DOUG is RIGHT.com

2009-10-29T10:51:00.002-04:00

KTRH/Houston has me scheduled for some dates in the up coming holiday season. Things are about to become very busy for me again. October is usually a slow month for my business. http://www.ktrh.com/

Dates and times will be posted later.

Today's Daily Briefing

2009-10-27T10:47:00.003-04:00

Many of you who email me constantly go back to my days in Columbus(GA) radio (1987-2001). My thoughts on the recent improvement of WRCG's signal is detailed in a blog by Richard Burkhardt.
http://columbusga.blogspot.com/

Meanwhile, more shows coming soon and I'll be posted dates/times here so you can listen.

Hopefully, we'll get this President and Democratic Controlled Congress when we get the chance to vote again. Nothing has changed, this is still a conservative country.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/gallup_poll_conservatives/2009/10/26/277020.html

I hear President Obama doesn't want any "Christmas" trees at the White House. Only holiday trees. Another indication of Obama's lack of religious appreciation for the Christian heritage of America. He has said during several interviews that there are many ways to heaven and that Jesus is just one way. That should tell you what you need to know there if his attending a church led by the bigot Rev. Jeremiah Wright didn't tell you.

Speaking of religious issues, the New Testament says that people will say it is wrong to eat meat. Don't know if this is a sign but there is a call this morning to stop eating meat to save the world from climate change.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece

Sarah Palin's book is coming out November 17. I'm still not a fan of Sarah for President like many of you are. May be I'm a republican "snob." LOL.

Thats it for now..keep checking back!

Live Today on WBT/Charlotte

2009-09-28T09:57:00.003-04:00

hosting at 3:05p-5:30p ET today on WBT/Charlotte.

President Obama says all is well as economy continues to slide....but he thinks more school days for your kid is the answer. Why? So that the government has more time to indoctrinate them with no discipline? He says he knows that it won't be popular but.....

Only 41% favor Obamacare now....that is better but what is wrong with that 41%? That is still way too high.

Iran is doing missile tests. I've told you for 3 years that Iran is our biggest threat. According to stories today, Obama knew of the Iranian nuke base from the beginning but hasn't done any thing about it.

Look forward to taking to you today! Feel free to email me: Doug@Dougtalks.com

Live again at 3pm ET on WRVA

2009-09-16T14:40:00.001-04:00

Live today on WRVA/Richmond at 3pm ET

2009-09-15T09:19:00.002-04:00

4:35p ET ...I'll be join by Vern Moter to discuss the cash for clunkers fiasco and as President Obama pushes for the public option, moderate republicans say No.

5:05p ET...Virginians are concerned about giving more power to the Federal Reserve as suggested yesterday by President Obama.

SEPT 11, 2009 8 Years Later

2009-09-11T09:28:00.006-04:00

Here we are. Eight years following 9/11/2001 and many Americans have forgotten. So much so that many experts I interview say that it will take "another 911" to "wake up the American people." Why would we need another 911 to get our attention? It could be because a large segment of our population doesn't like to remember what happened on this date eight years ago. It is buried deep in their memory as if the war against the Terrorists is over. It isn't over and the man behind the 911 attack remains at-large Osama Ben Laden. That, in itself, is inexcusable. We attempted to fight a politically correct war and he remains on the loose. Plotting, no doubt, to strike again. While I supported President Bush and his fight against Al Queda, I find fault with the half measure we fought the war. Much of it because of the public sentiment led by democrats in Congress.

