A publicity stunt by Sylvia & Terry Jones why they burned a Koran recently …

Terry & Sylvia Jones do a publicity stunt when burned a Koran recently says one chruch member. Looks like it all revolved aorund the needs and wants of Terry and Sylvia Jones per what can be known so far …

Share

What is known about the background of Terry Jones — who burned a Koran in Florida recently and, as a result, a bunch of people died?

One member of the church says things changed slowly over time after Sylvia and Terry came to lead the church in 2001 … That same member thinks the burning was done as a publicity stunt…
—————————-

Unpaidwork
“Correct me if im wrong, but isn’t doing unpaid volunteer work for one’s church synonymous with doing good for the community (i.e. helping care for a place of worship for fellow believers )?

– April 04, 2011
A.Shane Butcher :
“That is correct, however, the only people that benefited were the pastors. The thrift store did have free lunches, which was made from food acquired from the local food bank, and you could get free clothes and cheap household items that were donated… I don’t have real problem with any of that. But there was the Ebay furniture business where me and many people work unpaid 60+ hrs a week with a goal of making $15,000+ a week minimum that was about 90% profit other than some of that money going towards the church mortgage.

The rest went to the pastors for their condo in Treasure Island FL, their expensive house in Slydell Mississippi, and flying first class where ever they went, which included dozens of trips between FL and Germany.
___________________________

Can anyone out there cite current 2011 instances where Christians or Jews are killing or harming persons of another religious belief? It’s fairly easy to find instances of other religions killing or harming Christians and Jews.

So when Islam religious leaders say that their holy book is MORE holy than the Bible does that somehow justify killing people? Nope. written by DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

Share

Vouchers of $16 K for each disabled person served under Lanterman?

DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

A woman recently wrote poignantly, Put my disabled son on Death’s Row in San Quintin and he will get three square meals, medical care and perhaps even a room with a view… The woman wrote in response to the proposed $568.6 million cut in money allocated for the 246,000 disabled in California served under the Lanterman Act.

The woman’s feelings are understandable given that it costs taxpayers $50 to 70 K per inmate in CA prison compared to the cost to care for each disabled person. Run the math ($4 billion in CA budget allocated last year divided by 246,000 disabled persons equals $16,260 spent per disabled person).

Maybe it’s time to put the family of each disabled person served by CA regional centers in the driver’s seat. Why not have vouchers that follow each disabled person — akin to school vouchers — that give families choice? That way people will become knowledgeable as what things cost and more empowered by making the choices they think best.

How vendors are selected and the amount they are paid has been of concern to the legislature in California. The government wants more transparency. Put the disabled person’s family in the driver’s seat so they know how much money there is to spend and there will be a huge increase in people’s knowledge about the costs of medical care. This will increase transparency in government.

What people have to pay for out of pocket they will watch closely.

Why not reduce the CA budget by 568.6 million and put in place a voucher program? Each disabled individual could receive a voucher $16, 260.

Today, 4-4-2011 Rush Linbaugh asked a UAW worker who called in what his beef was. The UAW worker said that his co-pay has gone up to $35 and prescriptions up also. Asked by Linbaugh what does it cost to go to his doctor the UAW worker did not know.

Then Linbaugh made his point — that the UAW worker has no clue what it actually costs to go to the doctor. During the break Linbaugh looked it up and then said that the average real cost to go to a physician is $400.

Then Linbaugh asked the UAW worker, if you had to pay the $400 out of your own pocket you would know how much, right? Yes, said the UAW worker.

The article by the woman concerned about the cuts in money for the disabled is below:

“I’m beginning to hope my son will be sent to prison – perhaps Death Row.

“Rob stands accused of no crime. And I am not an unloving mother. Let me explain: Rob has a developmental disability, and California is balancing its budget by gutting the services that keep him alive.

The situation is dire enough that I must wonder: Once Rob’s services are cut, will Death Is Death Row be a safer place for him?

I know that every program is getting cut. But the single largest budget cut

just signed into law by the governor – $568.6 million – is for services for people with developmental disabilities.For Rob, and 246,000 other Californians like him, that money went to get him to medical appointments, to manage his finances and – hopefully – to have someone look out for his safety after his father and I are no longer alive.

It is shameful that the most vulnerable citizens are receiving the largest share of the pain. Rob was born 31 years ago, legally blind, with cerebral palsy and intellectual disabilities. Today he is healthy, employed, living with a roommate and paying his taxes. The essential programs that made this possible are supposedly guaranteed by legislation signed by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1969, the Lanterman Act. The law directs the state to provide people with disabilities like autism and Down syndrome with access to housing, health care and employment. For people with developmental disabilities, the Lanterman Act was equivalent to the Bill of Rights, except more important. Without its practical support, many could not survive outside of grim old-fashioned state institutions (which were vastly more expensive – and now mostly have closed).

