Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (126173)	3/12/2012 4:07:59 PM
From: tonto	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224749

The potential for more change in Obama's job approval rating going forward remains very real, particularly if gas prices continue to rise through the summer months to $5.00 per gallon or higher and when the eventual Republican presidential nominee steps up his attacks on the president.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (126173)	3/12/2012 4:12:40 PM
From: TideGlider	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224749

Why won't, Bill Maher, the spokesman for the Democrat Party apologize for his remarks?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (126173)	3/12/2012 4:13:03 PM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

59% View Obama As More Liberal Than They Are Monday, March 12, 2012 The number of voters who consider President Obama more liberal than they are has risen this month to its highest level since last October. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters now think, in political terms, that the president is more liberal than they are. That's up from 52% last month and an all-time low of 51% in December. In March 2011, a high of 61% felt the president was more liberal. Eleven percent (11%) feel the president is more conservative than they are, and 25% say his views are about the same as their own. (To see survey question wording, click here.) (Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook. The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters nationwide was conducted on March 7-8, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (126173)

3/12/2012 4:15:25 PM

From: longnshort

3 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

Anti-Occupy Protest Takes on Bird Killing Wind Turbines
3:01 PM, Mar 12, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

Alerts Hide
Get alerts when there is a new article that might interest you.

Send me alerts for:
Bill Kristol
Fred Barnes
Jay Cost

Your e-mail address:

Confirm e-mail address:

Please sign me up for The Weekly Standard weekly newsletter.

The Weekly Standard reserves the right to use your email for internal use only. Occasionally, we may send you special offers or communications from carefully selected advertisers we believe may be of benefit to our subscribers. Click the box to be included in these third party offers. We respect your privacy and will never rent or sell your email.
Please include me in third party offers.

[iframe src="http://www.google.com/recaptcha/api/noscript?k=6LeVkb8SAAAAAG-DhtmUiifl3KB83AUDkfL6Q2Qp" height="300" width="500" frameborder="0"][/iframe]

<!-- [if !IE] end title
An anti-Occupy Wall Street movement (who call themselves "Occupy Occupy D.C.") protested bird killing wind turbines today at Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C. The group gathered "to highlight the threat that wind, a celebrated alternative energy source, poses to the American bird community," according to a press release sent out by the National Center for Public Policy Research, which sponsors Occupy Occupy D.C.

The target of today's protest are environmentalists who believe wind energy is a viable substitute to other forms of energy, such as coal or nuclear energy.

The National Center for Public Policy Research "estimate[s] that wind turbines kill approximately 100,000 birds every year. The American Bird Conservancy claims the number could be triple that estimate -- affecting the songbird community most of all."

That's why the environmentalists' approach is wrong, according to today's protesters.

"If I was a bird, I'd be an angry bird right now," executive director David Almasi says in the statement announcing today's protest. "Countless innocent birds that only want to be with their eggs die every year from crashing into wind turbines. The environmentalists who promote wind energy at the expense of the birds are green pigs!"

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (126173)	3/12/2012 4:29:19 PM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

Congress failed the American people when they voted to make Elena Kagan a SC Justice. She should be removed from that position. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Derrick Bell article edited by Elena Kagan in college says the U.S. Constitution is the "original sin" elena-kagan-scotus_0So not only is Elena Kagan a conflict of interest in the ObamaCARE SCOTUS case, because she was Solicitor General for Obama while the bill was being past, but she also edited an article by Derrick Bell while at Harvard that makes clear that Critical Race Theory sees the U.S. Constitution as a form of "original sin." So not only is Kagan a conflict of interest in maybe the most important case ever to hit the Supreme Court, she is also anti-constitution that she is supposed to uphold and defend as SCOTUS judge. Great. From Breitbart: In November 1985, the Harvard Law Review published an article by Derrick Bell that was a "classic" in the development of Critical Race Theory. *The article was edited by then-student Elena Kagan,* and was cited by Prof. Charles Ogletree in support of her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama in 20*10.* The article makes clear that Critical Race Theory sees the U.S. Constitution as a form of "original sin"–a view later embraced by Obama as a state legislator, and reflected in his actions and appointments. The following is an excerpt from the non-fiction portion of the article; much of what follows is a fictional story that Bell intended as a parable of racial "fantasy." (99 Harv. L. Rev. 4)" fireandreamitchell.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (126173)	3/12/2012 6:01:15 PM
From: locogringo	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224749

