Charles Schumer isn't the the only one pushing for the "fairness doctrine" (talk
about misuses of words!), whose purpose would be to oversee free speech
in this country. Nancy Pelosi is hot on its trail. And
so is that insufferable little toad from Beverly Hills, Henry Waxman.
Here is the story, from www.americanspectator.com.
Read it fast, before this sorry bunch forces half the article - and half my blog
- to agree with them:
Senior FCC staff working for
acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Coppsheld meetings last week with policy
and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee
Waxmanto discuss ways the committee can
create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine"
without actually calling it
Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking
at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's
all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the
meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five
most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry
Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily
trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that
present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is
thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have
the people in place to answer them."
Copps will remain acting chairman of the FCC until
President Obama's nominee, Julius Genachowski, is
confirmed, and Copps has been told by the White House not create "problems" for
the incoming chairman by committing to issues or policy development before the
Obama pick arrives.
But Copps has been a supporter of putting in place
policies that would allow the federal government to have greater oversight over
the content that TV and radio stations broadcast to the public, and both the FCC
and Waxman are looking to licensing and renewal of licensing as a means of
enforcing "Fairness Doctrine" type policies without actually using the
hot-button term "Fairness Doctrine."
One idea Waxman's committee staff is looking at is
a congressionally mandated policy that would require all TV and radio stations
to have in place "advisory boards" that would act as watchdogs to ensure
"community needs and opinions" are given fair treatment. Reports from those
advisory boards would be used for license renewals and summaries would be
reviewed at least annually by FCC staff.
Waxman and the FCC staff are also said to be
looking at ways to ease the "consumer complaint" process, which could also be
used along with the advisory boards.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also
looking at how it can put in place policies that would allow it greater
oversight of the Internet. "Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we're
seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while
other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic
because of the way the people search and look for information," says on
committee staffer. "We're at very early stages on this, but the chairman has
made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top
"This isn't just about Limbaugh or a local radio
host most of us haven't heard about," says Democrat committee member. "The FCC
and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and
the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative
views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views
are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio
driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we've established that broadband
networks -- the Internet -- are critical, national infrastructure. We think that
gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical
Also involved in "brainstorming" on "Fairness
Doctrine and online monitoring has been the Center for American Progress, a
liberal think tank, which has published studies pressing for the Fairness
Doctrine, as well as the radical MoveOn.org, which has been speaking to
committee staff about policies that would allow them to use their five to six
million person database to mobilize complaints against radio, TV or online
entities they perceive to be limiting free speech or limiting
There is a simple, basic reality here. Schumer/Pelosi/Waxman and other
like-minded hardliners intend to make sure that they have a way of either
inhibiting free speech (i.e. speech that they disagree with) or stifling it
Sad to say, this is a direct consequence of electing what amounts to
one-party government in this country. It is the price we will pay.
And while we can undo this atrocity in two years, a lot can happen in that
period of time. As you can see, it is already starting.
Maybe this bunch should contact hugo chavez for pointers.
They have a lot in common with each other....
WARNER TODD HUSTON DECONSTRUCTS THE WORDS OF CHUCK SCHUMER
Warner Todd Huston is well to the right of me and, for that reason, we
have some major areas of disagreement.
But not on senator Charles Schumer. Huston can't stand this repulsive
camera-hound fraud, and neither can I.
Here is Mr. Huston's latest commentary on "Chuck the schmuck" (as Mark Levin
calls him). Read it and see why we feel as we do:
Chuck Schumer: Liar, Propagandist,
Anti-American, Killer of Free Speech
February 17, 2009
-By Warner Todd Huston
Usually I dont go for the hard-edged treatment of
politicians as my headline here does. I dont often call individuals liars and
the like, though Ive been known to do so on occasion. Generally, I prefer to
assume that those that oppose my views are truthfully advocating for deep held
beliefs and not using lies and obfuscation to get there some exceptions to
that, of course. I am not really the biggest fan of the wild-eyed,
Olbermannesque sort of bombast and name-calling.
