"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Declaration of Independence
"If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian, he can live in peace. ... Treat all men alike. Give them all the same law. Give them all an even chance to live and grow. All men were made by the same Great Spirit Chief. They are all brothers. The Earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it. ... Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade ... where I choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to think and talk and act for myself, and I will obey every law, or submit to the penalty." ... Chief Joseph * Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt
(Nez Perces' Tribe); (1840-1904)
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ' all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics.' When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy hypocrisy." President Lincoln (1861-65)
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (1787)
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. " Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-68)
"The glory of this land has been its capacity for transcending the moral evils of our past. For example, the long struggle of minority citizens for equal rights, once a source of disunity and civil war, is now a point of pride for all Americans. We must never go back. There is no room for racism, anti-Semitism, or other forms of ethnic and racial hatred in this country." President Reagan (1981-89)
*****
God Bless America is generally accepted as our unofficial National Anthem.
Written by Irving Berlin, a first generation European immigrant of Jewish heritage, Berlin's simple and eloquent song was first introduced by Kate Smith during an Armistice Day radio broadcast in 1938.
Berlin gave the royalties of the song to the God Bless America Fund for redistribution to the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of the USA.
On September 21, 2001, Celine Dion, a Canadian, performed the song on the TV special America: A Tribute to Heroes; a memorial show to those lost on 9/11. I have rarely heard a more heart-felt or beautiful rendition than hers.
The mix of first generation immigrant, and respectful foreigner, give tribute to our land of the brave and home of the free.
Included are memorable quotes from our country's leaders demonstrating how far we have come as a great nation ... in my humble opinion, the greatest nation! The nation that many around the world continue to dream of immigrating to - because of the very ideology we strive towards.
Not usually included is the spoken introduction to the song:
While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer.
God bless America, land that I love
Stand beside her and guide her
Through the night with the light from above
From the mountains To the prairies,
To the ocean white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.
There are many who would destroy this place we have fought so hard to safe-guard. I have friends who live in countries where they cannot even draw a cartoon, or speak in humor or protest against their sovereigns, which has given me an even deeper appreciation for the rights and liberties we hold self evident.
Being a patriot does not mean we can't question those in authority ... in fact ... we'd be less than patriotic if we didn't. Thank God, I live in a country I can do just that.
We have traversed the bigotries and rhetoric of generations past ... and the past need be learned from as not to be repeated. It (the pain and moral evils) also need be put to rest in order that a great nation can continue to move forward with it's manifest destiny.
Ronald Reagan FoundationAs we say farewell to 2010, I thought it would be appropriate to remind us all of the hope and change you, as patriots have brought to your country. The awakening of average citizens of this country for the last 2 years has been amazing. In that short time, we have seen a resurgence of patriotism rising up all across this great land.
While we can revel in the change we did invoke on November 2, 2010, we must remember that this fight has just begun. Our election in 2012 will, undoubtedly, determine whether we can save our great country from socialism/communism or allow it to be destroyed.
I am going to do my best to save it....how about you?
May you all have a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year~
*****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****
Another farewell that comes to mind is the farewell speech by President Ronald Reagan in January 11, 1989.
This is the 34th time I'll speak to you from the Oval Office and the last. We've been together eight years now, and soon it'll be time for me to go. But before I do, I wanted to share some thoughts, some of which I've been saving for a long time.
It's been the honor of my life to be your president. So many of you have written the past few weeks to say thanks, but I could say as much to you. Nancy and I are grateful for the opportunity you gave us to serve.
One of the things about the presidency is that you're always somewhat apart. You spend a lot of time going by too fast in a car someone else is driving, and seeing the people through tinted glass--the parents holding up a child, and the wave you saw too late and couldn't return. And so many times I wanted to stop and reach out from behind the glass, and connect. Well, maybe I can do a little of that tonight.
People ask how I feel about leaving. And the fact is, "parting is such sweet sorrow." The sweet part is California, and the ranch and freedom. The sorrow--the goodbyes, of course, and leaving this beautiful place.
You know, down the hall and up the stairs from this office is the part of the White House where the president and his family live. There are a few favorite windows I have up there that I like to stand and look out of early in the morning. The view is over the grounds here to the Washington Monument, and then the Mall and the Jefferson Memorial. But on mornings when the humidity is low, you can see past the Jefferson to the river, the Potomac, and the Virginia shore. Someone said that's the view Lincoln had when he saw the smoke rising from the Battle of Bull Run. I see more prosaic things: the grass on the banks, the morning traffic as people make their way to work, now and then a sailboat on the river.
I've been thinking a bit at that window. I've been reflecting on what the past eight years have meant and mean. And the image that comes to mind like a refrain is a nautical one--a small story about a big ship, and a refugee and a sailor. It was back in the early '80s, at the height of the boat people. And the sailor was hard at work on the carrier Midway, which was patrolling the South China Sea. The sailor, like most American servicemen, was young, smart, and fiercely observant. The crew spied on the horizon a leaky little boat. And crammed inside were refugees from Indochina hoping to get to America. The Midway sent a small launch to bring them to the ship and safety. As the refugees made their way through the choppy seas, one spied the sailor on deck and stood up and called out to him. He yelled, "Hello, American sailor. Hello, freedom man."
A small moment with a big meaning, a moment the sailor, who wrote it in a letter, couldn't get out of his mind. And when I saw it, neither could I. Because that's what it was to be an American in the 1980s. We stood, again, for freedom. I know we always have, but in the past few years the world again, and in a way, we ourselves rediscovered it.
It's been quite a journey this decade, and we held together through some stormy seas. And at the end, together, we are reaching our destination.