It’s a particularly bitter irony that I could even consider prison – a far worse institution – as a potential safe haven. But the math is simple. That $568.6 million cut is approximately 20 percent of state funding for services for people with developmental disabilities. This comes after years of smaller cuts – plus cuts to other services they depend on, like Medi-Cal. The safety net was dismantled years ago. Now we are taking down the tightrope itself.

Meanwhile, prisons – protected by a court order – face only a 1 percent cut. Rob’s services are protected only by the Legislature and governor. What have our state’s leaders done for him lately?

In recent years, Rob lost his dental coverage, his physical therapy and his vision care – despite his difficulty walking and seeing. Now the state sees room for another half billion dollars in cuts. That’s why Death Row – with its steady funding and a decade of room and board – is looking better and better. (San Quentin State Prison even offers views of San Francisco Bay and is set to receive a new $356 million facility.)

So, how can you help? Contact the governor and protest the cuts to services for people with developmental disabilities. If that fails, then consider framing one of them for a capital offense. You’ll be guaranteeing them health care and three meals a day for 10 years or more – and possibly a room with a view.
————————————————

Here’s some information about the Regional Centers:
Silva Says…An Update On The 67th March, 2011 | Issue 52
Assemblyman Silva Introduces Regional Center Records Act
Assemblyman Jim Silva (R – Huntington Beach) introduced AB 862, the Regional Center Records Act. This measure will bring transparency to a major taxpayer-funded program in California.

“Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent. Parents, vendors and the centers themselves will benefit from increased transparency,” Silva said.

Since the passage of the Lanterman Act in 1969, the 21 Regional Centers have been the conduit to provide services to the developmentally disabled. While they have done great things in accomplishing this mission, recent investigative reports have given cause for concern. A report by the California State Auditor has raised serious questions about how the regional centers choose and pay vendors for the services they provide as well as capital projects and administrative services. The state auditor has suggested that a more uniform, transparent process would improve the cost effectiveness of this program.

“We are proud to be the sponsor of this Act. Regional centers are vital to the community but they need to be more forthcoming with their information,” said Boyd Bradshaw, president of the ResCoalition, a coalition of residential care providers.

California appropriated over $4 billion in last year’s budget to provide for the developmentally disabled. AB 862 will require the 21 Regional Centers to make several important points of data available to the public to include fiscal and administrative information. It can be heard in its first committee as soon as 30 days from introduction.

Share

American Islamic Leadership Coalition views strongly differ from Dr. Wafa Sultan author of A God Who Hates

Could someone like Dr. Wafa Sultan (who wrote A God Who Hates) join a moderate American Muslim organization? Would she join such an organization?

Share

MEDIA CONTACTS Gregg Edgar for American Islamic Leadership Coalition
gedgar@gcjpr.com
602-690-7977

written by DrCameornJackson@gmail.com
Dr. Jasser outlines how young Muslim men via education from their mosques come to accept “a separatist ideology”. Did that same process occur in Saudi Arabia which lead to the 9/11 attacks on America? Fifteen of the nineteen Islamic terrorists in 9/11 were from one country — Saudi Arabia. So it should be relatively easy to examine Saudi Arabia’s history to see whether the same kinds of changes in society that occurred there are related to similar changes in America.

How do “moderate” Muslims that oppose sharia law come to terms with what Dr. Wafa Sultan discusses in A God Who Hates? Her name is not on the list of the American Islamic Leadership Coalition. Have they asked her to join? Could she, in good conscience, join? What say you?
———————————-
American Islamic Leadership Coalition represents true diversity of American Muslims: American Muslim leaders come together to defend the US Constitution and protect national security

Washington, DC (March 29, 2011) – The American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC) publically announces its official national launch as a diverse coalition of American Muslim leaders. The coalition was officially formed in September 2010 and in just the past few weeks has garnered the support of a growing number of known Muslim leaders in North America. AILC has now gained critical mass and is stepping into the public arena in order to proclaim our support for the March 10, 2011 Hearings on “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community’s Response”. Our coalition’s mission statement reads:

As American Muslim leaders, we come together to defend the US Constitution, uphold religious pluralism, protect American security and cherish genuine diversity in the practice of our faith.

AILC is foundationally dedicated to protecting the principles of liberty and freedom for every American citizen and especially for the diverse voices within American Muslim communities. Its leadership seeks to bring the ideas of modernity, reform, diversity, and genuine pluralism to Muslims across North America. AILC is a broad coalition of diverse American Muslim leaders and organizations who strongly identify with the AILC’s core mission and principles. They come together in recognition of the need to demonstrate to America’s thought leaders the deep diversity which defines American Muslims and Islam in America.

M. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a member of the coalition stated, “AILC is entering the national stage to give American Muslims and non-Muslims a much needed alternative to the existing organizations like CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, ICNA, and MAS which claim to speak for all American Muslims but do not represent many alternative points of view. Muslims are a diverse community and the majority of American Muslims do not tow the Islamist line of the Muslim Brotherhood legacy groups.”
To that end, AILC supports the efforts of Congressman Peter King as a catalyst for a Muslim-led open dialogue on the growing problem of radicalization within Muslim communities. The coalition believes that the hearings created a new opportunity for Muslims to redefine the fight against radicalization as a fight for the liberty narrative and against the anti- American Islamist narrative. Our national focus upon radicalization as a ‘crime problem’ has paralyzed us into a myopic political correctness that has prevented us from dealing with the far more important steps long before that last step of violent extremism. AILC stands behind the principle that Muslim communities need to have an open discussion on the issue and hope it will drive the reform necessary to finally defeat the root of radicalization, a separatist ideology that creates and breeds radicalization.

“AILC hopes that the King hearings were just the first effort at real open dialogue on the issue of Muslim radicalization,” said Manda Ervin, President of the Alliance for Iranian Women. “Muslim communities need to come together to solve the problem, but we need the platform that these hearings provided to begin those discussions. The current alphabet soup of Muslim organizations has not given us that leadership.”

In fact in contrast to AILC’s support for dialogue, CAIR announced a social media campaign to silence Congressman Peter King called “Pete King must be Stopped.” Instead of open and honest discourse about the issues CAIR prefers to focus its energies on perpetuating a myth of victimology for American Muslims. This continued lack of leadership in solving Muslim radicalization has created a vacuum that AILC hopes to fill.

AILC was created by American Muslim leaders after being brought together with the help of members of the Congressional anti-terror caucus. The coalition held its first formal meeting in Washington, DC on Capitol Hill on September 26, 2010. Since its formative meeting the AILC has initiated regular national conference calls with its member organizations and leaders and continues to add members, leaders, and organizations. Today they also announced the rollout of their website at www.americanislamicleadership.org. Members of the coalition are listed there with their titles, organizations and work.
“AILC presents Muslims an opportunity to reclaim ownership for solving our own problems,” Tarek Fatah, Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC). “Our coalition will come together to offer an alternative voice to the Islamist groups that have so far dominated the American and Canadian discourse on Islam and Muslims. We hope Americans will begin to finally realize that we are a diverse community with a broad spectrum of approaches to Islam and being Muslim in America.”

About the American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC)

The American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC) is a diverse coalition of liberty-minded, North American Muslim leaders and organizations. AILC’s mission advocates for defending the US Constitution, upholding religious pluralism, protecting American security and embracing the diversity in the faith of Islam. AILC provides a stark alternative to the Islamist organizations that claim to speak for what are diverse American Muslim communities. For more information on AILC, please visit our website at http://www.americanislamicleadership.org/.

AILC Coalition Members

Golam Akhter, Bangladesh-USA Human Rights Coalition Inc, Washington, DC

Khurshed Chowdhury, Ph.D., Silver Springs, MD

Manda Zand Ervin, Alliance of Iranian Women, Washington, DC

Tarek Fatah, Muslim Canadian Congress, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Farid N. Ghadry, Reform Party of Syria, Washington, DC

Tawfik Hamid, Islamic Reformer, Washington DC

Jamal Hasan, Council for Democracy and Tolerance, Baltimore, MD

Farzana Hassan, Ed.D., Toronto, Ontario, Canada

M. Zuhdi Jasser, American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Phoenix, AZ

Hasan Mahmud, President Toronto Chapter Free Muslims Coalition

Kamal Nawash, Free Muslims Coalition

The book A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam was written by Wafa Sultan, a Syrian-American ex-Muslim. Breaking with Islam takes tremendous courage, as the traditional death penalty for leaving Islam is still upheld today. The only good byproduct of Muslim immigration to the West is that it has allowed a handful of such former Muslims to publish their thoughts about leaving Islam. One of these titles is Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out, edited by Ibn Warraq. Another is Understanding Muhammad by the Iranian ex-Muslim Ali Sina, the founder of Faith Freedom International. I have reviewed his book at Jihad Watch previously.
In her writing, Wafa Sultan draws extensively on her own personal experiences as well as those of friends and others in her society, especially the women, who suffer from an appalling level of brutality and repression. She manages in a very convincing manner to tie many of these problems directly to Islamic teachings, all the way back to Muhammad, his wives and companions. Far from representing a “perversion” of Islam, she shows us that the repression and violence that is endemic in Islamic societies represent the true essence of Islam.

In sharp contrast to the self-proclaimed “reformist” Irshad Manji, whose knowledge of Islamic doctrines is quite limited, Sultan shows us how Islam was born in the Arabian desert and is still shaped by this 1400 years later. The raids Muhammad and his companions carried out in his lifetime – which amounted to at least twenty-seven if you believe Islamic sources – occupy a major part of his biography. They were intended to acquire booty, but also to inflict physical and mental harm upon rival tribes in order to deprive them of their ability to resist.