BACKFIRE WASH POST poll debunks WASH POST story on women voters? Obama Fares Worse Among Women after Month-Long Contraception Mandate BattleHow's the great contraception mandate battle of 2012 playing out? If you read the Washington Post's news coverage, the issue is supposedly killing Republicans among female voters. But the newest Washington Post/ABC poll tells a different story. weeklystandard.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (126173)	3/12/2012 6:26:19 PM
From: longnshort	5 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224749

An Irish artist goes to Israel to make a film about how horrible the Israelis are, but a funny thing happens along the way: he starts to talk to Israelis. Then his troubles begin. Nicky Larkin: Israel is a refuge, but a refuge under siege Through making a film about the Israeli-Arab conflict, artist Nicky Larkin found his allegiances swaying Sunday March 11 2012 I used to hate Israel. I used to think the Left was always right. Not any more. Now I loathe Palestinian terrorists. Now I see why Israel has to be hard. Now I see the Left can be Right -- as in right-wing. So why did I change my mind so completely? Strangely, it began with my anger at Israel's incursion into Gaza in December 2008 which left over 1,200 Palestinians dead, compared to only 13 Israelis. I was so angered by this massacre I posed in the striped scarf of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation for an art show catalogue. Shortly after posing in that PLO scarf, I applied for funding from the Irish Arts Council to make a film in Israel and Palestine. I wanted to talk to these soldiers, to challenge their actions -- and challenge the Israeli citizens who supported them. I spent seven weeks in the area, dividing my time evenly between Israel and the West Bank. I started in Israel. The locals were suspicious. We were Irish -- from a country which is one of Israel's chief critics -- and we were filmmakers. We were the enemy. Then I crossed over into the West Bank. Suddenly, being Irish wasn't a problem. Provo graffiti adorned The Wall. Bethlehem was Las Vegas for Jesus-freaks -- neon crucifixes punctuated by posters of martyrs. These martyrs followed us throughout the West Bank. They watched from lamp-posts and walls wherever we went. Like Jesus in the old Sacred Heart pictures. But the more I felt the martyrs watching me, the more confused I became. After all, the Palestinian mantra was one of "non-violent resistance". It was their motto, repeated over and over like responses at a Catholic mass. Yet when I interviewed Hind Khoury, a former Palestinian government member, she sat forward angrily in her chair as she refused to condemn the actions of the suicide bombers. She was all aggression. This aggression continued in Hebron, where I witnessed swastikas on a wall. As I set up my camera, an Israeli soldier shouted down from his rooftop position. A few months previously I might have ignored him as my political enemy. But now I stopped to talk. He only talked about Taybeh, the local Palestinian beer. Back in Tel Aviv in the summer of 2011, I began to listen more closely to the Israeli side. I remember one conversation in Shenkin Street -- Tel Aviv's most fashionable quarter, a street where everybody looks as if they went to art college. I was outside a cafe interviewing a former soldier. He talked slowly about his time in Gaza. He spoke about 20 Arab teenagers filled with ecstasy tablets and sent running towards the base he'd patrolled. Each strapped with a bomb and carrying a hand-held detonator. The pills in their bloodstream meant they felt no pain. Only a headshot would take them down. Conversations like this are normal in Tel Aviv. I began to experience the sense of isolation Israelis feel. An isolation that began in the ghettos of Europe and ended in Auschwitz. Israel is a refuge -- but a refuge under siege, a refuge where rockets rain death from the