rasmussen) that Bush is more at fault than Obama for the economy, Bush is not on the ballot. The high jobless rate nurtures a belief that Obama doesn't really know what he is doing. This discontent need not take the form of ideological opposition to the stimulus package or the deficit spending. It can merely be a sense that things aren't going right.

And then come the adjectives. Voters are increasingly complaining that Obama is weak, vacillates, does not keep his promises, spends too much time on other priorities than jobs, and seems egotistical.

All polls have Obama below 50 and some, like Harris, have him all the way down to 43% in job approval. These surveys mean that Obama, who won 52% of the vote, is now losing between one in ten and one in five of his voters.

This erosion of support makes the elections of 2010 look more and more like a rerun of 1994. It is now reasonable to predict -- and I do -- that the GOP will take both houses of Congress.

In the Senate, the Republicans are likely to hold all their vacant seats with the possible exception of New Hampshire. Incumbent Democrats Dodd (Ct), Specter (Pa), Lincoln (Ark), Reid (Nev), and Bennett (Col) are the low hanging fruit. Among the open seats, Delaware seems ripe for the Republicans. Add to these six seats, two more if Rudy Giuliani challenges Kristin Gillibrand in New York and if North Dakota governor Hoeven takes on Dorgan. Mark Kirk could the ninth pickup in Illinois. And, in a Republican sweep, you have to respect GOP chances in California and New Jersey.

A deluge swamps all boats.

On Capitol Hill, the Democrats seem to have almost abandoned the message war on health care. They are hunkering down and focused on keeping their troops in line. The appeals to party discipline are so strong that one senses that they are prepared to march, in lock-step, over the cliff together.

When one considers where Obama was only a year ago and where he is today, the fall is simply stunning. That he clings to the staff that helped him take it is amazing. This has to be the least successful White House since, well, Clinton's 1993-94 crowd. In fact, its many of the same people!

You can read all Dick Morris articles or signup for free email notifications at DickMorris.com.

I have long been a skeptic of manmade global warming. They lost me when we learned not only was Earth suppose to be warming but the entire solar system. Sun rays anyone?

Nevertheless, some information is now being leaked out confirming some suspicions.

Independent Examiner has a really good article on the subject.

I also recall the youtube videos showing those 'temp gauges' located in the most bizarre places. Unfortunately, i cannot recall the guy that was showing those false reading.

Some are calling for Obama to call off the Copenhagen for climate talk. I must say, I would at least take pause.

Consider this. There must be trillions if not billions of dollars invested in these studies. Now if the studies are false, then we are looking at a serious issue, both with the money as well as the credibility of the science groups. Those same science groups stating they dumped the raw data, does not help.

Either way, a open investigation needs to be taken immediately.

Wow, this one hit the head, yet was funny.

Not surprisingly the votes were in for proceeding with the health care debacle. They passed with 60, barely. All democrats voted yes, and all but one republican voted no (Voinovich (R-OH) did not vote).

You can see it here.

Some of the dem's are making such statements as

"Although I don't agree with everything in this bill, I have concluded that I believe it is more important that we begin this debate to improve our nation's health care system for all Americans rather than just simply drop the issue and walk away," Lincoln said just before 2:30 p.m. Saturday. "It is not what people sent us here to do."

It sounds good, but realistically she is just one vote in a room full of others. If Blanche Lincoln wanted to make a change, she would have voted a no, when it was her time to do so. imho

There is a growing group of people that are tired of statements, and are starting to really see how public officers are voting. Lincoln was one of the very few in the spot light. Her vote was being watched by all the political stations, as well as our constituents. I fear she made the wrong call.

Another quote from Lincoln, "First of all, it was very important to the people of Arkansas that we do take our time, and I respect that," Lincoln said in a Saturday interview. "After our town hall meetings, I really felt a real passion and a strength among Arkansans. They want us to do the right thing and taking our time and doing that and making sure that we're not rushing through these things."

Yes, seems Lincoln is still not on the same page with Arkansans regarding the 'right thing'.

With her poll numbers dropping

her approval rating back home has dropped 11 points and now stands at 43 percent, 1 percentage point above Obama’s in the state, according to a University of Arkansas poll released earlier this month. And by a 9-point margin, a clear plurality of voters in Arkansas opposes the public insurance option like the one included in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's plan, the poll found.

So, if the clear majority does not wish this type of insurance bill, why bring it on the floor at all? Why is she like all blue-dog dem's committing political suicide?