But, after what Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said of his desire to push the ill-conceived Fairness
Doctrine down our throats, I just cant see any other explanation of his
motives. Every single word he said on this issue was convoluted, unAmerican,
illogical and meant solely as a cynical means to his ends of quashing free
political speech so that his party could consolidate its domination of American
Schumer made these remarks last November, so they
arent new. But his remarks are of a piece with the Democrats push to launch an
unAmerican crusade to eliminate free speech in this country, a campaign that has
been gathering steam these last few days. And, since the quest to impose the
Fairness Doctrine on Americans rights to free political speech is again a
topic of the Democrats agenda, it behooves us to see the false logic and lies
underlying the effort. Chuck Schumers words are the perfect guide for us to
illustrate the lefts goals.
Schumer started off his screed against free speech
by claiming he wanted balance. Schumer said on Fox News, I think we should
all be fair and balanced, dont you?
Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio
stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced
line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.
Yet, the only thing that Schumer and his cohorts
on the left want to balance is AM talk radio. Why is that, exactly? If true
fairness is the lefts honest goal, why is talk radio the only medium being
targeted? Why else but that talk radio is the only one in which conservative
principles predominate. On cable TV news the left owns 75% of them. On network
TV the left owns 100%. In print, the liberal view is predominant and has been
since the late 1960s. So on balance the left is predominant throughout the
media. Yet, AM talk radio is all the Chuck Schumers of the world are interested
in fostering that vaunted balance.
Now just look at the logical gymnastics and
anti-American sentiment that Schumer indulges in to justify his destruction of
one of Americas most cherished principles: free political speech.
The very same people who dont want the
Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit
pornography on the air. I am for that But you cant say government hands off
in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in
another. Thats not consistent.
There is so much wrong in this ignorant statement
that it boggles the mind.
First of all, and this is seminal, the concept
that government is not consistent unless it overtakes everything is so
unAmerican in its basic concept that it truly shows Schumer to be an outright
liar. After all, he stood foursquare against the Patriot Act, didnt he? Schumer
didnt see any problems with inconsistency as he tried to stop a larger take
over of surveillance by the federal government, of course. Yet, all of a sudden
he is worried about being consistent now?
Clearly, he is lying. This consistency argument
is merely a means to an end as opposed to a logically thought out policy based
on American tradition.
In fact, there is only one theory of government in
which government controlling all it surveys is central to its system and that is
a tyrannical monarchy. Republics and Democracies, on the other hand, are
entirely based on the idea that government has some power in some areas and less
or none in others. Democracies are built on the process of governors and the
governed carefully deciding upon which areas government will exercise power and
to what degree. Schumers claim that its an all or nothing proposition is not
only unAmerican, its both undemocratic and a strike against liberty and freedom
With this concept of consistency that Schumer
espoused, it seems that he is no better than Saddam Hussein or the Taliban with
his concept that government should control every aspect of our lives.
But, again, we come back to the clear fact that he
is less a despot than an outright liar. Schumer isnt interested in total
control of government as a basic concept. He is only interested in the
power of his party. He would not be for this sort of power in the
hands of Republicans or Libertarians. He is only a shill for extremist liberals
and their power grab.
And this, in the end, proves he is not smart
enough to even understand the concepts he claims to be operating under. His
consistency argument would only be consistent if the same power was
absolute whether Republicans or Democrats were in command, yet he consistently
fights Republican power. In truth Schumer seeks to deny this consistent
tyranny to the Republicans while working to assure it for Democrats. He is not
smart enough to understand that if his party gets this all out power,
that tyrannical power will it must eventually devolve onto the opposite
party at some point in the future.
This is the whole reason that the founders, men of
vastly superior mental capacity than Chuck Schumer, created a system that made
government less powerful than would befit Schumers consistency concept.
This so-called Fairness Doctrine is a rejection
of liberty, a slander against fairness, and the destruction of one of the most
basic freedoms in western theories of government.