As for that day itself, the one thing that I remember most is what a beautiful Tuesday it was. Not a cloud in the sky in Nashville, TN (where I was). It was a very pleasant cool early September day as far as the weather was concerned. I was back in my hometown because I had recently changed jobs after hosting on the radio in Columbus(GA) for 14 years at WRCG/WCGQ. My new job as Program Director of WWTN-FM/Nashville was about three weeks old. So, still getting my feet wet with a new job, I found myself hosting the morning show that morning because our host Steve Gill was out sick. If you know Steve, you know that Steve has to be REALLY sick to miss any time on the air. For me, my first time to host on WWTN. Rhett Harris was hosting news, Kevin Ingram with sports and Pamela Furr was producer. The show began at 5:30am and I don't even remember what subjects were discussing when Pam brought me a note that a "plane has hit the world trade center in NYC." This didn't cause me immediate alarm and I said something on the air about the note but that small planes are known to hit tall buildings in New York City on occasion. I couldn't fathom that this was any thing but that. I had reported on such small craft incidents before and I was confident this was it. I said something like "we'll have more on the story coming up at the top of the hour." A few minutes passed and we were into the top of the hour news at 8am(Nashville time). I'm still not alarmed but Pam switched on the cable news channels(usually the TV was set on ESPN because of the afternoon sports show from the day before). Rhett and I watched the TV coverage showing a large hole in one of the Towers of the World Trade Center and we both said that no small plane had hit that building. I remember saying to Rhett that looks the size of a passenger plane. While we were discussing this during a commercial break, Kevin got ready for his sports minute.
"..Now with Supertalk997 sports, here is Kevin Ingram." I said.
Both Rhett and I went back to watching the TV while Kevin was voicing the sports headlines. Like many of you, while we watched, we saw what we later realized was the second plane that hit the other tower. All I can say is that our reaction in the talk studio and control room was of a jolt. Pam was jumping up and down pointing to the TV she was watching behind the glass that separated control from the talk studio. Her eyes were wide and I know I must have frowned as what I had seen wasn't fully registering. Did I see video of the FIRST plane that hit the building and TV had caught it, or was this a second? Rhett and I looked at each other in disbelief as Kevin was finishing his sports. As soon as Kevin finished, I remember saying something like "Ladies and Gentlemen, I can't believe what I just saw..." And as I described that we just saw another airplane hit the tower, I said something like "how can this happen?" and Rhett blurted out "we are under a terrorist attack!" and then said something about a Tom Clancy novel. I looked at Rhett and had to acknowledge he was right. It was from then, we went into a full scale news mode realizing this was the biggest story we would likely cover in our lifetime. As I learned in the next couple of minutes, WWTN didn't have a way to patch a national broadcast onto our air.
An unbelievable situation I thought as in the past my stations always had a way to go immediately to network coverage. This was one of the short comings of the station that I had been recently hired to fix. I'm yelling to Pam to get an engineer and she responded quickly realizing the importance. With a sense of urgency our engineers had our network coverage (ABC) up and running within the hour. Until then, I commented on what what I knew. The swift action by our team may still have beaten our competition to the punch. I was told later that we had a 90 share the week after 911 as our station became the station of information during the immediate aftermath.

One of my staff, James, who was our second amendment guy at the station, came to me and said that he was "packing" (which was against Gaylord Entertainment policy) and was ready if the Bastards tried anything around here. Gaylord Security had locked down the hotel and radio station area and James shadowed me the rest of the day. I was too busy to worry about terrorist hitting us.

My other recollection of the day is speaking with my GM in the studio after we had gone to network coverage and saying to him "we are at war...this is big...and I'm not sure we know at this moment how big this really is...but...it is big." In a decision that I have come to have great respect, John Padgett, General Manager for WWTN-FM. WSM-FM and WSM decided on the spot not to air any commercials...until further notice! The day itself at the station is a blurr but I do remember driving home late that afternoon and realizing how eerie it was that no planes were flying. My house was near the airport and if you know how busy the Nashville airport is, it would have made an impression on you as well. Our station, WWTN-FM, built on the listeners that trusted us that day and we became a force in the Nashville market for over two years. I will always be thankful for the staff who were top notch professionals that day!

Wednesday Briefing

2009-09-09T10:45:00.010-04:00

Friday, I'll give you my take on where we are 8 years after 9/11 and why so many experts think we need another 9/11 to get the attention of the American people.

Coming up next Tuesday and Wednesday...Live on WRVA/Richmond from 3-6pm ET. You can watch/listen live here by clicking on the Blog TV box at the right of the screen. Station web site is wwww.WRVA.com

Another Ft. Benning solidier is questioning President Obama's legitimacy under the U.S. Constitution requirement that he be "natural born" citizen. Despite the left's adamant statements that Obama was born in Hawaii, no indisputable documents are public to prove that assertion. The solidier says they will not be deployed.