skies. And as I made the effort to empathise, to look at the world through their eyes. I began a new intellectual journey. One that would not be welcome back home. The problem began when I resolved to come back with a film that showed both sides of the coin. Actually there are many more than two. Which is why my film is called Forty Shades of Grey. But only one side was wanted back in Dublin. My peers expected me to come back with an attack on Israel. No grey areas were acceptable. An Irish artist is supposed to sign boycotts, wear a PLO scarf, and remonstrate loudly about The Occupation. But it's not just artists who are supposed to hate Israel. Being anti-Israel is supposed to be part of our Irish identity, the same way we are supposed to resent the English. But hating Israel is not part of my personal national identity. Neither is hating the English. I hold an Irish passport, but nowhere upon this document does it say I am a republican, or a Palestinian. My Irish passport says I was born in 1983 in Offaly. The Northern Troubles were something Anne Doyle talked to my parents about on the nine o'clock News. I just wanted to watch Father Ted. So I was frustrated to see Provo graffiti on the wall in the West Bank. I felt the same frustration emerge when I noticed the missing 'E' in a "Free Palestin" graffiti on a wall in Cork. I am also frustrated by the anti-Israel activists' attitude to freedom of speech. Free speech must work both ways. But back in Dublin, whenever I speak up for Israel, the Fiachras and Fionas look at me aghast, as if I'd pissed on their paninis. This one-way freedom of speech spurs false information. The Boycott Israel brigade is a prime example. They pressurised Irish supermarkets to remove all Israeli produce from their shelves -- a move that directly affected the Palestinian farmers who produce most of their fruit and vegetables under the Israeli brand. But worst of all, this boycott mentality is affecting artists. In August 2010, the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign got 216 Irish artists to sign a pledge undertaking to boycott the Israeli state. As an artist I have friends on this list -- or at least I had. I would like to challenge my friends about their support for this boycott. What do these armchair sermonisers know about Israel? Could they name three Israeli cities, or the main Israeli industries? But I have more important questions for Irish artists. What happened to the notion of the artist as a free thinking individual? Why have Irish artists surrendered to group-think on Israel? Could it be due to something as crude as career-advancement? Artistic leadership comes from the top. Aosdana, Ireland's State-sponsored affiliation of creative artists, has also signed the boycott. Aosdana is a big player. Its members populate Arts Council funding panels. Some artists could assume that if their name is on the same boycott sheet as the people assessing their applications, it can hardly hurt their chances. No doubt Aosdana would dispute this assumption. But the perception of a preconceived position on Israel is hard to avoid. Looking back now over all I have learnt, I wonder if the problem is a lot simpler. Perhaps our problem is not with Israel, but with our own over-stretched sense of importance -- a sense of moral superiority disproportional to the importance of our little country? Any artist worth his or her salt should be ready to change their mind on receipt of fresh information. So I would urge every one of those 216 Irish artists who pledged to boycott the Israeli state to spend some time in Israel and Palestine. Maybe when you come home you will bin your scarf. I did. Nicky Larkin's 'Forty Shades of Grey' will premiere in Dublin in May; www.facebook.com/ fortyshades; www.nickylarkin.com independent.ie

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (126173)	3/12/2012 7:17:22 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224749