The fact is, from Grenada to the Washington and Moscow summits, from the recession of '81 to '82, to the expansion that began in late '82 and continues to this day, we've made a difference. The way I see it, there were two great triumphs, two things that I'm proudest of. One is the economic recovery, in which the people of America created--and filled--19 million new jobs. The other is the recovery of our morale. America is respected again in the world and looked to for leadership.
Something that happened to me a few years ago reflects some of this. It was back in 1981, and I was attending my first big economic summit, which was held that year in Canada. The meeting place rotates among the member countries. The opening meeting was a formal dinner for the heads of government of the seven industrialized nations. Now, I sat there like the new kid in school and listened, and it was all Francois this and Helmut that. They dropped titles and spoke to one another on a first-name basis. Well, at one point I sort of leaned in and said, "My name's Ron." Well, in that same year, we began the actions we felt would ignite an economic comeback--cut taxes and regulation, started to cut spending. And soon the recovery began.
Two years later another economic summit, with pretty much the same cast. At the big opening meeting we all got together, and all of a sudden, just for a moment, I saw that everyone was just sitting there looking at me. And one of them broke the silence. "Tell us about the American miracle," he said.
Well, back in 1980, when I was running for president, it was all so different. Some pundits said our programs would result in catastrophe. Our views on foreign affairs would cause war. Our plans for the economy would cause inflation to soar and bring about economic collapse. I even remember one highly respected economist saying, back in 1982, that "the engines of economic growth have shut down here, and they're likely to stay that way for years to come." Well, he and the other opinion leaders were wrong. The fact is, what they called "radical" was really "right." What they called "dangerous" was just "desperately needed."
And in all of that time I won a nickname, "The Great Communicator." But I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: It was the content. I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation--from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I'll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscovery of our values and our common sense.
Common sense told us that when you put a big tax on something, the people will produce less of it. So, we cut the people's tax rates, and the people produced more than ever before. The economy bloomed like a plant that had been cut back and could now grow quicker and stronger. Our economic program brought about the longest peacetime expansion in our history: real family income up, the poverty rate down, entrepreneurship booming, and an explosion in research and new technology. We're exporting more than ever because American industry became more competitive and at the same time, we summoned the national will to knock down protectionist walls abroad instead of erecting them at home. Common sense also told us that to preserve the peace, we'd have to become strong again after years of weakness and confusion. So, we rebuilt our defenses, and this New Year we toasted the new peacefulness around the globe. Not only have the superpowers actually begun to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons--and hope for even more progress is bright--but the regional conflicts that rack the globe are also beginning to cease. The Persian Gulf is no longer a war zone. The Soviets are leaving Afghanistan. The Vietnamese are preparing to pull out of Cambodia, and an American-mediated accord will soon send 50,000 Cuban troops home from Angola.
The lesson of all this was, of course, that because we're a great nation, our challenges seem complex. It will always be this way. But as long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours. And something else we learned: Once you begin a great movement, there's no telling where it will end. We meant to change a nation, and instead, we changed a world.
Countries across the globe are turning to free markets and free speech and turning away from ideologies of the past. For them, the great rediscovery of the 1980s has been that, lo and behold, the moral way of government is the practical way of government: Democracy, the profoundly good, is also the profoundly productive.
When you've got to the point when you can celebrate the anniversaries of your 39th birthday, you can sit back sometimes, review your life, and see it flowing before you. For me there was a fork in the river, and it was right in the middle of my life. I never meant to go into politics. It wasn't my intention when I was young. But I was raised to believe you had to pay your way for the blessings bestowed on you. I was happy with my career in the entertainment world, but I ultimately went into politics because I wanted to protect something precious.
Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: "We the people." "We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. "We the people" are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the people" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the people" are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past eight years.
But back in the 1960s, when I began, it seemed to me that we'd begun reversing the order of things--that through more and more rules and regulations and confiscatory taxes, the government was taking more of our money, more of our options, and more of our freedom. I went into politics in part to put up my hand and say, "Stop." I was a citizen politician, and it seemed the right thing for a citizen to do.
I think we have stopped a lot of what needed stopping. And I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.
Nothing is less free than pure communism, and yet we have, the past few years, forged a satisfying new closeness with the Soviet Union. I've been asked if this isn't a gamble, and my answer is no because we're basing our actions not on words but deeds. The detente of the 1970s was based not on actions but promises. They'd promise to treat their own people and the people of the world better. But the gulag was still the gulag, and the state was still expansionist, and they still waged proxy wars in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Well, this time, so far, it's different. President Gorbachev has brought about some internal democratic reforms and begun the withdrawal from Afghanistan. He has also freed prisoners whose names I've given him every time we've met.
But life has a way of reminding you of big things through small incidents. Once, during the heady days of the Moscow summit, Nancy and I decided to break off from the entourage one afternoon to visit the shops on Arbat Street--that's a little street just off Moscow's main shopping area. Even though our visit was a surprise, every Russian there immediately recognized us and called out our names and reached for our hands. We were just about swept away by the warmth. You could almost feel the possibilities in all that joy. But within seconds, a KGB detail pushed their way toward us and began pushing and shoving the people in the crowd. It was an interesting moment. It reminded me that while the man on the street in the Soviet Union yearns for peace, the government is Communist. And those who run it are Communists, and that means we and they view such issues as freedom and human rights very differently.
We must keep up our guard, but we must also continue to work together to lessen and eliminate tension and mistrust. My view is that President Gorbachev is different from previous Soviet leaders. I think he knows some of the things wrong with his society and is trying to fix them. We wish him well. And we'll continue to work to make sure that the Soviet Union that eventually emerges from this process is a less threatening one. What it all boils down to is this. I want the new closeness to continue. And it will, as long as we make it clear that we will continue to act in a certain way as long as they continue to act in a helpful manner. If and when they don't, at first pull your punches. If they persist, pull the plug. It's still trust but verify. It's still play, but cut the cards. It's still watch closely. And don't be afraid to see what you see.