Of course, there are levels of freedom of speech
and freedom of the press, neither right being absolutely free. But, this isnt
the argument that Schumer is making with his idiotic consistency argument. If
he stuck with the long history of defining and re-defining freedom of speech and
the free press hed at least have some legitimate grounds upon which to argue.
But he did not do so.
In the final analysis the only conclusion that one
can make is that Chuck Schumer is a liar and a very stupid man.
Unfortunately, the entire Democratic Party is
following the inane argument of this stupid man right toward an entirely
Mr. Huston is very blunt and very insulting to Schumer. Maybe too much
so. But if he has gone over the edge, he has done so just barely.
Schumer deserves the opprobrium he is getting.
Too bad it will just roll off of him. He belongs to the Barney
Fudd/Chris Dudd school of You Can Say Anything You Want and I'll Get Re-elected
Anyway, So Who Cares?
LIA: 12 YEARS OLD, AND A PROFILE IN COURAGE
Here is a true profile in courage, brought to us by a 12 year old schoolgirl
and reported by Chelsea Schilling at www.worldnetdaily.com:
THE KIDS ARE ALL
RIGHT 12-year-old steals day
with pro-life speech Teachers threaten
disqualification, but girl chooses to speak against
Posted: February 16, 2009 8:36 pm
Schilling 2009 WorldNetDaily
Despite facing threats of disqualification, a
12-year-old girl took first place in a speech contest when she eloquently argued
for the rights of unborn children after an offended judge quit.
"What if I told you that right now, someone was
choosing if you were going to live or die?" the seventh-grader begins in a
recording of her speech on YouTube. "What if I told you that this
choice wasn't based on what you could or couldn't do, what you'd done in the
past or what you would do in the future? And what if I told you, you could do
nothing about it?"
The girl, a student at a Toronto school identified
only as "Lia," continued:
"Fellow students and teachers, thousands of
children are right now in that very situation. Someone is choosing without even
knowing them whether they are going to live or die.
"That someone is their mother. And that choice is
But what made the 12-year-old choose to speak
"It was really a family thing," her mother
explained on the blog Moral Outcry. "I saw Lou
[Engle] speak at a conference several
years ago. I came back to my family with the Life
Bands, and we all wore them, made our
covenant, and prayed the prayer for abortion to end. We were invited to
participate in a 'Life Tape Siege.' Once my kids heard of this invitation, they
all agreed: 'We have to do that!' Since then, Lia's passion for seeing abortion
end has continued."
Despite Lia's enthusiasm for her topic, her
teacher "strongly encouraged" her to select a different one for her class
presentation or she would be considered ineligible for an upcoming speech
"[S]everal teachers discouraged her from picking
the topic of abortion; she was told it was 'too big,' 'too mature' and 'too
controversial,'" her mother wrote. "She was also told that if she went ahead
with that topic, she would not be allowed to continue on in the speech
Lia's mother continued, "Initially, I tried
helping her find other topics to speak on, but, in the end, she was adamant. She
just felt she wanted to continue with the topic of abortion. So she forfeited
her chance to compete in order to speak on something she was passionate about."
Lia's teacher was so impressed by the speech that
she allowed her student to advance as the winner. Lia presented her speech to
judges in front of her entire school on Feb. 10.
The school principal and teachers called Lia's
presentation the "obvious winner" but the judges suddenly disqualified her the
following day "because of the topic and her position on abortion," her mother
Lia's father later revealed that the judges had a
"big disagreement." One was offended by the speech and voluntarily stepped down
while the others reversed their earlier decision declaring her the winner.
Now Lia plans to take her message of life to a
regional speech competition, and more than 100,000 visitors have viewed her
"Why do we think that just because a fetus can't talk or do what we do, it isn't a human being yet?"
She asks in the video. "Some babies are born after only five months. Is this
baby not human?
"We would never say that. Yet abortions are
performed on 5-month-old fetuses all the time. Or do we only call them humans if
She continues, "No, fetuses are definitely humans
knit together in their mother's womb by their wonderful Creator who knows them
all by name."
Would those same teachers have discouraged Lia if her speech had been about
"a woman's right to choose"?