Wafa Sultan, page 66: “For me, understanding the truth about the thought and behavior of Muslims can only be achieved through an in-depth understanding of this philosophy of raiding that has rooted itself firmly in the Muslim mind. Bedouins feared raiding on the one hand, and relied on it as a means of livelihood on the other. Then Islam came along and canonized it. Muslims in the twenty-first century still fear they may be raided by others and live every second of their lives preparing to raid someone else. The philosophy of raiding rules their lives, the way they behave, their relationships, and their decisions. When I immigrated to America I discovered right away that the local inhabitants were not proficient in raiding while the expatriate Muslims could not give it up.”

On the Islamic “culture of shouting and raiding,” she states on page 69: “My experience has been that two Muslims cannot talk together without their conversation turning into shouts within minutes, especially when they disagree with each other, and no good can come of that. When you talk to a Muslim, rationally, in a low calm voice, he has trouble understanding your point of view. He thinks you have lost the argument. A Muslim conversing with anyone else – Muslim or non-Muslim – cannot remember a single word the other person has said, any more than my mother could remember a single word of what the preacher in our local mosque said.”

A master-and-slave mentality dominates Arab-Islamic society, both in public and in private. A person can often be a master in one relationship and a slave in another, simultaneously.

Page 158: “When you speak calmly to a Muslim, he perceives you as being weak. The American saying ‘speak softly and carry a big stick,’ is, unfortunately, of no use when dealing with Muslims. It would be more appropriate to say (until we can change this way of thinking), ‘speak forcefully and carry a big stick’; otherwise you will be the weaker party and the loser. Democracy cannot spread in societies like these until the people who live in them have been reeducated, for they cannot function unless they are playing the role of the master or the slave.”

A deep structural flaw in Islamic culture is that nobody wants to take responsibility for his own shortcomings or mistakes, which are always blamed on somebody else or on God’s will. There is no clear distinction between truth and lie, between yes and no. Things happen or don’t happen inshallah (Allah willing), not because you take personal responsibility for them.

Page 215: “Never in my life have I heard or read of a Muslim man’s expressing feelings of guilt about something he has done, even in fiction. People feel guilty only when they feel a sense of responsibility and acknowledge that they have made a mistake. But Muslims are infallible: The mere fact that they are Muslim makes their every error pardonable. A man’s adherence to Islam is defined not by his actions and responsibilities, but only by the profession of faith he recites: ‘I testify that there is no god but God, and that Muhammad is the messenger of God.’ As long as he continues to repeat this profession of faith he will continue to be a Muslim, and no crime he may commit against others can diminish this. Saddam Hussein was one of the great tyrants of history, but most Sunni Muslims consider him a martyr. At his funeral they chanted: ‘To paradise, oh beloved of God.’”

Islam constitutes an extremely and arguably uniquely repressive belief system. Already in the first days of Islam, Muhammad linked obedience to himself with obedience to God.

A God Who Hates, page 159: “Muhammad understood that the ruler was the link between himself and the populace, and so concentrated on the need to obey the ruler, saying in a hadith: ‘Whosoever obeys me obeys God, and he who obeys my emir obeys me. Whosoever disobeys me disobeys God, and he who disobeys my emir disobeys me.’ In confirmation of this, a verse rolled down from the mountaintop, as follows: ‘Obey Allah and the Apostle and those in authority among you’ (4:59). ‘Those in authority among you’ means, according to works of Koranic exegesis, ‘your rulers.’ In order to ensure that Muslims would obey their rulers implicitly and without reservation, Muhammad told them in a hadith: ‘Obey your emir even if he flogs you and takes your property.’ Fearing that some Muslims would rebel against such unquestioning obedience, he justified it by saying in another hadith: ‘If a ruler passes judgment after profound consideration and his decision is the right one, he is rewarded twice. If he passes judgment after profound consideration and his decision turns out to be the wrong one, he receives a single recompense.’”

Page 160-161: “Never in the history of Islam has a Muslim cleric protested against the actions of a Muslim ruler, because of the total belief that obedience to the ruler is an extension of obedience toward God and his Prophet. There is only one exception to this: A Muslim cleric of one denomination may protest against the actions of a ruler who belongs to a different one. How can a Muslim escape the grasp of his ruler when he is completely convinced of the necessity of obeying him? How can he protest against this obedience, which represents obedience to his Prophet and therefore also to his God? He cannot. Islam is indeed a despotic regime. It has been so since its inception, and remains so today. Is there a relationship more representative of the ugliest forms of slavery than that between a ruler and a populace whom he flogs and whose money he steals while they themselves have no right to protest against this behavior? The ruler acts by divine decree, and the people obey him by divine decree.”

Islam is totalitarian to such an extent that it is difficult to comprehend for outsiders. Critics often compare it to totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism and Communism from the Western world, which is apt in many ways. Yet Islam is even more totalitarian than those creeds. Even the Nazis and the Communists didn’t ban wine and beer, all works of pictorial art, sculptures and most types of music. I can think of other religious denominations and groups who restrict the use of alcohol, but I cannot think of any other religious creed on this planet that bans wine, pictorial art and most forms of music at the same time. Islam is unique in this regard.