I've been asked if I have any regrets. Well, I do. The deficit is one. I've been talking a great deal about that lately, but tonight isn't for arguments. And I'm going to hold my tongue. But an observation: I've had my share of victories in the Congress, but what few people noticed is that I never won anything you didn't win for me. They never saw my troops, they never saw Reagan's regiments, the American people. You won every battle with every call you made and letter you wrote demanding action. Well, action is still needed. If we're to finish the job, Reagan's regiments will have to become the Bush brigades. Soon he'll be the chief, and he'll need you every bit as much as I did. Finally, there is a great tradition of warnings in presidential farewells, and I've got one that's been on my mind for some time. But oddly enough it starts with one of the things I'm proudest of in the past eight years: the resurgence of national pride that I called the new patriotism. This national feeling is good, but it won't count for much, and it won't last unless it's grounded in thoughtfulness and knowledge.
An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn't get these things from your family, you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed, you could get a sense of patriotism from popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-'60s.
But now, we're about to enter the '90s, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven't re-institutionalized it. We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs protection.
So, we've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion but what's important: Why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those 30 seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, four years ago on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, I read a letter from a young woman writing of her late father, who'd fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, "We will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did." Well, let's help her keep her word. If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual. And let me offer lesson No. 1 about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.
And that's about all I have to say tonight. Except for one thng. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.
I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still.
And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that; after 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.
We've done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for eight years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger. We made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.
And so, good-bye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
International Baccalaureate in Bedford, NH is it Anti-American?
A Bedford resident has asked the school district to be more transparent about the cost and political affiliations of Bedford High School’s International Baccalaureate program.
The article, written by Arizona author Debra K. Niwa, details several alleged failings of the IB program, including its cost, educational philosophy and its formal relationship with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
The following video blocked my ability to embed it. The video is the project of IB students for one of their classes. The disturbing thing about this video is the mentality behind it. What is obvious from these students is that they are being indoctrinated by the IBO program.
The propaganda from this video is unsettling. The students have taken the position of Anti-Israel and anti conservative news media, more specifically, Fox News. This is quite disturbing!
I am perplexed why the administration and school board of Ozark High School is blindly following the globalist agenda of the International Baccalaureate. Dr. Gordon Pace and Chuck Fugate are not being honest and giving parents the total picture of the values of the IB. They are selling the program to parents on the basis it will better prepare students for college. Perhaps, parents should be asking why aren't Dr. Pace and his faculty are capable preparing Ozark students for college without an international governing body promoted by the United Nations instructing Dr. Pace and his faculty how to educate students.
That's the reality of the International Baccalaureate. More control of the school will be transferred from the community of Ozark to Geneva Switzerland. Now what does Geneva Switzerland know about our educational values here in Ozark?
Parents need to understand what Dr. Pace chooses not to tell you. The IB is connected to some radical left wing causes the include anti-American sentiment. I have put together a number of articles on this Web site that gives parents greater insight to the globalist agenda Dr. Pace has chosen to put Ozark High School on the path to. You can view those articles by visiting, http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2010/12/ozark-high-school-parents-guide-to.html and http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2010/12/international-baccalaureate-will-bring.html.
I know living in Ozark, Missouri, we are lovers of the Second Amendment. We have Bass Pro Shops a few miles in both direction down the road. We love to hunt and shoot. Heck, we even have a local gun show at the Elks Lodge and the parking lot is always full. With this truth, it should be known to Ozark residents the IB supports gun control.
While the IB agenda does't say so directly, they advocate for a number of left-wing, anti American organizations which I will use this article to point out. The first is the IB has ties to the United Nations, and the IB supports the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Let's thumb a few pages into this declaration and read what it thinks of America's founding documents, which include the Second Amendment. Article 29 of the UN document puts the United Nations in authority over individual rights. If this plan was adopted world wide under the Untied Nation's authority, the founding documents would come second and be irrelevant. Unlike America’s founding documents, which describe individual rights as "inalienable." Article 29 states: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
There is a IB connection that pushes gun control as well. It is called Earth Charter, and the IB is on board without any questions. The International Baccalaureate issued the following statement in their support of Earth Charter.
We, the undersigned, endorse the Earth Charter. We embrace the spirit and aims of the document. We pledge to join the global partnership for a just, sustainable, and peaceful world and to work for the realization of the values and principles of the Earth Charter. We pledge to join the Global Partnership in Support of the Earth Charter Initiative for a sustainable way of life AND urge all governments to endorse the Earth Charter.
Article 16.d.&e. calls for Military disarmament around the world. This section goes as far as disarming everyone in the world. Now our founding fathers knew the very idea of this was ludicrous. They gave us the Second Amendment right to bear arms in order to protect from oppression, but the Earth Charter merely promotes it by demanding even the smallest of arms being taken away from all persons.
Dr. Pace, Dr. Sam Taylor, and Chuck Fugate aren't going to tell you these things about the International Baccalaureate. They are only going to explain to you the love your kids are going to get from colleges if they have this piece of paper with the IB symbol on it. Trust me, that symbol is the mark of the beast for our liberty and freedom, specifically our Second Amendment rights in this case, although I am sure I have presented enough information to show the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are irrelevant under the IB charter.
In closing I want to remind you what Ronald Reagan said. Dr. Pace will claim he has worked in an IB school, and he has seen no reason to fear the reasons to fear the warnings I present to you. Like visitors from outer space in the movies and TV, the IB comes in peace at first. They slowly begin to indoctrinate your children with anti-American ideas. Before long, like the visitors, they are attacking all we hold near and dear. You may not see these truths immediately with the IB, but as time rolls on and another generation of Americans are conditioned with the agenda of the IB, greater acceptance of the UN's charter will be begin to take place and more anti-American sentiment will be heard.