I have always been fascinated with Biblical prophecy. A myriad of books written more than 2000 years ago (at least ), with no prophecies being wrong so far. Albeit, the latter ones haven't occurred yet, but the season is definitely here.

With the 2012 movie out, there is a renewed interest in general prophecy. Most are focusing on the Mayan calendar, or Nostradamus. However, I would urge all to read up on biblical prophecy.

One of the biblical prophecies most agree with is the oncoming of a world goverment, with one world currency. The scene is the Antichrist having control of the world. One of these means is by having control of money/supplies.


"13:16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 13:17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name" (Revelation 13:16-17 KJV)

In order for the above to occur, you must have at least 2 things in place.
1) a currency all are utilizing
2) a means to store and identify every transaction

The mark is subject for another time. However, a simple individual chip would suffice having your identity. A central database would also be used.

The thing I am looking at here is the one world government with one world currency.
Remember, Revelation was written over 2000 years ago, on the island of Patmos.

Check out these two videos from Fox News (Glenn Beck) having analyst speaking of the upcoming world government, and world currency.

Representive Rogers make a strong stance against the Obama Healthcare plan.



Glad to see someone has the gonad's to speak up about it.

Wow, too much going on regarding this new U.S. Administration.

Admin says other news outlets "Don't play with Fox".


White House to Isolate Fox News

I like many others before me struggle with the idea of moving off an existing platform onto a new one.

Although, I have utilized Blogger for a few years, I have made the decision to move onto a new website http://mcole.us

It will allow me to modify, add, ect. more than a simple blogging platform.

I request my 5 readers to follow me over. : )

Been quite awhile before I blogged. Been busy on a new SQL class, completed my Perl class (passed).

We are also busy with the kids sports. Daughters in Basketball and son with Soccer, busy busy.

I also been spending some time creating a new website for my platform. This will help me have a one stop launch to the other sites/apps, I use. I was on 3 games for facebook but cut back to only one. Amazing how much time is wasted on those games.

Here is the full length movie of the Obama Deception.

I ran across these videos while here in Texas. The initial site I found them on are Prison Planet.

The Oklahoma Highway Patrol officer not only stopped and assaulted the driver/EMT, but there is a patient in the vehicle during the altercation. No charges were applied on the officer after a Oklahoma Judge reviewed the incident.

Here is the 8 minute video taken from the police vehicle. Note the release of the video took some time and doing (according to the article).







Here is the phone coverage of the patients family member.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor Has History Of Flawed Legal Thinking
By TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty

May 28, 2009 – President Barack Hussein Obama’s pick to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court has a history of liberal judicial activism and poorly reasoned decisions.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a Yale Law School graduate and currently serves on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. She has been a federal judge, a district attorney and worked in private practice. She has authored or participated in thousands of court cases over the course of her legal career. For this very reason, there needs to be a proper vetting of her extensive record, which will take some time.

Much is being made of her being the first Hispanic woman being nominated to the Supreme Court, but what many in the media are not talking about is the nomination of Miguel Estrada who was picked by President Bush to be nominated to the D.C. Circuit.

Where were all these “let’s put a Hispanic on the court” cheerleaders back then?

Democrats stalled confirmation for more than two years. In fact, Democrat memos leaked by the Wall Street Journal in 2003, showed that their strategy was to smear him as “especially dangerous.”

One of the memos described Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) “as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."

Hispanic legislators like New York Democrat Nydia Velazquez who heads the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, opposed Estrada because of his judicial philosophy. Now, Democrats are pushing Sotomayor simply because she is Hispanic.

Estrada was well-qualified to serve on the Supreme Court – and his rags-to-riches story was as compelling as Sotomayor’s. He would have been the first Hispanic on the Court, but Democrats delayed his confirmation hearing for so long, he finally withdrew his name from the running. Apparently, he wasn’t the “right kind” of Hispanic.

Who Is Sotomayor?