I don't know for sure, but I have a very strong suspicion that she
would have been encouraged rather than discouraged.
That would mean the problem was not Lia's subject matter, it was that
she didn't have the accepted belief system.
If so, that is the biggest problem of all; a problem that, I am
certain, would have occurred in countless other schools around the country for the
My own position on abortion is guaranteed to be significantly
more liberal than 12 year old Lia's. But that does not in any way change
the fact that a) she is fully entitled to her opinion and b) it is wrong to
have made her feel like some kind of pariah and outcast for expressing it.
Is a school's job teaching children to think?
Or teaching them what to
Think about it.
FULL COURT PRESS ON THE "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE"
Here is a five and a half minute video of Fox's Megyn Kelly arguing about the
fairness doctrine with Bill Press - who hosts a "progressive" talk show that, to
be perfectly frank, just about nobody listens to.
Watch the video and hear Press talking as though left wing talk radio is some
kind of great success when, in reality, he unwittingly is making the exact
You'll especially enjoy the part when he says he's not demanding
implementation of the "fairness doctrine", but instead wants......and then
describes exactly, precisely what the "fairness doctrine" is:
See, the problem is that when Press argues about how many markets are natural
venues for left wing...er, sorry, progressive...radio, he is making Ms. Kelly's
point for her.
Take Washington DC for example. On paper, this is
the classic market where progressive talk should do well, given that there
are about 28 conservatives in the entire city. But it has never done anything but
The most recent attempt was Obama 1260 AM (honest, that was the
name). Before trying this name, station WWRC was already a
progressive radio station and it had a rating of .4. That stinks.
After WWRC started calling it Obama 1260 and putting on Press, Stephanie
Miller, Rachel Maddow, Lionel, etc.? The ratings dropped
Now it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if .4 was bad, .1
was worse. A lot worse. So last week Obama 1260 became
Money 1260 and is doing business programming.
I don't know if that will generate better ratings, but it sure as hell
won't do worse.
According to Brian Maloney at www.radioequalizer.blogspot.com, conservative talk
radio succeeds in the DC area because it predominantly attracts suburban
listeners. Although I haven't seen the numbers, that seems pretty logical
The bottom line here is that there is no "fairness" issue at all. Listenership has made the
market. If Bill Press were palatable to enough people, he'd be on.
But people don't want to listen to him, so he isn't. And whining that the
government should force radio stations to carry his rejected show doesn't change
this a bit.
To force Bill Press
on an unwilling public, however, does lead to some interesting counterpart ideas in
-What about The Today Show being forced to have a conservative
commentator? Maybe Megyn Kelly could do double-duty and banter
with Matt & Meredith too.
- How about 15 minutes of NBC's nightly news with Brian Williams being
done by L. Brent Bozell?
-And then we could have Ann Coulter replace Joy Behar, so that, along
with Elizabeth Hasselback, The View would have two conservative voices to
balance the two remaining liberals?
How do you suppose Today, or Brian Williams, or The View would feel?
What would they say? Heck,
what would Bill Press say?
Are you laughing at the thought? Me too.
Byron York, the chief political correspondent for www.dcexaminer.com, gets it. He
understands what the real story of the stealfromus package is. Here is his
commentary. See if you agree -- and pay special attention to the
parts I've put in bold print:
For Obama, its more about showmanship than
By Byron York Chief
political correspondent 2/17/09
rushing Congress to act, why did he wait for days to sign the "emergency"
Back during the presidential campaign,
Barack Obama promised something he called Sunlight Before Signing.
Obama complained that too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the
president before the public has the opportunity to review them. So he pledged
that, as president, he would not sign any nonemergency bill without giving the
American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site
for five days.
(AP File Photo)
Sunlight Before Signing faded into
darkness with the first bill that came across Obamas desk. The new president
signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act two days after it was passed by
Congress and without posting it on the White House
Then he signed the second bill of his
administration, an update of the State Childrens Health Insurance Program,
within hours after Congress passed it.