Ronald Reagan said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
Do you really want to take a chance with the IB knowing the truths I present to you?
****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~****
Shortly before the videos about the International Baccalaureate curriculum surfaced, Bedford NH had another public education issue that was being played out all across America on tv (Parents Pull Son Out of New Hampshire School Over Assigned Book That Refers to Jesus as 'Wine-Guzzling Vagrant and Socialist" ), in the newspaper and on the internet.What was at the core of the issue was a textbook that was required for a "personal finance" class that was titled "Nickel and Dimed." What the book is is a social activists take on Anti capitalism and pro-socialism and is written by an elitist that has NO background in finance at all.
The following videos were taken from a School Board meeting in December 2010.
George Soros Has Ties to the International Baccalaureate: A Warning to Ozark High School Parents
Glenn Beck recently explained George Soros quest to push a New World Order--a one-world government. This government would obviously remove the philosophies of our founding fathers, which the United States was built. It's amazing how deeply the Soros roots are planted, including a program Ozark High School are trying to adopt known as the International Baccalaureate.
The International Baccalaureate has a basic goal of producing global citizens. When you start looking inside the IBO, you quickly realize they advocate for a number of causes that don't have the United States' best interest. These include United Nations human rights issues that undermine the Constitution and the sovereignty of the United States, as well as Earth Charter that promotes the redistribution of the world, taking away the right to bear arms. These are things the Ozark School Board aren't going to tell residents as they work to sell Ozark parents on the IP.
I decided to look to see who exactly is behind the International Baccalaureate, and with no surprise I found ties to George Soros. Soros is tied to the International Baccalaureate through his Open Society Institute. Established in 1993, the Open Society Institute (OSI) is the most prominent of the numerous foundations belonging to the international billionaire financier George Soros, its founder and Chairman.
Open Society supports a vast array of radical left wing organizations, which are typically anti-American. Included on that list is Earth Charter.
OSI endorsed a 2000 document called the Earth Charter, which blames capitalism for many of the world's environmental, social, and economic problems. According to the Charter, “the dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species.” “The benefits of development,” adds the Charter, “are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening."
While this isn't a direct connection the International Baccalaureate has also issued a statement of strong support for the Earth Charter. They issued the following statement signaling their support:
We, the undersigned, endorse the Earth Charter. We embrace the spirit and aims of the document. We pledge to join the global partnership for a just, sustainable, and peaceful world and to work for the realization of the values and principles of the Earth Charter. We pledge to join the Global Partnership in Support of the Earth Charter Initiative for a sustainable way of life AND urge all governments to endorse the Earth Charter.
Now why would Dr. Gordon Pace, Dr. Sam Taylor, and Chuck Fugate (President of the Ozark School Board) push an organization that advocates a charter that George Soros celebrates because it blames capitalism for all the world's problems? That's a question I would like to know too.
AVAAZ - Who started Avaaz?Avaaz.org was co-founded by Res Publica, a global civic advocacy group, and Moveon.org, an online community that has pioneered internet advocacy in the United States GRAMEEN FOUNDATION -in partnership with Open Society Institute, numerous UN organizations, IMF, World Bank, etc.
In Boston, a special fund established in 1968 pays for teachers’ funeral expenses, hearing aids and a softball league as well as legal services that have nothing to do with classroom instruction.
In the last school year alone, Boston taxpayers shelled out $1.3 million from the trust to help teachers with wills, bankruptcy, real estate, name changes, and legal defense against some misdemeanor criminal charges, according to the Boston Globe. This year taxpayers will contribute $8.4 million to the teachers’ trust, even as the district faces an anticipated $63 million budget gap that is necessitating the closure or consolidation of 18 schools, the Globe reports.
This unnecessary expense is ludicrous considering the current economy, and is urging city leaders to eliminate the trust as they craft a new collective bargaining agreement with teachers. The city’s residents, struggling to cover the rising costs of their own health coverage, shouldn’t be required to subsidize these extra perks for public school teachers.
Samuel R. Tyler, president of the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, said it best when he told the Globe that “It’s time to rethink health and welfare and treat teachers exactly as other employees in terms of benefits, and eliminate the expenditures for these other services. “It really ought to be an item on the list in terms of trying to negotiate changes,” he said.
The Boston Teachers Union has predictably defended the fund, negotiated in 1968 as an alternative way to compensate teachers. “It came in lieu of salary,” BTU President Richard Stutman told the Globe.
Unfortunately times have changed, and Boston taxpayers can no longer afford to shower their public school employees with millions of dollars in special perks each year. Private sector workers in virtually every industry have sacrificed to keep their employers afloat, and we see no reason why Boston teachers shouldn’t be required to do the same.
We suspect that the vast majority of Boston taxpayers do not view a softball league or private real estate advice for teachers as a critical expense necessary to educate the city’s school children. With an expected $63 million budget gap, the district should be eliminating every expense that it can to maintain student programs and avoid cuts that would impact academics.
The fact that the BTU continues its lame attempt to justify the existence of this enormous annual expense only further demonstrates that its true priorities have little to do with educating the city’s youth.
NYC Teacher Gets Paid for Sitting Around~13 years in ‘Rubber Room’ with full pay
Related article:
Disgraced Teacher Enjoys Well-Paid 13th Year in ‘Rubber Room’ After Sexually Molesting 6th Grade Student
The Post reports that in the intervening years, the Department of Education dropped disciplinary actions against Pierre “on a technicality” but he remains in the rubber room until he is reassigned. Though he was eligible for retirement at 62, Pierre continues to collect his full teaching salary.