Sotomayor has admitted that she views the role of a judge as an activist who makes policy decisions – a role that should be limited to the executive or legislative branches of government. On a panel at Duke University Law School in 2005, she said:
All of the Legal Defense Funds out there—they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is—Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t “make law,” I know. [Audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. . . . [Audience laughter]
Curt Levey with the Committee for Justice has said of Sotomayor’s taped admission:
In other words, Sotomayor believes that unelected judges like herself should be the nation’s policy-makers rather than sticking to interpretation of the law.
Wendy Long, Chief Counsel, Judicial Confirmation Network has expressed concern about Sotomayor’s legal views:
Comments yesterday by the White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, and today by Senator Chuck Schumer, that statements made at Duke University by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in which she said appellate courts should ‘make policy’ were taken out of context are purposely misleading and outright misinformation designed to walk back an obvious vetting problem this White House has become known for. If Mr. Gibbs or Senator Schumer were to read other law review articles written by Judge Sotomayor, her own published word, it is clear and unequivocal that Judge Sotomayor has a long track record of advocating for using courts to make policy and laws. It is obvious that the reason the White House has churned up its spin machine on this is because countless polls consistently show that the American people to do not support judges making policy or law from the bench. The American people have spoken loudly and often on this subject, they want judges who interpret law as made through the people and their elected representatives, not through judges imposing their personal political views from the bench as Judge Sotomayor has consistently advocated.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) recommended Sonia Sotomayor to President Obama. He says she’s a moderate and has the most extensive record of anyone nominated to the Supreme Court in a long time. He also agrees that Republicans have every right to scrutinize her voluminous record of cases during the confirmation process.

Her legal decisions are frequently overturned by the Supreme Court.

Jeffrey Rosen, writing for the liberal New Republic has said this about Sotomayor:
Over the past few weeks, I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with [Sotomayor], nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats ... but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices."
Jonathan Turley, an equally liberal professor of law at George Washington University, reviewed Sotomayor's opinions and concluded:
[Her opinions] are notable in one thing, in that it's a lack of depth. There's nothing particularly profound in her past decisions. ... You can't say she's a natural choice for the Supreme Court. (MSNBC, May 26, 2009)
Badly-Reasoned Court Decisions

One of her decisions that is currently being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court is Ricci v. DeStefano, which involves a reverse discrimination case involving firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut. The firefighters were denied promotion because they were not African American. One of them was Hispanic, the rest were white. Sotomayor and two other judges on the 2nd Circuit ruled in favor of the city.

In this firefighter case, Frank Ricci had scored well on a 2003 firefighters test for promotion to lieutenant and captain. He had studied eight to 13 hours a day to prepare for test and had spent more than $1,000 buying books for his homework. He paid an acquaintance to read them onto audiotapes because he is dyslexic. Ricci got one of the highest scores, but did not get promoted. Why? Because it was determined that not enough blacks had done well enough to be promoted. New Haven discarded the test results and did not promote anyone.

Ricci and 17 other firefighters – including an Hispanic – filed a lawsuit against the city for wrongful discrimination. He and his fellow firefighters were denied the American dream because of Sonia Sotomayor.

As National Journal reporter and lawyer Stuart Taylor reports:
… in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep the case quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both. ... The three-judge panel initially deep-sixed the firefighters' appeal in a cursory, unpublished order that disclosed virtually nothing about the nature of the ideologically explosive case.
Interesting, during her confirmation battle this summer, the current Supreme Court is likely to overturn this decision this July as it has done in past cases involving Sotomayor’s decisions.

Among those cases the Supreme Court has rejected from Sotomayor are: N.Y. Times Co., v.Tasini; Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko; Granholm v. Heald; Merrill Lynch v. Dabit; Entery Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. and others.

Anti-Gun Nominee

Judge Sotomayor could face serious problems from Second Amendment groups. As Curt Levey has explained:
Obama's choice of one of the few federal judges with a bad record on gun rights is particularly perplexing. Earlier this year, Sotomayor and two of her Second Circuit colleagues ruled that Americans have no individual Second Amendment rights in the face of state or local regulation of firearms -- that is, unless they happen to live in the District of Columbia. Even the liberal Ninth Circuit ruled the other way. Now every red and purple state Democratic senator who considers voting for Sotomayor will be forced to explain to his constituents why he's supporting a nominee who thinks those constituents don't have Second Amendment rights. Because they can send red state Democrats running for cover, gun owners are the one interest group that could completely change the political equation on judicial nominations if they're drawn into the debate. Obama's selection of Sotomayor makes that virtually certain.
As Ken Blackwell said yesterday:
"President Obama has nominated a radically anti-Second Amendment judge to be our newest Supreme Court justice. There are a number of pro-Second Amendment Democratic senators from deeply red states, including Mark Begich from Alaska, Jon Tester and Max Baucus from Montana, Ben Nelson from Nebraska, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad from North Dakota, and Tim Johnson from South Dakota. These senators will jeopardize their seats if they vote to support an anti-gun radical for the Supreme Court. ... [N]ever underestimate the political power of American gun owners."