I have developed a beer hypothesis of civilization, which stipulates that any society that does not enjoy beer and wine cannot produce good science. I say this 80% as a joke and 20% seriously. The Middle East before Islam produced some scientific advances at a time when the ancient civilizations were great consumers of beer and wine. The Middle East after Islam did, for a while, produce a few scholars of medium rank, but these contributions steadily declined until they almost disappeared. This time period overlaps with the period when there were still sizeable non-Muslim communities and by extension sizeable production and consumption of wine in this area. The medieval Persian scholar Omar Khayyam was a good mathematician, but a bad Muslim who loved wine. The Ottoman Turks largely chased away what remained of wine culture in that region. Incidentally, the Turks also contributed next to nothing to science.

The one possible objection I can see to the consumption of beer and wine is that some men become alcoholics who proceed to beat their wives, and some women beat or abuse their children when they drink. This is unfortunately true sometimes and constitutes an issue that should not be ignored. Yet Islamic societies suffer from an extreme level of child abuse, domestic violence and general violence of all kinds, which means that the one really serious objection to alcoholic beverages carries no meaning there. The Koran 4:34 says quite explicitly that men are allowed to beat their women. They don’t need to get drunk to do so.

A God Who Hates is easy to read, but at the same time deeply disturbing and packed with examples from everyday life of how Islamic doctrines ruin the lives of millions of people. Wafa Sultan’s book provides us with an insightful, but unpleasant look into a culture that damages the soul of its inhabitants. It paints a portrait of a society where women are mistreated daily and barely seen as human. They will in turn project their own traumas on their sons, daughters and daughters-in-law, creating an endless cycle of mental and physical abuse. It is very hard to see how this vicious cycle can be broken without repudiating Islam.

Share

The Heritage Foundation, a research & educational think tank promotes free enterprise, limited govt, individual freedom…

Take a look at The Heritage Foundation. It’s staff produces timely accurate research addressing key policy issues. It’s got about 750,000 members and welcomes you as a member. Membership starts at $25.

Share

Senators McCain, Lieberman & Graham have no idea what they are doing re Lybia says Firenze Sage

Senators McCain, Lieberman and Graham sink America in another war in the middle east. Obama incompetent. McCain, Lieberman and Graham have no idea what they are doing. Idiots!

Share

comments from Firenze Sage on article: The Senators Sway
from National Review Online by Andrew L. McCartney April 2, 2011


Do these idiots — Senators McCain, Lieberman and Graham — have any idea of what they are doing?


Obama is astoundingly incompetent.
Who did we ditch Mubarack for? How about another Islamic state. Who are the Libyan rebels? Islamic al Queda. Hillary thinks the Saville suited barbarian running Syria is “a reformer”. Yemen is going fast. And on it goes while Obama is thinking of his next Cairo speech.

article from National Review Online titled: The Senators Sway

Before they wanted to kill Qaddafi, they were celebrating in his tent.John McCain, Joseph Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham are the Senate’s most energetic proponents of sinking the nation ever deeper into the Libyan morass.

In a joint interview on Fox last weekend, Senators McCain (R., Ariz.) and Lieberman (I., Conn.) were breathless in their rendering of the “freedom fighters” and the “Arab Spring” of spontaneous “democracy.” Friday they upped the ante with a Wall Street Journal op-ed, rehearsing yet again what an incorrigible thug Qaddafi is and how “we cannot allow [him] to consolidate his grip” on parts of Libya that he still controls.

For his part, Senator Graham (R., S.C.) told CNN Wednesday that he would like President Obama to designate Qaddafi an “unlawful enemy combatant” with an eye toward legitimizing the strongman’s assassination. He and Wolf Blitzer discussed whether the hit could be pulled off by the covert intelligence operatives President Obama has inserted in Libya. The next day, in his plaintive questioning of Defense Secretary Robert Gates at a Senate hearing, Senator Graham wondered why American air power could not just “drop a bomb on him, to end this thing.”

As a matter of law, Graham’s proposal is ludicrous — no small thanks to federal law that Graham himself helped write, about which more in an upcoming column. What was especially striking about the hearing was the tone of righteous indignation Senators Graham and McCain took in whipping the Obama administration over government blundering.

But what about their own blundering? The senators most strident about the purported need to oust Qaddafi, to crush his armed forces, and to kill him if that’s what it takes to empower the rebels, are the very senators who helped fortify Qaddafi’s military and tighten the despotic grip of which they now despair.

It was only a short time ago, in mid-August 2009, that Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Graham, along with another transnational progressive moderate, Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine), paid a visit to Qaddafi’s Tripoli compound. If they seem to have amnesia about it now, perhaps that’s because the main item on the agenda was their support for the Obama administration’s offer of military aid to the same thug the senators now want gone yesterday.