At his age, he’d be able to collect a full pension and is eligible to collect Social Security, making his post-retirement annual income as high as $125,000.
Another teacher accused of serious wrongdoing — including impregnating a 16-year-old student and allegedly molesting a string of other girls — finally retired this month after spending seven years in his own “rubber room”:
For seven years, math teacher Francisco Olivares, 61, did nothing but rake in his $94,154 salary.
The DOE bungled a chance to boot Olivares in 1978 after he impregnated a 16-year-old former student at IS 61 in Corona. He skirted rape charges by marrying the teen; their baby was born less than nine months later.
Still in the classroom, he was criminally charged a decade later with showing one 12-year-old girl porn, photographing her with pants down and rubbing up against another 12-year-old girl. His conviction was reversed on technicalities.
Now retired, Olivares collects a cushy pension of $62,000 a year.
In April, the United Federation of Teachers announced that New York City’s controversial “rubber rooms” would be gone by the year’s end. The city called the news a “breakthrough.”
“Starting this September, you’ll be happy to know that rubber rooms will be a thing of the past,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg said. “To say that this is a big deal is probably an understatement.”
But as the above cases make clear, so-called “rubber rooms” are still alive and well. Earlier this month, the New York Times noted that the unions’ pledge had gone unfulfilled:
While hundreds of teachers have had their cases resolved, for many of those still waiting, the definition of “work” has turned out to be a loose one. Some are now doing basic tasks, like light filing, paper-clipping, tracking down student information on a computer or using 25-foot tape measures to determine the dimensions of entire school buildings. Others sit without work in unadorned cubicles or at out-of-the-way conference tables.
“They told me to sit in a little chair in a corner and never get up and walk around,” said Hal Lanse, a $100,000-a-year teacher from Queens who had been accused of sexual harassment. He was assigned to an administrative office on Fordham Road in the Bronx in September as part of a deal that led the city to drop the charges against him.
One day he plopped down on a couch in the hallway and began reading a novel, he said. Eventually, he dozed off. Then he was asked to “paper-clip some papers” and refused: he was charged with insubordination. He is now collecting his full salary at home in Queens, with plans to retire in January; the city is trying to fire him for insubordination before then, which would reduce his pension.
“There are indeed still rubber rooms,” he said. “They just don’t call them that.”
If you have enjoyed owning a car company, you’re going to love getting voting representation in several banks nationwide. Barack Obama’s Treasury Department is already “monitoring” 19 banks and may appoint new board members. The trouble? They took TARP money and have fallen behind on their payments. Almost as troubling, the mainstream press is presenting things as though they had never been better. Zachary A. Goldfarb at The Washington Postwrites:
The Obama administration has begun monitoring the high-level board meetings of nearly 20 banks that received emergency taxpayer assistance but repeatedly failed to pay the required dividends, according to Treasury Department officials and documents. And it may soon install new directors on some of their boards.
The moves come as the number of banks that failed to make at least one dividend payment to the government rose to 132 in the last quarter. These “deadbeats,” as they are sometimes called, are virtually all community lenders and collectively received billions of dollars in taxpayer assistance.
In addition to those firms, seven others have failed, resulting in the total loss of the government’s investment.
The number of banks that have missed six or more dividend payments has reached 19, up from seven during the previous quarter. Under the government’s agreement with those firms, the Treasury now has the right to monitor their boards and appoint new members.
So much for the Barack Obama who said last April, “I don’t want to run auto companies, and I don’t want to run banks.” (To properly understand Obama, you must replace “don’t” with “desperately.”) He may insist he does not want to engage in this behavior — and he repeats it again, and again, and again.
The story goes on to reveal “a fifth of banks in the program, almost all of them small community lenders, are not paying the government dividends on time,” meaning they too are en route to an Obama-appointed bank board. The Wall Street Journalreported Sunday that as many as 98 bailed-out banks, which received $4.2 billion in TARP funds, are in danger of failing based on an analysis of their third quarter earnings results.
Piers Corbyn predicted Europe's winter of discontent
Cato Institute Senior Fellow Patrick J. Michaels discusses climate change on various television programs. Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and visiting scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society.
Will we be sleeping? America, will we go down in history as a nation with no room for its King? We have awakened and must remember we are a nation founded on Christian principles.
It is vital that, as Christians, we will not be silenced any longer. Please be sure your and your churches are engaged and encouraging your family, friends and congregations to stand against the attack on Christianity here and across this globe. God Bless~Michele
Oh little town of Bethlehem
Looks like another silent night
Above your deep and dreamless sleep
A giant star lights up the sky
And while you're lying in the dark
There shines an everlasting light
For the King has left His throne
And is sleeping in a manger tonight
Oh Bethlehem, what you have missed while you were sleeping
For God became a man
And stepped into your world today
Oh Bethlehem, you will go down in history
As a city with no room for its King
While you were sleeping
While you were sleeping
Oh little town of Jerusalem
Looks like another silent night
The Father gave His only Son
The Way, the Truth, the Life had come
But there was no room for Him in the world He came to save
Jerusalem, what you have missed while you were sleeping
The Savior of the world is dying on your cross today
Jerusalem, you will go down in history
As a city with no room for its King
While you were sleeping
While you were sleeping
United States of America Looks like another silent night As we're sung to sleep by philosophies That save the trees and kill the children
And while we're lying in the dark
There's a shout heard 'cross the eastern sky
For the Bridegroom has returned
And has carried His bride away in the night
America, what will we miss while we are sleeping
Will Jesus come again
And leave us slumbering where we lay
America, will we go down in history
As a nation with no room for its King
Will we be sleeping
Will we be sleeping
United States of America
Looks like another silent night
Dear 111th Congress of the United States of America:
It has come to our attention that you did not get our message from this past November election. You are continuing to attempt an unauthorized theft of our money through massive, earmark laden legislation.