With the introduction (to me) of Facebook and Twitter, I haven't been blogging for quite some time. I must admit, having a known viewership allows me to post more mundane things day to day. Additionally, I don't feel I have to have a minimum of 3 paragraphs to write, in order to make it my while, unlike blogging.

----
The other day, I had a scary thought. After reviewing the 1950's in comparison to the 60's, you can really see the moral decline of America. It was a radical influx of ideas along with sexual promiscuity and drugs. I suspect these would-be world changers believed it was all for the better of America society. Many of them, moved onto positions in our society, having the impact in cultural change.

I am looking now at the diversity of our electronic and drug war, thinking I have now become the free thinker.

Taking a look at the software industry, you have two cultures battling it out. There's the open source community and the proprietary buisineses. Each claiming their ideaology of software is better.

Taking a look at the drug community, you have the holistic/natural community that is opposed by big pharmaceutical drug companies with patents.

Viewing each climate, whether it's software or drugs, there are two distinct sides. Interesting enough, both have many similiarities. One side wishes to contain and build wealth on restrictions. The other side, wishes to have a more open/availibility type of community.

I am finding myself directed to the open side. Free-thinker.

Alert: Members of a coalition organized to fight attacks on America's First Amendment rights in response to a multitude of developments under President Obama are expressing alarm at the United Kingdom's decision to ban popular U.S. talk radio host Michael Savage from its shores.

British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced that Savage was on a list of people who would be unwelcome in the island nation.

Roger Hedgecock, who recently was named as the chief of the new American Radio Free Speech Coalition, said the designation is a shot across the bow to American rights.

"The British government action barring Michael Savage is a frightening preview of what we can expect in our own country as the PC police shut down the voices of dissent," he said.

The coalition was launched under the Don't Touch My Dial slogan to defend free speech and First Amendment rights from a variety of attacks that have developed, including the current Washington demand for a return to some form of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be constitutionally questionable.

One effort is Washington's plan to assemble local "commissions" to provide "accountability" for radio station. Free speech advocates contends the groups would be no more than complaint boards for liberal interests to launch attacks on conservative talk radio.

Some found the U.K. move against Savage to be so outlandish they looked for further reasons behind it.

It's time to put up or shut up, America. Literally. Get the book that shows how to fight the assault on your freedom of speech!

One WND reader said, "[Homeland Security Secretary Janet] Napolitano has been releasing odd DHS lists about extremists, heavily criticized by Savage, and mysteriously he appears on England's watch list at the same time? Napolitano should be forced to resign over this and not just Smith."

Napolitano's recent "extremist" reports have targeted Americans who support Second Amendment rights, third party political candidates, homeschool and oppose abortion as "extremists" who would bear close watching.

Joseph Farah, founder, editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily, wrote in a commentary that the U.K. ban wouldn't track logically, pointing out that Savage wasn't asking to travel there.

But he said if the ban is clothed in the backdrop of what's happening in Washington, it makes a little more sense.

"Barack Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress are conducting a scorched-earth war on the First Amendment. The Federal Communications Commission will soon be headed and controlled by an appointee who thinks government, not the free market, should control broadcast programming. The appointee to be regulatory czar for the administration has flirted with ideas like a 'Fairness Doctrine' for the Internet and mandatory 24-hour, cooling-off periods before sending angry e-mails. As we speak, local 'commissar commissions' are being established in every radio market to monitor programming and challenge broadcast licenses on the basis of content. Hate-crimes legislation has passed the House and is headed for the Senate a bill that would punish thoughts and speech and provide, for the first time, special protections to a new 'victim class' of pedophiles," he wrote.

"There is little question for any serious and objective observer that the new Washington power structure is targeting the most significant voice of dissent left in America talk radio," he continued. "I believe with near 100 percent certainty, though I admit I can't prove it, that the initiative for this symbolic effort to ban Michael Savage from a country he had no intention of visiting came not from London, but from Washington."

Savage's audience is the third-largest in the U.S., and he's been arguably the most critical of Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress.

"He was the perfect target for a pre-emptive and insidious attack on his character," Farah wrote.

The Don't Touch My Dial coalition said Smith's linking Savage with "terrorists and Neo-Nazi murderers" was a "disgraceful injustice."