A government cable (leaked by Wikileaks) memorializes the excruciating details of meetings between the Senate delegation and Qaddafi, along with his son Mutassim, Libya’s “national security adviser.” We find McCain and Graham promising to use their influence to push along Libya’s requests for C-130 military aircraft, among other armaments, and civilian nuclear assistance. And there’s Lieberman gushing, “We never would have guessed ten years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by a son of Muammar al-Qadhafi.” That’s before he opined that Libya had become “an important ally in the war on terrorism,” and that “common enemies sometimes make better friends.”

On and on it goes, made all the more nauseating by the reality that nobody was under any illusion that Qaddafi had truly reformed. McCain made a point of telling the press that “the status of human rights and political reform in Libya will remain a chief element of concern.” Note the gentle diplomatic understatement: Qaddafi is — and was, as McCain well knew — a savage autocrat. Yet this brute fact was softened into “an element of concern” regarding “the status of human rights and political reform.” Pretty sharp contrast from the senator’s sardonic grilling of the U.S. defense secretary on Thursday. The McCain who was face-to-face with Qaddafi was very different from the McCain who today rails about Qaddafi. Back in the tent, none of his concern would dampen the cozy mood. The Arizonan swooned over “the many ways in which the United States and Libya can work together as partners.”

The above article is from the National Review Online by Andrew C. McCartney titled The Seantors Sway. Comments on the article are by the Firenze Sage.

Share

Perhaps Tea Party Patriots hamstrung from robust politcal speech because its a 501c3 charity?

Why give money to a 501c4 charity such as the Tea Party Patriots if they cannot engage in “robust” political speech such as telling President Obama to leave the oval office ASAP and go back to doing a job for which he has competence — not politics, not as President, not as a lawyer, not teaching constitutional law.

Share

Nationally, the Tea Party Patriots is organized a a 501c4 charitable organization. Which means (??) certain regulations apply as to what political activity the Tea Party Patriots can engage in. For sure, taking educating the publicc as to the deficit and taking a stand for reduction of the federal deficit should be OK activities. However — as a 501c3 organized as a charitable organization — The Tea Party Patriots cannot have a bias for or against any individual political campaign. That means the Tea Party Patriots cannot oppose Obama’s 2012 campaign.

So as not to run into the IRE of the IRS, perhaps it’s best that 2-3 families on every block in America organize their individual Block Tea Parties — without any formal mechanism.

Political speech is one of the most protected forms of speech. But, probably political speech — for example, that ObamaCare as preached by President Obama is about as transparent as the Obama and Pelosi are (“we must vote for it so we know what’s in it) is political speech that a 501c3 cannot engage in.

So, is it smart to give money to the Tea Party Patriots when they cannot fully engage in “robust” political speech? Like, telling President Obama, get out of the Oval office and go back to doing whatever you can do for a job! Below are some contact numbers for the Tea Party Patriots. Maybe they have other ideas how to do robust speech against President Obama himself. Remember Rush Limbaugh when he said, “I hope he fails!” Yes I want the Tea Parties activists to say something like that.

Your Tea Party Patriots National Coordinator Team,
Debbie Dooley, Jenny Beth Martin, Mark Meckler, Sally Oljar, Diana Reimer, and Dawn Wildman

TPP Support email: support@teapartypatriots.org
TPP Support phone number: 404-593-0877

Jenny Beth Martin (jennybethm@gmail.com, Twitter @jennybethm, Facebook)
Dawn Wildman (dmwlaw1@cox.net)
Mark Meckler (mark@teapartypatriots.org)
Debbie Dooley (debbie0040@yahoo.com)

Tea Party Patriots, Inc. operates as a social welfare organization organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions to Tea Party Patriots, Inc. are not deductible as charitable contributions for income tax purposes.
1025 Rose Creek Dr, 620-322, Woodstock, GA 30189

Home

For America’s Future

Tea Party Sunshine

Join us in shining a light on our governments from the federal to the local level, sunshine is the best way to ensure transparency and accountability.

American Policy Summit

If you missed the 1st Annual American Policy Summit, you can see what you missed here.
Quick Links
TeaPartyPatriots.org
Donate
TPP Store
Find A TPP Group
Health Care Compacts

Thanks for Your Support

Share

Given a choice, teachers will opt out of paying union dues http://freedomOK.net

Where teachers have been given choice to not pay union dues they opt out in huge numbers.

“Three weeks ago, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill restricting the power of public-employee unions and increasing what their members pay for health and pension benefits. But the law hasn’t yet taken effect—and its opponents have found a judge to issue a highly questionable ruling threatening sanctions against any official who implements it. It seems “Wisconsin Nice” is now gone with the wind.

It began in February, when 14 Democratic senators left the state in order to avoid giving Republicans the quorum they needed to pass Mr. Walker’s bill. Unions bused in thousands of members and supporters to protest it. Death threats were made against several legislators (on Thursday, felony charges were filed against one woman for allegedly emailing legislators about plans for “putting a nice little bullet in your head.”)

After four weeks, Republicans finally passed the bill after amending it so it required a smaller quorum. The Democratic senators returned, but promptly backed a blizzard of lawsuits to block the bill from taking effect.