Message 28007382

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (126173)	3/12/2012 7:27:57 PM
From: lorne	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224749

ken..Party democrats who are not of the ruling class within the party are no more than fodder to the rulers. You ken are a worker bee that can be discarded without loss to the party...there are many more like you to fill any gap, you are a party slave with much much less freedom than those who fight against this socialist administration...It is to bad you will never see this nor understand. :-( America's allies throughout the world are waking up to this reality. Specter says Obama ditched him after he provided 60th vote to pass health reform By Alexander Bolton - 03/12/12 thehill.com Former Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) writes in a new book that President Obama ditched him in the 2010 election after he helped Obama win the biggest legislative victory of his term by passing healthcare reform. Specter also claims that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) did not uphold his promise to grant him seniority accrued over 28 years of service in the Senate as a Republican. Specter, who rocked Washington’s political establishment and made headlines around the country when he left the Republican Party to join Democrats in April of 2009, has kept quiet about these slights until now. He makes surprising revelations about Republican leaders, as well — he writes that former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) told him that he would have made the same decision to defect from the GOP if he had been in Specter’s position. Specter says that one of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s (Ky.) first concerns after learning of the impending party switch was that he might be blamed for driving Specter out of the GOP. Specter declined to discuss the behind-the-scenes machinations of his party switch when he granted an interview with several news outlets on his final day in the Senate, when he reminisced about his career in his hideaway on the first floor of the Capitol. He promised instead to put the juicy details in his memoir, “Life Among the Cannibals,” which will go on sale later this month. The Hill obtained an advanced copy. It was written with his former communications director, Charles Robbins. Specter laments that Obama and Vice President Biden did not do more to help him in the final days of his primary race against former Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), who beat him 54 percent to 46 percent in the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate Democratic primary. Specter writes that Obama turned down a request to campaign with him in the final days of the primary, because the president’s advisers feared he would look weak if he intervened and Specter lost. “I realized that the president and his advisers were gun-shy about supporting my candidacy after being stung by Obama’s failed rescue attempts for New Jersey governor Jon Corzine and Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley. They were reluctant to become victims of a trifecta,” he writes. The snub was made all the more painful by Obama flying over Philadelphia en route to New York City a few days before the election and then on primary day jetting over Pittsburgh to visit a factory in Youngstown, Ohio, 22 miles from the Pennsylvania border, to promote the 2009 economic stimulus law. The painful irony for Specter is that his vote for the stimulus legislation, which was instrumental to its passage, hastened his departure from the Republican Party. Specter was also disappointed that Biden, who was only a few blocks away at Penn University, did not attend a pre-primary day rally at the Phillies’s Citizens Bank Park — a missed opportunity Specter attributes to a failed staff-to-staff request. Just over a year before, Obama and Biden welcomed Specter to the Democratic Party with a press conference at the White House and promised him his full support. Specter believes Reid acted with “duplicity” while managing the party switch. Specter said Reid promised him that he would be recognized on the seniority list as a Democrat elected in 1980, but failed to deliver on it. Had Specter been given the seniority he was promised, he would have become chairman of the powerful Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations subcommittee and next in line to chair the Judiciary Committee. Instead, Reid stripped Specter of all his seniority by passing a short resolution by unanimous consent in a nearly-empty chamber, burying him at the bottom of the Democrats’ seniority list. Specter found out about it after his press secretary emailed him a press account of the switch. Specter was floored that Reid had “violated a fundamental Senate practice to give personal notice to a senator directly affected by the substance of a unanimous consent agreement.” Specter was left simmering after Reid’s spokesman at the time told the AP that Specter had known about the resolution and even joined in a deal to draft it, which Specter characterizes as a “falsification.” “Overall, my sense was that Reid didn’t extend himself much to advance my seniority on either committee,” he wrote. Specter writes that several senior Democrats refused to cede seniority to him, significantly damaging his reelection chances against Sestak. He says Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), now the chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services subcommittee, declined a request to let Specter take over as chairman at least until the election. Sens. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) refused to let him move past them in seniority on the Judiciary Committee. But Specter praised Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking member of the Democratic leadership, for treating him generously. Durbin gave Specter chairmanship of the Judiciary subcommittee on Crime and Drugs and both Durbin and Schumer let him climb ahead of them on Judiciary’s seniority ladder. Specter also describes in detail McConnell’s response after learning that he would become the 59th member of the Democratic Caucus — Sen. Al Franken’s (D) delayed victory in Minnesota would give Reid later that year the 60th vote he needed to pass healthcare reform. “When I told him I was going to change parties, he was visibly displeased but not ruffled. Mostly, he was taciturn,” Specter recounts. “McConnell and I had a serious discussion. He was very nice and very professional. ‘Don’t do it,’ he said. ‘It’d be a big mistake. Serve out your time as a Republican and retire gracefully.’” McConnell worried that he might get blamed for driving Specter to join the Democrats. He raised the issue at a meeting of the Senate Republican conference where Specter announced his decision. “McConnell asked me in front of the others if I was going to criticize him or the Republican caucus for my decision. He was worried that I might blame him,” Specter wrote. “Absolutely not, I wrote.” Dole, who served as Senate Republican leader from 1985 to 1996, was initially angry with Specter but then told him he made the right decision. Specter recounted a long conversation at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center 18 months after the switch. “Dole told me I had done the right thing, that I had done a terrific job as a senator, been involved in a lot of projects, been very active, and hadn’t gotten credit for a lot of the stuff I had done,” he wrote. “I said, ‘Bob, I think that it’s very meaningful when you say that I did the right thing, in the party change.’ “He said, ‘Well,’ and then paused and thought for a few seconds. Then he said, ‘I probably would have done the same thing.’ ”