Both signatures clearly violated Obamas
campaign promise. Questioned by reporters, White House officials said they were
working out a series of procedures to handle newly passed legislation. Were
working through the technicalities of how that happens, and well get a process
together, spokesman Robert Gibbs told the press last week.
As Gibbs spoke, the massive economic stimulus bill
was racing through Congress, and the spokesman stressed that Obamas campaign
pledge specifically exempted emergency legislation. If we get this [stimulus]
bill, this would certainly meet the presidents test of emergency legislation,
Gibbs explained. And if were lucky enough to have it pass, well sign it
Then, late Friday, after House and Senate
Democratic leaders moved heaven and earth to pass it, the bill was ready for the
presidents signature. And did President Obama sign it rather quickly? Not at
He also chose not to sign it on Saturday.
And not to sign it on Sunday. And he chose not to sign it on Monday. Only on
Tuesday, with a big campaign-style event in Denver, would the president finally
be ready to put his signature on the bill.
He signs nonemergency legislation in the
blink of an eye. And he lets emergency legislation sit for days before lifting
Obamas delay in signing the stimulus is
particularly ironic in light of the fact that Republicans had begged that the
public be given more time to learn what was in the $787 billion bill before it
No, no, the White House and Democrats
said. This is emergency legislation, and it must be passed as soon as humanly
possible. Democratic lawmakers worked round the clock to produce a bill the
final copy had handwritten revisions on it that could be voted on Friday
And then, when Senate Democrats knew they didnt
have the 60 votes necessary to move the legislation forward the ailing
Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy had gone to Florida, and Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown
was at home attending a wake for his mother, who had died a few days earlier
Majority Leader Harry Reid took the extraordinary step of extending the vote for
hours. The voting period, which normally lasts about 15 minutes, began at 5:30
p.m. Friday and ended only when Brown, his mothers wake over, flew to
Washington to cast his vote at almost 11. Then Brown immediately flew back to
Ohio for his mothers Saturday funeral.
It was a nearly unprecedented stretch of the
rules. Republicans, knowing they didnt have the votes to stop the bill and
planning to spend the Presidents Day weekend in their home states, had agreed to
Reids plan ahead of time. But why was there such a rush, if Obama had
no plans to sign it for days?
Go back to Sunlight Before Signing. In the case
of the stimulus, there was never any doubt Obama would sign the legislation. The
period in which the public needed sunlight was before the bill was
passed, not before it was signed. And that was precisely the kind of
sunlight the White House and Democrats wanted to stop. Once they accomplished
that with Fridays voting gambit, Obama could take a few days off in Chicago
while the emergency legislation sat on his desk. Then, it was on to Denver for
This delay had nothing to do with sunlight
and everything to do with showmanship.
We elected him. This is what we got.
Now: Did you see anything about Barack Obama demanding it be pushed
through without enough time for congress to so much as read it, but then
sitting on the finished bill for a half-week so he
could get maximum exposure when signing it?
Was it in the NY Times or any other major-city newspaper over the past
several days? On the network news? On the morning shows?
Oh, wait, maybe keith olbermann will excoriate Mr. Obama for this and make
him his "worst person in the world" tonight". (Yeah, and Michelle
Obama will announce she's leaving Barack for Dick Cheney.....)
THE REAL REASON DEMOCRATS ARE DEMANDING A "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE"
I mentioned Brian Maloney of www.radioequalizer.blogspot.com
in my previous blog. Here is Brian's analysis of what is happening to
so-called "progressive" talk radio. See if it makes as much sense to you
as it does to me:
Media Turmoil Hits Liberal Talk
How The 'Fairness Doctrine' Provides An
For anyone in the media business these days, times
are tough. With advertising revenues off by as much as 40% or more at some
outlets, survival is the name of the game. Newspapers are dying, networks are
forced into mass cost-cutting, and FM music formats face a desertion by younger,
But the news-talk format is in an entirely
different position: while certainly not immune to radio's corporate financial
difficulties, its fortunes are split between resurgent conservative talk (thanks
to Obama) and its still-fledgling, deeply-troubled liberal offshoot.
before the economy melted down, libtalk struggled to attract a significant
amount of advertising. Just imagine trying to convince sponsors to come aboard
Rumors of its financial
shortcomings are certainly not new and Air America Radio previously declared
bankruptcy, later emerging under new ownership and management. But the latest
rumblings, all developing over the past few weeks, involve several players in
the field and seem especially troubling for the format's future.