They found an ally in Judge Maryann Sumi of Dane County. She issued a restraining order against publication of the law, arguing that it was likely that plaintiffs would prove it was passed without the required notice in the state’s Open Meetings Law. On Thursday, she followed up with an order declaring the law “not in effect.”

Legal analysts say it’s preposterous for a judge to enjoin publication of a law before it has even taken effect, as citizens don’t have standing to challenge a law until they are subject to it. In a similar case in 1943, the state’s Supreme Court ruled that a judge had no such authority. In 1977, another state Supreme Court opinion reiterated that under separation of powers “no court has jurisdiction to enjoin the legislative process at any point.” Rick Esenberg, an assistant professor of law at Marquette University, says he is “speechless” over the fact that Judge Sumi “has failed to articulate why she has the authority” to issue her ruling.

View Full Image

Associated Press

JoAnne Kloppenburg and Justice David Prosser
.The case will ultimately be decided by the state Supreme Court. That’s why unions and liberal groups are now pouring millions into TV ads to try to oust Justice David Prosser—a member of the court’s 4-to-3 conservative majority—in an election next Tuesday.

Victory would mean a seat on the court for JoAnne Kloppenburg, an assistant state attorney general—and a court with a liberal majority that may well uphold Judge Sumi’s decision.

Liberal groups are doing all they can to politicize this judicial race. An American Federation of Teachers local has sent a letter to its members asserting that “a Kloppenburg victory would swing the balance (on the court) to our side. A vote for Prosser is a vote for [Gov.] Walker.” It is time, the letter says, “to get even.” Ms. Kloppenburg certainly isn’t discouraging such thinking. She told the Madison Capital Times that “the events of the last few weeks have put into sharp relief how important the Supreme Court is as a check on overreach in the other branches of government.”

Why are the unions and their liberal allies so desperate to block Mr. Walker’s reforms? It’s all about the money. Unions can’t abide the loss of political clout that will result from ending the state’s practice of automatically deducting union dues from employee paychecks. For most Wisconsin public employees, union dues total between $700 and $1,000 a year, much of which is funneled into political spending to elect the officials who negotiate their contracts.

Union officials recognize what can happen if dues payments become voluntary. Robert Chanin, who was general counsel of the National Education Association from 1968 to 2009, said in a U.S. District Court oral argument in 1978 that “it is well-recognized that if you take away the mechanism of payroll deduction, you won’t collect a penny from these people, and it has nothing to do with voluntary or involuntary. I think it has to do with the nature of the beast, and the beasts who are our teachers . . . simply don’t come up with the money regardless of the purpose.”

There is evidence to back up his fears. In 2001, Utah made the collection of payments to union political funds optional, and nearly 95% of public school teachers opted not to pay. In 2005, Indiana GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels limited collective-bargaining rights for public employees, and today only 5% of state employees pay union dues.

Some union supporters recognize the problems with coercive dues payments. Tom Geoghegan, a noted union lawyer, wrote in the Nation magazine last November that it should be “a civil right to join, or not to join, a labor union.” He said it was time to “repackage labor law reform, even over the protest of organized labor itself.” He noted that workers in countries “like Germany are free not to pay [their dues]—and many don’t.” Indeed, the U.S. is filled with powerful groups, such as the American Association of Retired Persons, that thrive on voluntary payments because they are seen as providing genuine services to members.

Even Ms. Kloppenburg, the favored candidate of unions, doesn’t like paying mandatory dues. In 2009, she responded to a survey by saying the Wisconsin Bar Association should become “voluntary.” Then it would be “better situated and motivated to be more transparent, be more accountable, be more responsive.” She went on to say that government attorneys such as herself “do not benefit as much as private attorneys from the non-reimbursed dues that we pay.”

In an interview on Friday, Gov. Walker told me that dues money and union power is “the real issue” in opposition to his reform. “After it became clear we were serious, they couldn’t wait to throw their members under the bus by saying they could live with higher contributions for health and pension benefits,” he said. “The issue they wouldn’t bend on was the power collective bargaining gives them on dues.”

Share

Obama lauds internationalism why Libya. Let’s give Obama internationalism according to Tea Party views…

Cut deficit by tieing money for Libya to 1) move Gitmo to Libyan NATO base paid for by NATO and de-fund ObamaCare (now spending $150K) and two regulatory agencies, the for ever there EPA and the newly created Consumer Protection agency.

Share

DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

Obama lauds “international support” why America must support the “no-war” effort in Libya. Let’s give Obama “internationalism” in spades using Tea Party goals.

Require that Congress tie money for Libya to: 1) Gitmo moves to a Libyan NATO base paid entirely by NATO; 2) de-fund two regulatory agencies, the newly created Consumer Protection agency and the for-ever there EPA.

Place both agencies under the authority of Agency for International Development/ Libya with goals that EPA only clean up Libyan air and water and Consumer Protection only create middle class credit mechanisms for Libya.