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (126173)	3/12/2012 7:28:52 PM
From: lorne	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

Dems targeted over support for healthcare law's 'rationing board' By Julian Pecquet - 03/12/12 thehill.com The conservative seniors' lobby 60 Plus launched a $3.5 million ad campaign on Monday targeting five vulnerable Senate Democrats over their support for the healthcare reform law's cost-control board. The TV and Internet ads call on viewers to contact the senators and urge them to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which the House is scheduled to vote on next week. The ads target Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). "President Obama's health care law cuts $500 billion from Medicare to pay for a new government program," the ad says. "And it creates a board of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. It's like a Medicare IRS with the power to cut Medicare even more." Republicans have taken to calling the IPAB a "rationing board," but the law prohibits the board from reducing seniors' benefits or increasing their co-pays. Rather, it recommends cuts to provider payments if federal health spending grows at a faster than targeted rate, unless Congress comes up with its own savings. No Senate Democrats have so far signed on to legislation repealing the IPAB, which is estimated to cost about $3.1 billion over 10 years. Twenty Democrats have signed on to the House bill — including high-ranking members Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) — but that bipartisan support is likely to evaporate after House Republicans opted to pay for their bill by tying it to medical malpractice legislation. Only Tester's race is considered a toss-up at this point, according to The Hill's campaign evaluations. Nelson, McCaskill and Brown are considered to be in seats that "lean Democratic," while Stabenow is in better shape, with her seat "likely Democratic."

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (126173)	3/12/2012 9:20:04 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	7 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

O's approval ratings down again - NYTimes: nytimes.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (126173)	3/12/2012 10:53:26 PM
From: FJB	4 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

Obama Approval sinks to new All-Time low in NY Times/CBS poll - only 41% Approve At a time of rising gas prices, heightened talk of war with Iran and setbacks in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama’s approval rating dropped substantially in recent weeks, the poll found, with 41 percent of respondents expressing approval of the job he is doing and 47 percent saying they disapprove — a dangerous position for any incumbent seeking re-election. nytimes.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (126173)	3/12/2012 11:06:18 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