As you neither asked for nor received permission to spend OUR money in this manner, we demand that the 111th Congress cease from passing any additional spending legislation.
We believe you have willfully infringed upon our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by burdening us and our children with unsustainable debt. The debt that has been amassed in the last two years has also put our country's national security at risk.
This destructive path that Washington has put its American citizens on is shameful. We will not tolerate this out of control spending any further. We sent you a message this past November and expect that you will heed it.
We, therefore, demand that you immediately CEASE and DESIST from voting on ANY further legislation for the year 2010.
It is time that you remember that YOU WORK FOR US! This is NOT YOUR MONEY TO SPEND! If we didn't make ourselves clear in November, you can rest assured, we will be louder and clearer in November 2012.
Sincerely, We The People Of The United States of America
UPDATE 12/19/2011 -The lone Republican on the FCC issues a dire warning about the future of the internet. In order to understand how dangerous this is to our freedom in America, please read my other posts about this FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, as well as the other 2 Democrat members of the FCC that are more than willing to destroy the internet as we know it.~
(One of the audio posts at the bottom of the page is set to start when the page loads and I am unable to disable that so please scroll to bottom to pause/stop it...Thanks!)
FCC Commissioner Delivers Warning On Threat To ‘Internet Freedom’
The United States is unprepared for an international fight that’s brewing over whether the Internet will remain free from government regulations or fall increasingly under the control of emerging global powers, Federal Communications Commissioner Robert McDowell warned Monday
“The proponents of Internet freedom and prosperity have been asleep at the switch,” Mr. McDowell, the lone Republican serving at the FCC, told editors and reporters at The Washington Times. “Or maybe I should say asleep at the router.”
The 193-member International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a U.N. agency, will meet in Dubai next December to renegotiate the 24-year-old treaty that deals with international oversight of the Internet. A growing number of countries are pushing greater governmental control and management of the Web’s availability, financial model and infrastructure.
They believe the current model is “dominated” by the U.S., and want to “take that control and power away,” Mr. McDowell said. China and Russia support the effort, but so do non-Western U.S. allies such as Brazil, South Africa and India.
“Thus far, those who are pushing for new intergovernmental powers over the Internet are far more energized and organized than those who favor the Internet freedom and prosperity,” he said.
While growth of the Internet has exploded under a minimal regulatory model over the past two decades, “significant government and civil society support is developing for a different policy outlook,” according to an analysis by lawyers David Gross and M. Ethan Lucarelli on the legal intelligence website www.lexology.com.
“Driven largely by the global financial troubles of recent years, together with persistent concerns about the implications of the growth of the Internet for national economies, social structures and cultures, some governments and others are now actively reconsidering the continuing viability of liberalization and competition-based policies,” they wrote.
“They’re very well aware of it,” Mr. McDowell said. “The Obama administration is in the right position. But my concern is that we’re behind the curve.”
A bad treaty - which would need the support of only a bare majority of U.N. members to pass and which the United States could not veto - could bring “a whole parade of problems,” Mr. McDowell said.
The U.S. and other Western democracies would likely “opt out” of the treaty, he predicted, leading to a “Balkanization” of the global information network. Governments under the treaty would have greater authority to regulate rates and local access, and such critical emerging issues as cybersecurity and data privacy standards would be subject to international control.
Mr. McDowell said the treaty could open the door to allowing revenue-hungry national governments to charge Internet giants such as Google, Facebook and Amazon for their data traffic on a “per click” basis. The more website visitors those companies get, the more they pay.
The FCC commissioner said he is trying to sound the alarm about the U.N. effort because he believes the Internet has thrived precisely because of the absence of central government control.
In 1988, when the treaty was signed, fewer than 100,000 people used the Internet, Mr. McDowell said. Shortly after it was privatized in 1995, that number jumped to 16 million users. As of this year, it is up to 2 billion users, with another 500,000 joining every day.
FCC Commissioner Tells BBC: “American Media Has A Bad Case Of Substance Abuse”
In an interview to air tonight on BBC World News America, FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps describes American journalism as having reached “its hour of grave peril.”
Copps, who will speak at the Columbia University School of Journalism tomorrow suggests government control may be the answer to ensure that American citizens have access to news and information. Copps says for years, a lack of “oversight of the media” has resulted in an era with nonstop cable news–but, in his belief, far less actual news being covered–less news now than we had access to five years ago:
It’s a pretty serious situation that we’re in. I think American media has a bad case of substance abuse right now. We are not producing the body of news and information that democracy needs to conduct its civic dialogue, we’re not producing as much news as we did five years, 10 years, 15 years ago and we have to reverse that trend or I think we are going to be pretty close to denying our citizens the essential news and information that they need to have in order to make intelligent decisions about the future direction of their country.
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
F.C.C. Commissioner Proposes ‘Public Values Test’
1202/2010
Michael J. Copps, one of the four Michael J. Copps, one of the four commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission, is proposing a “public value test” for television and radio stations that he thinks should replace the current licensing process.
He said the test “would get us back to the original licensing bargain between broadcasters and the people: in return for free use of airwaves that belong exclusively to the people, licensees agree to serve the public interest as good stewards of a precious national resource.”
Mr. Copps will formally make the proposal Thursday in an address at Columbia University’s graduate school of journalism. It is his latest attempt to pull people’s attentions back to the public interest requirements of local stations at a time when he believes American journalism is in “grave peril.”