The expected bankruptcyof XM Sirius could
have a tremendous impact on Air America if it affects the satellite radio
provider's programming offerings. XM Sirius has provided a lifeline for the
network as land-based affiliates drop its ratings-challenged
So if you're wondering
why a steady parade of elected Democrats, led by libtalker Bill Press and others, are suddenly pushing so hard for talk radio censorship,
look no further than their own sorry state of
UPDATE: Read Brian's latest commentary here.
Nova M has folded and Sheldon Drobny, its co-founder (who also co-founded Air
America), has reportedly tried to commit suicide.
Not to be flip about this, but Drobny was as successful at suicide as he
was at "progressive" talk radio. It just had the opposite result.
His network is dead and he's still alive.
BARACK OBAMA AND JEWISH SETTLEMENTS
It's a funny thing: Israel pulled out of Gaza three
years ago. Not one Israeli left in the entire land area. And ever
since then Palestinian Arabs have continued to call them "occupiers"
anyway. It doesn't matter that they aren't even
Just like a kkk member might call all Black people "niggers", from the least
educated to the Ph.D's, from the career criminal to the successful business
entrepreneur. It doesn't matter, they're all the same.
Israel has also removed some settlements from Judea and Samaria - also known
as the west bank. But that doesn't seem to enough for Palestinian
Arabs. They want all of the settlements removed.
Just like a White Citizen's Council in, say, central Mississippi might want
every Black person removed from a town.
So how does Barack Obama feel about Israel and settlements?
FROM WND'S JERUSALEM
BUREAU Obama promises
Palestinians he'll protect 'biblical heartland' President pledges to
protest Jewish housing
Posted: February 16, 2009 8:50 pm
Klein 2009 WorldNetDaily
JERUSALEM The Obama administration has pledged
to the Palestinian Authority it will closely monitor Jewish construction in the West Bank and will protest any
new housing developments in the biblical territory, a top PA negotiator told
"They told us the White House will watch for any
Jewish construction," said the PA negotiator, speaking on condition of
"Obama knows that if [Likud Chairman Benjamin]
Netanyahu is the next prime minister, he will try to expand the settlements.
They pledged to us this will be strongly protested," the negotiator said.
Although Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's Kadima
party captured one more seat that Likud in last week's elections, Netanyahu is
considered most likely to form the next government, since he is reportedly able
to forge the most stable coalition with other parties in the 120-seat Knesset.
Earlier this month, WND quoted top PA officials stating
they received a guarantee from Obama's administration that understandings
reached with Israel during U.S.-backed negotiations while President Bush was
in office would be utilized as starting points for current and future talks with
the Jewish state.
The PA officials said they were enthusiastic about
the new tone of the White House and about recent meetings with Obama's Mideast
envoy, former Democratic Sen. George Mitchell. They said they
believe that under Obama the Palestinians can extract from Israel concessions
reaching "much further" than during talks held under the previous
"Regarding all understandings achieved between the
parties, the Obama administration told us they will give guarantees to carry
them out," said a top PA official.
"With Obama, the number of settlers to be removed
from the West Bank will much be more important than 60,000," said the PA
official, referring to previous negotiations in which Israel expressed a
willingness to withdraw from up to 94 percent of the West Bank and move about
60,000 settlers into central settlement blocks closer to Jerusalem.
WND reported exclusively in November that then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice collected notes and documens
from Israeli and
Palestinian negotiating teams to ensure the incoming U.S. administration would
not need to start negotiations from scratch. PA sources said Rice's notes are
being used by Obama's team as the starting points for new Israeli-Palestinian
Documents noting agreements during previous
Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have been used in subsequent talks, sometimes
as starting points. According to both Israeli and PA sources, American officials
took detailed notes of talks at U.S.-brokered negotiations at Camp David in 2000
and then used points of agreement on key issues, such as borders, during recent
rounds of intense Israeli-Palestinian talks.