As gas prices soar, Odumbama pays steep cost too in poll plummet As gas prices climb higher and Odumbama drives to his fundraisers in armored limos and SUVs urging Americans to use more fuel-efficient forms of energy, he's starting to pay a higher price too -- in poll numbers. A new Washington Post-ABC News Poll this week finds about two-out-of-three Americans now disapprove of the Chicago Democrat's job on gas prices, whatever that's been. Nearly as many (59%) disapprove of Obama's job on the still sluggish economy, including 50% who intensely disapprove. That's the worst yet in a Post poll and an increase of nine points in the last month. Of course, it's still a long time (239 days) until Nov. 6 when the nation gets to render a real verdict on Obama, who threatens to finish the job if he gets a second term. But then it's already been a long time (1,147 days) since the ex-state senator came into office promising all sorts of things if only we'd spend nearly a trillion dollars on his stimulus plan, which has made the term "Recovery Summer" a guaranteed laugh line. Last Friday's employment numbers confirmed this 49-month jobs recession as the longest since World War II. And an IBD editorial addresses Obama's energy policy here. The new Post Poll also finds that Obama's overall job approval rating, which was 50% approve and 46% disapprove last month, has now flipped and started back down again, 50% disapprove-46% approve. Support plummeted steeply especially among independents and non-college-graduate whites. Of course, even a Chicago Democrat knows the lethality of soaring gas prices in election years. So, Obama says all the right things, expressing sympathy to those families with hard-hit fuel budgets, blaming Iran, Mideast turmoil and Republicans and pointing out that domestic oil production is up. He neglects to mention that production increases are despite his policies, not because of them. Current drilling on federal lands is mostly the result of permits granted by the previous administration, not this fellow. Drilling permits are down on federal property; the oil increase is coming from private lands with owners responding to the market. While Obama says he wants to boost domestic oil production to increase energy independence, he touts access to new reserves off Brazil. His vetoing of the no-brainer Keystone XL pipeline proposal seems inexplicable. And then his active personal legislative lobbying last week to defeat its Senate rebirth seems duplicitous, since the pipeline would bring more than 700,000 barrels a day of oil from the secure source in Canada. Of course, Obama will take some photo op steps in coming months to appear to address the rising gas price problems. Probably release some oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is like tossing food from a parade float to address the nation's nutrition problems. Showing his keen grasp of free market forces, Odumbama has ordered Justice officials to investigate oil speculation. Of course, there's oil speculation. It's called the futures market. And watching Obama's policies instead of his words, those experts see higher prices coming ahead, as do most Americans in the poll. When taking office, Energy Secy. Stephen Chu expressed a desire to drive U.S. gas prices to the European levels of $8-$9 a gallon, much like taxation on cigarettes to discourage their use. This administration has achieved more than half that European goal already. Perhaps the clearest commitment of Obama to his extreme environmental agenda came recently on Capitol Hill where Chu was asked if the president's overall goal was "to get our price lower?" Chu replied, "No. The overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil." (Note: Not "foreign oil" but "oil.") For now, however, the political price for that goal is increasing. Obama has long held significant leads in hypothetical election match-ups against both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, both of whom tout the need to develop the nation's own vast resources to boost energy independence. Now, the Post-ABC News Poll finds the Democrat statistically tied with both Republicans. A new Rassmussen Reports tracking poll finds Romney leading Obama by five points for the third straight day. The same survey finds 83% of Republicans supportive of Romney, while84% of Democrats support Obama. However, while only 6% of GOP voters would consider crossing over to vote for the Democrat, twice that many Democrats (12%) would consider voting for Romney.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (126173)	3/12/2012 11:43:01 PM
From: FJB	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

For the fourth consecutive day, Mitt Romney leads President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 matchup. Today's numbers show Romney attracting 46% of the vote, while Obama earns 43%. Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). rasmussenreports.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (126173)	3/13/2012 12:49:47 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224749