Other members of the coalition include Lars Larson, Rusty Humphries, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Steve Gill, Joyce Kaufman and Steve Malzberg.

Kaufman wrote that she does not "subscribe to any of the many conspiracy theories designed to strike fear in the hearts of patriotic Americans."

But word of Savage's ban "sent a shudder down my spine."

"How did two great western civilizations, the U.K. and the U.S. find themselves challenging John Locke's ideals and the U.S. Constitution?" she asked.

"We cannot call ourselves a Judeo-Christian nation, we cannot speak without fear of national or even international censure and sanction, the fourth estate has become the president's cheerleaders rather than inquisitors, and when half a million patriots gather together in mock 'American Tea Parties,' they are ignored and marginalized by the very government they are attempting to petition for a redress of their grievances," she wrote.

Savage, she said, "is making his stand. He stands alone on the wall. He has fought these battles before, on the air, in the courts and in the court of public opinion. I say every patriot needs to join him on the wall this time. These are the times that separate the men from the boys and the women from the boys as well. When the Patrick Henrys and Molly Pitchers need to get off their butts and up on the wall."

One WND reader copied the news agency in on an e-mail to Smith:

"It is obvious you do not listen to his show on a daily basis and rely on others to tell you what Dr. Savage is all about. Let me briefly tell you what Dr. Michael Savage is all about. His manifesto is borders, language and culture. Something your country could definitely focus on as you continue to allow the hordes of illegal Muslim immigrants to come in your country and erode your borders, language and culture. "If you are going to put Savage on your black list, you better put me and millions of other listeners of Dr. Savage on that list as well."

The "Fairness Doctrine" at issue now in the U.S. was established in 1949 by the FCC to require broadcasters to provide "fair" programming, essentially demanding the broadcast of opposing views.

But the Supreme Court in 1969 ruled that while the policy did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, if the doctrine ever began to restrain free speech, its constitutionality should be reviewed. In 1974, the court said the doctrine "dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate."

Ten years later, the court found the rationale that debate was scarce and therefore the opposing viewpoints should be required was flawed, and in 1987 the plan was abolished.

At the Frugal-Café blog, Vicki McClure Davidson wrote, "It seems bizarre that a radio entertainer in one country can be banned from entry into another simply because of their opinions. Especially if those opinions aren't of the 'All capitalists must die like pigs' variety."

"I didn't see Michael Moore or Al Franken on the list, nor Janeane Garofalo or Keith Olbermann or Sandra Bernhard for their hate speech. What about William Ayres or Rev. Jeremiah Wright or Al Sharpton? They may not have asked to be allowed to enter the U.K. Or they could all be on the longer, unpublished list, right up there with 'who knows who.' Would it be reasonable to assume that Howard Stern would also be on the U.K. list for his outrageous behavior?" she wrote.

"I'm curious. Does the ban in Britain work both ways? If so, does this mean the U.K. won't be hypocritical and will deport their own left-wing extremist comedian Russell Brand for his 'undesirable behavior'? Yeah, thought not," she wrote.

Brian Myrick of the Seattle Examiner said, "The idea that his [Savage's] views might pose a threat to the United Kingdom or its citizens as do other persons who made it on the list is preposterous. "If Britain is a teeming pool of volatile hate, only waiting for someone to walk along and toss a match, that is a societal problem for the British to tackle as a nation."

Note: Concerned individuals may contact Britain's Home Office Secretary Jacqui Smith by e-mail, call 011 44 20 7035 4848 or fax 011 44 20 7035 4745. (WND)

I wonder if there is really anything to this conspiracy of Illimunati?

Conspiracy

Fascinating. I will start to follow this YOUTUBE. The undercover video clearly shows Plan Parenthood clinics are providing abortions to underage girls, without (lawfully) informing the authorities on supposed adult partners. However, the organization will simply say it's due to the workers, not the organization itself.

In the day of transparency, why would one of America's leading soda company's refuse to have this type of resolution?

PepsiCo, is opposing a shareholder resolution that requires it provide more information concerning its charitable contributions. The resolution will be voted on at the shareholders meeting May 6. The resolution reads:

"Resolved: That the shareholders request the Company to provide a semiannual report...disclosing: the Company's standards for choosing which organizations receive the Company's assets in the form of charitable contributions; business rationale and purpose for each of the charitable contributions; personnel who participated in making the decisions to contribute; the benefits to the Company and beneficiaries produced by Company contributions; and a follow-up confirming that the organization actually used the contributions for the purpose stated."