Israeli and PA sources said Rice's notes document
agreements that would seek an eventual major West Bank withdrawal and would
grant the PA permission to open official institutions in Jerusalem.
A top source said the PA requested that the Obama
administration threaten sanctions against Israel for any new Jewish construction
in the West Bank.
The source told WND that Obama is said to favor
Israel withdrawing from nearly the entire West Bank.
Israel recaptured the West Bank in the 1967 Six
Day War. The territory, in which about 200,000 Jews live, is tied to Judaism
throughout the Torah and is often referred to as the biblical heartland of
The book of Genesis says Abraham entered Israel at
the West Bank city of Shechem (Nablus) and received God's promise of land for
He was later buried with the rest of the biblical
patriarchs and matriarchs, except for Rachel, in Hebron's Tomb of the
Patriarchs. The West Bank's Hebron was site of the first Jewish capital.
nearby West Bank town of Beit El anciently called
Bethel, meaning "house of God" is where Scripture says the patriarch Jacob
slept on a stone pillow
and dreamed of angels ascending and descending a stairway to heaven. In the
dream, God spoke directly to Jacob and reaffirmed the promise of territory.
Earlier, God had promised the land of Israel to Abraham at Beit El. In Exodus,
the holy tabernacle rested just north of Beit El in Shiloh, believed to be the
first area the ancient Israelites settled after fleeing Egypt.
Barack Obama will monitor Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (the west
bank) to make sure they don't expand.
Translation: It's bad enough that any Jews are there, but Mr. Obama will
do what he can to insure that no more of them are on this land.
I have a few questions:
-Does Barack Obama know that this is NON-SOVEREIGN LAND, that DOES NOT
BELONG TO PALESTINIAN ARABS ANY MORE THAN IT DOES TO ISRAELI JEWS? Media
conveniently forget this all the time, and it seems that Mr. Obama has the
-Has Barack Obama demanded that Palestinian Arabs who live in Israel (and
there are between 1,250,000 and 1,500,000 of them) stop building homes and
expanding their neighborhoods?
-If Jews are supposed to dismantle some or
all of their settlements in the west bank, doesn't that accomplish the anti-Semitic
goal of the land being "Judenrein" (free of Jews)? Is that
-And if Mr. Obama is ok with the west bank being
"Judenrein", does he feel all Palestinian Arabs should leave Israel as well, so
that the country would become "Arabrein"? If he doesn't, why not -
why the inconsistency?
About 78% of all Jews voted for Barack Obama last November. Presumably,
most of them support Israel. I hope they're happy with their choice.
Speaking as one of the other 22% I know I'm not.
GAS PRICES: A QUICK QUESTION
Just a couple of months ago the per-barrel price of oil dropped into the $33
- $36 range. And in the area of New Jersey where I live, we saw gas at
$1.37 - 1.43 a gallon everywhere.
Well, the per-barrel price of oil is in about the same place now (maybe just a touch higher), and has
been for almost a week. But those same gas stations are now charging
around $1.70-1.75 a gallon.
TIME FOR ROLAND BURRIS TO RESIGN
Ironic, isn't it?
When Rod Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate he was 100%
within his rights to do so. So hapless harry reid's fulminations and
mouth-breathing tirades against the appointment amounted to exactly nothing.
Reid eventually agreed to it (as if he had any choice) and Burris was
But now, weeks after the fact - and with Blagojevich
impeached and removed as Governor - it turns out that Burris was lying about what he promised
to do for Blagojevich to get the job.
He has to be lying because his story keeps
changing. Only one version can be true -- and we don't even know if it's
among the ones he's come up with.