Sharp as the drop in Odumbama’s approval rating was in the Times/CBS News poll, it was not in isolation. The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, released on Monday, also reported a drop in Odumbama’s overall approval rating, to 46 percent from 50 percent last month. The latest tracking poll from Gallup, also released Monday, showed Odumbama with an approval rating of 49 percent. Yet, polls capture only a particular moment in time, and can be influenced by the way questions are asked or the mix of people who are surveyed. In The Times/CBS News poll, the margin of sampling error could mean the president’s approval rating is as high as 44 percent or as low as 38 percent, at a 95 percent confidence level. The telephone poll was conducted March 7 to 11 with 1,009 adults nationwide.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (126173)	3/13/2012 10:06:37 AM
From: locogringo	7 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224749

kenny_troll, I know that you don't believe there is voter fraud, so what would you label this? (of course, you will never answer this question either.........................) Exclusive: O'Keefe Video Exposes Voter Fraud-Friendly Policies in Vermont James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has released a new video exposing just how easy it is to commit voter fraud in Vermont. The video, a sequel to O'Keefe's "Primary of the Living Dead" in New Hampshire, shows a Veritas agent entering various voting places around the state of Vermont, giving a different name each time. Each time, he is given a ballot without showing an ID, to his disbelief. The new video follows in the wake of a highly-politicized media attack on Mr. O’Keefe after his exposure of voter fraud in New Hampshire. Those videos resulted in calls from the left for O’Keefe’s arrest. However, the videos soon resulted in the New Hampshire State Senate passing a new bill requiring voter ID. O'Keefe's new video from Vermont could not be more timely, coming the day after the U.S. Department of Justice's civil rights division blocked a Texas photo ID requirement for voters--to the applause of the American Civil Liberties Union, which claimed that the law was “discriminatory” against “Latinos, African-Americans, elderly citizens, and others.” breitbart.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (126173)	3/13/2012 11:08:31 AM
From: JakeStraw	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (126173)	3/13/2012 11:22:49 AM
From: Ann Corrigan	4 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

O's stifling regulations stunt economic growth: washingtonexaminer.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (126173)

3/13/2012 11:24:40 AM

From: longnshort

4 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

President Signs Law Placing Prior Restraint on Free Speech

| Print |

Written by Joe Wolverton, II

Monday, 12 March 2012 17:21

[iframe title="Twitter Tweet Button" style="width: 107px; height: 20px;" class="twitter-share-button twitter-count-horizontal" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.1331069346.html#_=1331652221816&count=horizontal&id=twitter-widget-0%E2%8C%A9=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenewamerican.com%2Fusnews%2Fpolitics%2F11160-president-signs-law-placing-prior-restraint-on-free-speech&related=NewAmericanMag&size=m&text=President%20Signs%20Law%20Placing%20Prior%20Restraint%20on%20Free%20Speech%3A&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenewamerican.com%2Fusnews%2Fpolitics%2F11160-president-signs-law-placing-prior-restraint-on-free-speech&via=NewAmericanMag" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"][/iframe]

Daniel Webster warned: "It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

Without fanfare, on March 8, 2012, President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 347 the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011.

Readers may assume that there was no grand announcement of this law's enactment as its name sounds like something to do with giving gardeners guidelines for sprucing up the lawns around government buildings in Washington.

Alternatively, perhaps one could see some of those "good intentions" that Daniel Webster described. Most media coverage of this bill paints it as a beefed up effort to protect the President and other top-rank government officials from assassination attempts and other threats of violence.

As readers of The New American will suspect, there is much more to this law than mainstream media reports or President Obama's brief announcement of his signing of it would indicate.

For example, in one section of this new legislation, individuals are expressly forbidden under penalty of law from trespassing onto the grounds of the White House. Of course, such an encroachment was already illegal, so why the new provision?

There is already a D.C. ordinance that prosecutes White House trespassers. Violation of this provision of the city code was a misdemeanor.

The penalties for such trespass are much more severe, now, however. Under H.R. 347, Congress may at its discretion impose federal criminal charges on not only those who enter the White House grounds without prior permission, but on anyone who participates in protests at or near a location falling within the greatly enlarged scope of this new prohibited zone.

In addition to the increased legal ramifications for trespassing on White House grounds, the penalty for protesting within the shifting high security zone is enough to give pause to those contemplating participation in a protest against a government official or policy.