Mr. Copps, a Democratic commissioner since 2001, has long condemned media consolidation and the cutting of journalistic resources. In Thursday’s prepared remarks, he criticized the casual nature of the current license renewal process for stations and said a “public value test” would strengthen the process. His intent, he said, is to foster “a renewed commitment to serious news and journalism.”
There was no immediate indication Thursday about whether the other four F.C.C. commissioners would consider the proposal.
The first tenet of Mr. Copps’ proposed test would be “meaningful commitments” to news and public affairs programming. “These would be quantifiable and not involve issues of content interference,” Mr. Copps said.
“Increasing the human and financial resources going into news would be one way to benchmark progress. Producing more local civic affairs programming would be another. Our current children’s programming requirements — the one remnant of public interest requirements still on the books — helped enhance kids’ programming. Now it is time to put news and information front-and-center,” he said.
Other tenets of the test would include enhanced disclosure about each station’s performance; meaningful increases in local programming; and evidence of a detailed plan for news coverage in the event of an emergency or disaster.
With regards to local programming, Mr. Copps said, “the goal here is a more localism in our program diet, more local news and information, and a lot less streamed-in homogenization and monotonous nationalized music at the expense of local and regional talent.” He added, “Homogenized music and entertainment from huge conglomerates constrains creativity, suppresses local talent, and detracts from the great tapestry of our nation’s cultural diversity.” He suggested that 25 percent of prime time programming should be locally or independently-produced.
Mr. Copps also proposed that the F.C.C. should “determine the extent of its current authority” to compel stations to disclose who pays for anonymous political ads. “And if we lack the tools we need to compel disclosure, let’s go ask for them,” he said.
Mr. Copps said the “public value test” should occur every four years. Currently, stations have to renew their licenses every eight years.
He proposed that if a station fails the test, “it goes on probation for a year, renewable for an additional year if it demonstrates measurable progress. If the station fails again, give the license to someone who will use it to serve the public interest.”
In an interview with “BBC World News America” that was broadcast Wednesday, the anchor Katty Kay anticipated what critics may say about Mr. Copps’ proposal. Ms. Kay asked, doesn’t a “public value test”
“raise the specter of over government control of information? I mean, people would say to you, ‘Well, what one person’s public value is is not another person’s.’ ”
Mr. Copps answered, “What we’ve had in recent years is an aberration where we have had no oversight of the media. For years and years we had some public interest guidelines that was part of the quid pro quo between broadcasters and the government for the free use of airwaves that belong to the American people and in return for that free use, and the ability to make a lot of money, they agreed to serve the public interest and that public interest to me right now is crying ‘news and information, news and information, news and information.’ “
What I find interesting about this video of FCC Commissioner Michael J Copps speaking at this "Free Press" summit is his opening statement. He tells the audience that every year his favorite group to speak to is his friends at Free Press. He goes on to tout the work they've been doing in the Progressive movement to transform media. To understand why this is disturbing, you have to understand who Free Press is and what their ultimate goal is.
I will add some links at the bottom of this section to introduce you to the "Progressive" Free Press.
Free Press Summit: Changing Media -- Michael Copps
Free Press Summit: Changing Media
May 14, 2009
The Newseum, Washington DC
Michael Copps, Acting FCC Chairman
Michael J. CoppsMichael J. Copps is the acting chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. He was sworn in for his second term as a member of the FCC on Jan. 3, 2006, and has served as a commissioner since May 31, 2001.
Copps served until January 2001 as assistant secretary of commerce for trade development at the U.S. Department of Commerce. In that role, Copps worked to improve market access and market share for nearly every sector of American industry, including information technologies, telecommunications, aerospace, automotive, environmental technologies, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, textiles, service industries and tourism.
Copps devoted much of his time to building private-public sector partnerships to enhance our nations success in the global economy. From 1993 to 1998, Copps served as deputy assistant secretary for basic industries, a component of the Trade Development Unit. Copps moved to Washington in 1970, joined the staff of Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.), and served for more than a dozen years as administrative assistant and chief of staff.
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
~THE FCC AND THE INTERNET~
For those that don't know, earlier this year, the FCC was embroiled in a lawsuit with Comcast regarding this very thing...net neutrality. What is significant about that is the FCC LOST the case. In other words, the FCC is completely disregarding the ruling on that case. The FCC is broadening it's attempt to regulate the internet even though the courts told them they don't have the authority to do so.
The following articles involve the FCC's attempt to control the internet:
FCC Loses Key Ruling on Internet Neutrality
Published April 06, 2010
At the heart of the court case is Comcast's challenge of a 2008 FCC order banning it from blocking subscribers from using BitTorrent. The commission, at the time headed by Republican Kevin Martin, based its order on a set of net neutrality principles adopted in 2005.
But Comcast argued that the FCC order was illegal because the agency was seeking to enforce mere policy principles, which don't have the force of regulations or law. That's one reason that Genachowski is now trying to formalize those rules.
The cable company had also argued the FCC lacks authority to mandate net neutrality because it had deregulated broadband under the Bush administration, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005.
The Washington Times 7:02 p.m., Thursday, December 2, 2010
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to add the Internet to its portfolio of regulated industries. The agency's chairman, Julius Genachowski, announced Wednesday that he circulated draft rules he says will "preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet." No statement could better reflect the gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of Obama administration policies.
With a straight face, Mr. Genachowski suggested that government red tape will increase the "freedom" of online services that have flourished because bureaucratic busybodies have been blocked from tinkering with the Web. Ordinarily, it would be appropriate at this point to supply an example from the proposed regulations illustrating the problem. Mr. Genachowski's draft document has over 550 footnotes and is stamped "non-public, for internal use only" to ensure nobody outside the agency sees it until the rules are approved in a scheduled Dec. 21 vote. So much for "openness."
