Obama, Medvedev expected to finalize a treaty Friday that cuts deployed nuclear weapons by one-fourth.
Lt. Gen. Ben Mixon, the commander of U.S. Army Pacific, wrote a letter to the editor in Stars & Stripes opposing the repeal of DADT. SecDef Gates and ADM Mullen rebuked Mixon, saying he was acting within his rights, but his remarks were “inappropriate” and “ill-advised.” (thanks to SoldiersMom at Blackfive for locating the letter)
Rules of Engagement: Air support pilots learn to hold back
SEAL 3 Courts-Martial Update: The military judge responsible for the case has ordered the convening authority to grant immunity to five SEAL witnesses, or the case may be abated and postponed indefinitely. As of this morning, my sources state that MG Cleveland agreed to grant immunity. But their request doesn’t imply guilt:
The five men’s refusal to testify under their Fifth Amendment right doesn’t mean they have anything to hide. Citing Supreme Court rulings, Carlos noted that one of the Fifth Amendment’s basic functions “is to protect innocent men… ‘who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.’ “
A legal defense fund has been established to assist our SEALs with their legal costs, which proceeds from the Victory Institute’s “Free the SEALs” merchandise are sent. Author Betty Kilbride is also donating proceeds of her book to the SEAL defense fund. Visit her Facebook page or her publisher’s website for more.
A politically-skewed activist organization has warned law enforcement officials nationwide of the threat posed by the so-called “Patriot movement.” The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)’s Fall, 2009, issue of the “Intelligence Report” expands those designated as extremists, with alarmist language artificially combining a disparate group. The report said, “Militiamen, white supremacists, anti-Semites, nativists, tax protesters and a range of other activists of the radical right are cross-pollinating and may even be coalescing.” On the SPLC website, one report claims, “anti-government rhetoric spills into the Mainstream,” listing conservative celebrities like Sean Hannity and Red State’s Erick Erickson as purveyors of “white-hot antigovernment rhetoric.” Where did SPLC get the data for that assumption? None other than the leftwingers at Media Matters, where bloggers dismiss every major study on media bias and claim the media favors the right.
Tax protesters and white supremacists have united? Whites and minorities alike who are upset with out-of-control government spending would be shocked to find out that they are “coalescing” with the Ku Klux Klan.
As to the “range of other activists,” the report primarily focuses its ire on the Oath Keepers, an association of military members, veterans, law enforcement officers, and firefighters who reaffirm the oath they took to support and defend the Constitution. If the Constitution is the basis of our government, how does swearing an oath to the Constitution and pledging not to follow unconstitutional orders make one “anti-government?”
The article goes on to paint the patriotic movement as a fearful group of militia members, racists, and terrorists – who even reap “illegal fortunes.”
The article also states that “there has been a remarkable rash of domestic terrorist incidents since Obama’s election.” What does the SPLC consider to be “domestic terrorist incidents,” town hall protests? Predictably, the SPLC article joins Democrat politicians and members of the media in portraying opposition to the president’s agenda as racist.
This police officer’s outrageous attack on free speech was caught on camera by a town hall protestor in Reston, Virginia.
“This used to be America!” says the protestor.
Police officer: “It ain’t no more, okay?”
Where’s Nancy Pelosi, champion of disruptors on this one? This is going to get ugly…
Democrats continually tell America the Fairness Doctrine is dead. But if the threat of the return of government broadcast censorship was truly dead, there would be no need to keep reminding us.
The latest reminder that the threat of the Fairness Doctrine survives, or more accurately its intended result – the destruction of conservative and Christian talk radio—is the appointment of Mark Lloyd as the FCC’s new Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer. Prior to his appointment, Lloyd was a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress (CAP), a liberal think tank funded by far-left billionaire George Soros and others. Lloyd was also a broadcast journalist with NBC and CNN – adding another name to a long list of former journalists now working for President Barack Obama’s administration.
A look into the past writings of Lloyd shows that he intends to use FCC regulations as a means to redistribute hundreds of millions of dollars from private broadcasters to public broadcasting. While at CAP, Lloyd wrote numerous reports on the Fairness Doctrine. One, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio, introduces the Fairness Doctrine’s ‘Trojan Horse’ of localism and diversity requirements, and was parroted by Barack Obama during his presidential campaign.