Here are the lowlights, via excerpts from an
article by John O'connor of the Associated Press:
Burris tried to raise funds for
O'CONNOR, Associated Press Writer John O'connor, Associated
Press Writer 1 hr 8 mins ago
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. U.S. Sen. Roland Burris now acknowledges attempting to
raise money for ousted Gov. Rod
Blagojevich an explosive twist in his ever-changing story on how he
landed a coveted Senate appointment from the man accused of trying to sell the
Burris made the admission to reporters on Monday,
after releasing an affidavit over the weekend saying he had more contact with
Blagojevich aides about the Senate seat than he had described under oath to the
state House panel that recommended Blagojevich's impeachment. The Democrat also
said in the affidavit, but not before the panel, that the governor's brother
asked him for fundraising help.
Though Burris insists he never raised money for
Blagojevich while the governor was considering whom to appoint to the seat
President Barack Obama vacated,
the revelation that he had attempted to do so is likely to increase calls for
Burris' resignation and an investigation into whether he committed perjury
before the panel. Illinois Democrats have forwarded documents related to Burris'
testimony to a county prosecutor for review.
The new affidavit submitted to the impeachment
panel indicated contact not only with Robert Blagojevich, but with Blagojevich's
former chief of staff John Harris and two other close friends all of whom
Burris had been specifically asked about by the committee's top
"You would think those would be the kind of people
you'd remember you had a conversation with," said Rep. Gary Hannig, a Litchfield Democrat.
Burris initially told the impeachment committee he
had only a brief conversation with Rod
Blagojevich, a fellow Democrat, before he was named to the seat Dec. 30.
In testimony before the House committee Jan. 8, he added that he had discussed
the seat with a longtime Blagojevich friend last summer.
If Burris lied under oath about the circumstances of his appointment, he
should be dumped out of the senate forthwith. And, as is 100% clear, he
did just that.
Anyone who doesn't know, by now, that Palestinian Arab children are
indoctrinated with such hatred is either unbelievably ignorant, or probably
agrees with what they are being taught.
This includes school textbooks that do not have Israel on their maps, not one
square inch of it, and which teach that Jews are the spawn of pigs and
One particular area I've blogged about is the characters that are
utilized on "kiddie shows" for the youngest of the young. I've shown that
every one of them teaches lessons of hatred against Jews.
I would be remiss, therefore, if I didn't show readers the latest such
character. Here it is, from Arutz Sheva, complete with a video link that I
urge you in strongest terms to click on and watch:
Nassur the Bear is the Latest Hamas Children TV
Reported: 03:34 AM - Feb/16/09
(IsraelNN.com) A puppet bear named Nassur
appeared Friday on Hamas's Al-Aqsa TV, promising to be a Jihad fighter, and
declaring war on "the Zionists". He replaced Farfur the Mickey Mouse look-alike,
Nahoul the bee and Assoud the rabbit -- who were all killed by "Zionist agents"
on the TV show.
Palestinian Media Watch translated the video,
according to which, Nassur carries on a dialogue with a girl named Saraa as
Nassur: "I will join the ranks of the Izz A-Din
Al-Qassam [Hamas'] Brigades. I will be a Jihad fighter with them and I will
carry a rifle. Do you know why, Saraa?" Saraa: "Why?" Nassur: "To defend the
children of Palestine, the children who were killed, the children who were
wounded, the orphaned children. That's why, from this moment, I declare
war on the criminal Zionists. Not only me, me and you. You are ready, right,
Saraa?" Saraa: "We are all ready to sacrifice ourselves for our
What a lovely lesson for the children. Declare war on the "criminal
Zionists" and assure each other of being ready to die. Just what any
well-adjusted young child needs in his/her head.
I would say that this is something the UN should look into....but, since the
UN-run schools is where so much of this is taught every day, I guess that
probaby wouldn't do the trick.
Maybe Barack Obama will exercise his moral authority and
demand an end to hate-and-death programming for children. But don't hang
by your thumbs waiting for that to happen. There are more pressing items
on Mr. Obama's agenda. Like insuring that Palestinian Arabs have as few Jews as possible on the
west bank, for instance.
Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site,
third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser,
or using web beacons to collect information.
At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small.
In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.
So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.
And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!