Who is Free Press? Free Press was founded by (avowed Marxist) Robert McChesney, Josh Silver and John Nichols. While their website touts that they are a non-partisan, non-profit organization working to REFORM the media, that is just the beginning of the lies of "Free Press." While you are looking into this organization, take some time to also check out Public Knowledge.
The following video is from Glenn Beck's show on 12/09/10. THE REVOLUTION IS NOW." The videos that Glenn has dug up on Robert McChesney, Van Jones and Josh Silver should SEND SHIVERS DOWN YOUR SPINES!
The chatter on the far left now is very disturbing. We have Al (Tawana Brawley) Sharpton calling for Rush Limbaugh to be forced off the air for his "racist" show. Attacks on Glenn Beck like nothing ever seen in the history of television and radio and attacks on Sean Hannityand any other speaking the truth.
The FCC Chairman and 2 of his far left commissioners are declaring that "government control may be the answer to ensure that American citizens have access to news and information" and "every nappy headed child deserves free internet because it's a civil right."
FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn Free Internet a Civil Right for Every Nappy-Headed Child
Glenn Beck Part 1 of 4
Part 2 of 4
Part 3 of 4
Part 4 of 4
Free Press is an Anti-capitalist organization looking for another free hand out by us, the taxpayers. They want the airwaves redistributed in the name of "media justice" and they want any voice of dissent against the left that is speaking the truth to be SILENCED.
Do your own research on any of these participants as I could take days to post all of the propaganda they've been spewing.
Notice what their logo says, "reform media, transform democracy." They want to "fundamentally transform" media using the government and the tax payer to fund this transformation. They have no regard for the companies that have spent billions developing the infrastructure to deliver, phones, internet, cable and mobile phones.
"Allowing Comcast to merge with NBC would be yet another giveaway to industry titans at the public's expense," said Free Press President and CEO Josh Silver, who testified at an FCC hearing in Chicago, on July 13, 2010. "Once people understand the size and scope of the deal, people overwhelmingly oppose it," Silver said.
The following 2 video are some I decided to post so you can see the propaganda and fear they are using to gain support and momentum from the far left and anti-capitalist, anti-American base. Notice at the end of the 2nd video, one of the sponsors is Center For Media Justice and another is Main Street Project which just happens to be funded by George Soros and the Open Society.
12/02/10
On Thursday, Aug. 19, FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn will be in Minneapolis to hear from you about the future of the Internet -- and whether you want corporations like Google and Verizon to grab control of the Internet and shut down the most democratizing platform we've seen in generations.
The event, co-hosted by Free Press, Main Street Project and the Center for Media Justice, is free and will include comments from the public.
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Audio: FCC's Diversity Czar: 'White People' Need to be Forced to 'Step Down' 'So Someone Else Can Have Power'
Mark Lloyd is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'s Chief Diversity Officer, a.k.a. the Diversity Czar. And he has in a recently discovered bit of archive audio goodness detailed his rather disturbing perspective on race, power and the American system. (Audio located below, courtesy of Breitbart.tv and Naked Emperor News) This is of course in addition to Lloyd's rather disturbing perspective on the First Amendment.
"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.
"[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."
And Lloyd's rather disturbing perspective on Venezuelan Communist dictator Hugo Chavez's "incredible...democratic revolution." To go with Lloyd's bizarre admiration for the thuggishly fascistic manner in which "Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country."
We have said repeatedly that Lloyd is a man myopically focused on race. What is revealed here is more than just that. Listening to excerpts of his offerings at a May 2005 Conference on Media Reform: Racial Justice reveals a man that finds great fault with our nation's power structure - as he defines and sees it. And in his racially-warped, finite pie worldview, too many white people sit alone in the too few spots atop the heap. They're "good white people," mind you, but ...
This... there's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem. We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.
Thirty senators have signed a letter making it clear that should the Federal Communications Commission implement "net neutrality" regulations during its December 21st meeting, the GOP will force a confrontation on the Senate floor over the rules. Doing so would provide insight into how Republicans, as a minority in the Senate, leverage its control over the House of Representatives to hamstring attempts by the executive branch to rule by regulatory fiat. The letter questions the ability of the FCC to impose the regulations:
You and the Commission's general counsel have admitted in published statements that the legal justification for imposing these new regulations is questionable and "has a serious risk of failure in court." It is very clear that Congress has not granted the Commission the specific statutory authority to do what you are proposing. Whether and how the Internet should be regulated is something that America's elected representatives in Congress, not the Commission, should determine.
The letter is signed by Sens. John Ensign, R-Nev., Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, John McCain, R-Ariz., Kit Bond, R-Mo., Judd Gregg, R-N.H., Michael Enzi, R-Wyo., Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Jim DeMint, R-S.C., James Risch, R-Idaho, Mike Johanns, R-Neb., John Thune, R-S.D., Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., Roger Wicker, R-Miss., Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Robert Bennett, R-Utah, John Barrasso, R-Wyo., Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., John Cornyn, R-Texas, David Vitter, R-La., Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., Jim Bunning, R-Ky., Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Me., signed a separate letter also opposing the FCC ruling.
You should have enough here to understand just how dangerous FCC Commissioner Michael J Copps is as well as FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.
The current adminstration is of the opinion that "we the people" are too stupid to be able to decide what type of news we want and are working to impose government control of the internet, radio, television and newspapers.
I would suggest you contact your Senators and Congressman and well as the FCC and tell them to keep their hands off these media outlets. We don't want the government deciding for us who we can listen to, what we can read and what television we need to watch.
"This blog or any content... on my facebook site may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit. This blog does not always agree with certain personal views of the published authors, but I will overlook such views many times in order to gain knowledge from the more important subject matter of the article/op-ed."