One example of how H.R. 347 imposes an unconstitutional prior restraint on political speech and assembly is found in Section (c) of the act. This paragraph defines the key phrase "restricted buildings" as follows:

"[R]estricted buildings or grounds" means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area —

(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;

(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or

(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance

Under the terms of the existing law amended by this act, the Department of Homeland Security is tasked with deciding which events will qualify as being of "national significance."

According to one report:

Nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

As the foregoing quoted sections of the bill evince, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, as with so many other recent laws, contains paragraph after paragraph of vague terms that can be wrested to suit the mercurial whims of our federal overlords.

In addition to control over the fluid and fickle designation of "restricted buildings" afforded to the Congress, the bill endows the President with the power to extend Secret Service protection to anyone he deems worthy. The President accomplishes such an act by way of issuing a memo.

As the aforementioned Section (c) explains:

The term "other person protected by the Secret Service" means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection....

When read together, these two subsections make it a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison to "enter or remain" in any designated area without permission, and, that forbidden zone may shift from here to there without prior notice depending on the presence of any person the President has placed under the protection of the Secret Service.

The sponsor of the companion measure introduced in the Senate is Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). During deliberations on the measure, Blumenthal explained the purpose behind the proposal:

This bill will improve the law enforcement tools available to the Secret Service in its attempts to protect the President, the Vice President, and others on a day-to-day basis by closing loopholes in the current federal law. The new law should punish and deal more effectively with anyone who illegally enters restricted areas to threaten the President, Vice President, or other Secret Service protectees.

For example, the bill does not require "willful" encroachment into a restricted area, the requisite mental state for committing this new crime is merely the "knowing" encroachment into a restricted area. It is in this nuance that the government lays one of its most well-camouflaged snares.

The distinction between "willful" and "knowing" is a legal construction that needn't be explained fully here, but for purposes of understanding the implications of the difference on a person's First Amendment rights of free speech, one need only understand that a protestor would certainly "know" that he is protesting, where he is protesting, and that his protest is an expression of opposition to a person or a policy. However, given the fact that the designation of a restricted zone changes without notice (no special police tape, no signs, no noticeable law enforcement patrolling the area), a protestor would probably not know that he was trespassing into a specially protected "restricted zone" or that he was too close to a person endowed by the President with a Secret Service retinue.

It is possible, therefore, that a person could attend a political speech by one of the GOP contenders or by Attorney General Eric Holder, for example, and unintentionally find himself within the prohibited parameters and be subject to federal fines and imprisonment. Who can deny that this discourages free speech? Furthermore, who can deny that the right to speak out freely against government oppression is one of the chief cornerstones of our Republic?

A straightforward reading of the bill reveals the real threat to the freedoms of association and speech. As written and passed by the Congress, there is nothing that would prevent the application of the relevant provisions of this new act to an innocent person protesting against this or that policy position of a presidential candidate while standing outside a debate venue.

The climate created by the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 is inhospitable to protest and demonstration, thus it is the very definition of the "chilling effect" on speech that should concern all citizens, regardless of party affiliation.

The United States of America is daily experiencing the "silent and gradual" erosion of our liberties. In the case of H.R. 347, it was packaged to the public in much the same way as was the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). A majority of Congressmen from both parties voted overwhelmingly in favor of both these laws. When confronted by constituents concerned about the assault such statutes make on our Constitution and on individual liberty, representatives respond that neither measure expands the scope of current law, rather they merely clarify laws already enacted. For this reason, supporters contend, Americans have nothing to fear from NDAA or H.R. 347.

This answer is disingenuous. The plain fact is that both the NDAA and H.R. 347 codify grand expansions of the power of the President to monitor, manipulate, and punish activities within the United States that he and he alone deems to be a threat to his person, to his friends, or to the security of "the homeland."

These startling suspensions of our most basic civil rights makes one wonder how our Founding Fathers would have responded.