It is in our national interest that our democratic, pro-Western European allies get cheap electricity from Libya. And since the costs of Gitmo arise from 9/11 it is well and good that NATO pay for Gitmo. And since many of the terrorists in Gitmo are from the Middle East, it’s cheaper to house them there.

What say you?

Share

Reduce dependency on government by accurate assessment of children ages 3-21 who receive Social Security Disability benefits.

Cut the deficit and encourage self sufficiency at the same time. How? Review and thin out Social Security Disability (SSI-D) benefits to children ages 3 to 21. Too often schools classify children as “mentally retarded” or “intellectually deficient” when they are not. Too often those children end up in Special Day Class (SDC) placements all through school. SDC placements cost roughly 1/3 of the budget for Pajaro Valley Unified School District (PVUSD). Time for those not on the dole to encourage independence and reduce the costs of SSI-D.

Share

Roughly 1 in 6 persons get a check in the mail from the government. That’s a huge number of people dependent on the government. It’s time to reduce that dependency.

Lots of people think that it’s wrong to cut social security. Yes, it’s wrong to cut benefits to those who paid into SSI, have retired and who rely on social security.

How to responsibly cut the federal deficit and encourage independence? Time to trim Social Security Disability benefits (SSI-D) to children and youth ages 3-21. Let’s reduce SSI-D payments to children and youth 1) assessed inaccurately or 2) who have “out grown” their diagnosis. Children change rapidly. Assessments should be accurate and up to date.

Another way to cut government deficits is to require proof of citizenship to obtain government funded services such as the regional center services. (The regional centers serve persons with low cognitive IQ abilities, requiring treatment similar to persons with low cognitive IQ, autism, seizures and cerebral palsy.)

Some people fly in from abroad or cross our border s so that their children can receive substantial government paid regional center benefits. No proof of citizenship is required to obtain regional center services which serves about 180,000 + persons in California. In the last 10 years the percentage of Hispanic clients has increased from 23 to 28 percent and whites have dropped from 51% to 42%. About 45% of those served are age 3-21.

There are too many children labeled mentally retarded by the public schools who are not slow and who can learn to read and write. The schools wrongfully label them and wrongfully keep them in more restricted placements than they need. These placements – Special Day Class (SDS) – are extremely expensive. In the Pajaro Valley Unified School District (PVUSD) roughly one third of the costs of special education go for SDS separate classes. Children can – and routinely are — labeled by the public schools with “mental retardation” without any assessment of their cognitive IQ and functional abilities. Their school records are reviewed by SSI-Disability and – lo and behold — children are put on SSI-Disability.

Just as unions representing government workers need to be re-certified yearly and workers given a choice whether to pay dues and/or be in a union, likewise children labeled “disabled” need to be routinely re-examined by independent assessors and parents given accurate information and more choice.

Most – but not all — parents want their children to grow up to be self sufficient individuals able to contribute to society. Unfortunately, there are some parents that prefer dependency for their child and themselves and happily seek checks in the mail.

That’s why those not on the government dole must do what we can to encourage independence and reward self sufficiency.

Take a look at the budget for your local school district. What percent goes for Special Day Class (SDC) placements? Who actually checks to see that children receiving special education services are actually re-assessed with standardized tests every three years?

Parents and taxpayers can and should require a random audit of special education records for their school district. What tests placed that child in special education and what tests show that those services need to continue? If no progress in academic skills, why not?

Why not tie teacher pay increases to showing reasonable progress in academic skills for all students — including special education students. What say you?

DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

Share

WHEN to “shut down” federal govt? Spring Break/ Easter best time to give time for people to relax and think why we need LESS govt and LESS expensive govt.

Yes it’s time for a government “shut down” — though Social Security checks will be mailed and no real change occurs.

It’s time that the Republicans, tea party supporters and independents put a line in the sand and say NO MORE government spending without BIG CUTS. Let’s get serious!

WHEN to have a government shut down? How about a government shut down near Spring Break and Easter. Around the time that it’s great to go to the beach, walk in the park, spend time in the garden. Give people time to think and connect with their families, with nature, their “Higher Power”, renewal of Life, God. And of course Easter Eggs!!

Deliberately give everyone time to think about what government SHOULD do and NOT do. How much can we cut from the federal government? How much should we cut from our state and local governments? Let’s be deliberate and take time …

“Surely the Tea Party advocates will push the GOP to stay on message and stay the course. That’s what last November’s elections were all about. And if a satisfactory deal cannot be reached, one that keeps the GOP spending-cut pledge and includes a spending-limit rule with real teeth, then why not shut down the government?

“Reading through various reports from the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, you get the sense that no great harm will come from a shutdown. Social Security checks will be mailed. Other benefit payments will be met. Air-traffic controllers will do their jobs. Border protection and military operations will continue. Uniformed military personnel will be exempted. The Postal Service will do its business uninterrupted. And incoming revenues can be designated for interest payment on the debt.

Doesn’t sound that bad to me. It sure isn’t the end of the world.

Share