Lloyd wrote in the 2007 report that private broadcasters would be subjected to new regulations that if not met, or if the FCC “could not effectively regulate in the public interest,” would generate an estimated $100 to $250 million in fines.
But broadcasters shouldn’t worry as Lloyd and his co-writers determined that the quarter of a billion dollars in fees “would not overly burden commercial radio broadcasters.”
Back in 2006, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she was a “fan of disruptors.”
If that is true (truth has proven to be quite elusive to Speaker Pelosi), she should have much to cheer for: It appears that “disruptors” have forced the hand of Washington to take a step back from Obama’s socialized healthcare program – or at the least come up with a more misleading plan.
But the truth is that Democrats like Pelosi only favor “disruptions” when they are to the benefit of the Democrat Party.
Case in point: Pelosi has called the town hall protests “un-American” and “an ugly campaign… to misrepresent health insurance reform legislation” and to “disrupt civil dialogue.”
Naked Emperor News has a great video here showing the hypocrisy of Nancy Pelosi when it comes to free speech.
Monday marked the twenty-second anniversary of the F.C.C.’s abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine, but today the potential for a return to government broadcast censorship is still alive and well. After a recent series of procedures in Congress two weeks ago, Democrats managed to keep the threat alive by killing an amendment seeking to prohibit Congress from funding either the Fairness Doctrine or its Trojan Horse –a series of regulations that have the same chilling effect on free speech.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi twice blocked a vote on an amendment protecting free speech for broadcasters. The Broadcaster Freedom Amendment proposed by congressmen Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.) sought to prohibit Congress from funding the Fairness Doctrine and part of its Trojan Horse, broadcast localism regulations. When the Reagan administration abolished the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, it did so on the basis that it was unconstitutional and no longer served the public interest. If the FCC were to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine – or more likely its Trojan Horse – the result would be the destruction of Conservative and Christian talk radio.
Speaker Pelosi used special House rules to block the Walden-Pence Broadcaster Freedom Amendment from an up-or-down vote. According to Rep. Pence, “If [this amendment] is brought to the floor of this Congress, it will surely pass; because every time freedom gets an up-or-down vote in the People’s House, freedom always wins.”
But Pelosi knows that if freedom doesn’t make it to a vote, she wins. Pelosi and numerous members of Congress have expressed their support for a revival of the Fairness Doctrine.
In response to being banned from entering the U.K., U.S. talk radio host Michael Savage said his initial reaction was: “Darn! And I was just planning a trip to England for their superior dental work and cuisine.”
“When has this witch heard my show, since it’s not syndicated in England? When has this witch listened to my program in England? And which show or shows is she referring to?” Savage said.
“My talk neither tolerates or encourages acts of violence, and yet it has been placed at the same level as those who have committed murder and acts of terrorism. And that shows you just how far England has fallen,” Savage said.
“How can a nation put me on a list and leave hate preachers in England who say that we’re going to kill all of you? We’re going to convert all of you to Islam. How is it possible that those hate preachers can’t be deported from Britain, but I can be banned from Britain? People who advocate actual murder cannot be deported from Britain,” Savage said.
“I want to sue the British home secretary for defamation,” he said, “for linking me up with murderers because of my opinions, my writings, my speaking – none of which have advocated any violence, ever.”
Savage says he has seven lawyers working on this, and plans to sue Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.
Britain Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has attacked free speech again. This time, Smith banned U.S. talk show host Michael Savage and 15 others for “fomenting hatred”. Smith decided to release the list of people banned by the British government since October from entering the country.
In her defense, she has banned some notable bad guys, including Samir Kuntar – the now-released Hezbollah child murderer, also banned were a Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, a neo-nazi, and a HAMAS MP. Madeleine Gruen has more on the banned at the Counterterrorism Blog.
But this comes from the same Home Secretary who banned Dutch PM Geert Wilders for releasing the film Fitna the same time as she allowed the editor of Hezbollah’s newspaper to conduct a national speaking tour. Not exactly what I would call consistent.
“I think it’s important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it’s a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won’t be welcome in this country,” Smith told GMTV in an interview.
Exactly what values and standards did Savage violate? Understandably the KKK and HAMAS have extreme views, but what are Savage’s? I listen to Savage from time to time, and trust me – if there was hatred fomented, I would not waste my time.