Matt Burke wrote this for our web site on the Ft. Benning solidier issue:

Some advice for the birther movement
By: Matt Burke

September 9, 2009

The internet world buzzed this past weekend with the news that a Kenyan birth certificate showing that President Obama was born in Kenya was revealed. Then yesterday, Judge David Carter, a US District Court Judge in California, set a court date in late January for one of the cases challenging President Obama’s nationality.

Lets take each of these individually. First, the Kenyan birth certificate.

There are many potential problems that I see with this evidence. First, the affidavit that was attached to the birth certificate offered testimony that the person who retrieved the document, a Lucas Daniel Smith, had to pay a “cash consideration” to a military officer to look the other way while the birth certificate was being retrieved. A good attorney, rigorously defending the President, could drive a truck through Mr. Smith’s credibility (if he paid a guard to look the other way, could more money paid to this person have produced a fraudulent copy?). That same attorney would have a good case to have the present copy of the Kenyan birth certificate thrown out as not being a properly validated public record, and as such, would be inadmissible hearsay.

There may also be other problems with the certificate, ones that would easily expose it to be possibly accurate, or a fraud. First, there is a certificate number in the top left corner. Is that number consistent with a birth in August, 1961? Also, there is a footprint at the bottom. Did Kenya even process new births this way in 1961, and of course, does that print even match the President? The certificate is also signed by a John Odomo; was he employed by the hospital in August, 1961? There is also a signature of the attending doctor that can be similarly challenged.

A wrong answer to any of these would be fatal.

Now, on to the case. Before the case is to be heard in January, 2010, the court has scheduled two motions to be addressed by the Court. The first is a Motion to Dismiss, filed by the US Attorneys Office, claiming that this case should be immediately dismissed for a number of reasons, including that the plaintiffs do not have standing, and that the Court does not have the authority to hear the case. I would put the government’s odds of winning this motion at 70%.

If the plaintiffs survive that Motion, then the Court is going to consider the discovery requests filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs requested discovery includes the President’s kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records. The Government has objected to all of these.

The standards for producing discovery are low, the requests just have to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, the evidence itself, however, does not have to be admissible. However, objections can be made for timeliness of the records (most of these are over 20 years old) and they must relate to the current claims made by the plaintiffs. Based on the fact that the plaintiffs are only seeking to determine the President’s nationality, some of these requests go beyond the claims made by the plaintiffs and I would expect them to be denied by the Judge. These would include the Columbia thesis, Harvard Law review articles (which would be published anyway), scholarly articles from the University of Chicago (also published), medical records, and files from his years as an Illinois State Senator as being outside the bounds of the claims made by the plaintiffs.

Also present in the discovery requests is a request to have the judge order the Secretary of State to obtain a certified copy of the original birth certificate from Kenya. As Kenya is a sovereign country not subject to an order from an US Judge, Kenya would have to be pressured by the US State Department. How aggressively would former rival Hillary Clinton pursue this request, an analysis which is better presented in its own column- should this case proceed that far.

After discovery, the US Attorneys Office would certainly file a Motion for Summary Judgment, which essentially asks if there are any matters of fact in dispute that should be decided by a jury. If there are none, then the case would be decided by the judge. If discovery does not produce any evidence that shows President Obama is anything but a natural born American citizen, then this case will be dismissed—and it would most likely be dismissed with prejudice, meaning that this case can never be re-filed.

So, for the birthers out there, very little has happened. Odds are that this case will be dismissed before it ever gets to trial, as a case based only on supposition and hearsay testimony will not find its way into a courtroom. The system is designed to prevent that from happening.

As a word of advice, I would remind the conservatives out there that much damage has been done to the Democrats over the past two months simply by engaging them in the marketplace of ideas. We have fundamentally weakened the domestic policy of the administration to such a level that there is an outside chance that Republicans will take over the House of Representatives after the 2010 election. If we continue to focus our attention on the flawed policies of the Democratic Party, we can regain our power without having to resort to long shot court cases based on weak evidence.
Email today from terrorism expert Ken Timmerman. He has a great column today at www.Newsmax.com

A note from Ken Timmerman:

“Honor Killings” get underplayed in the U.S. Media, which kowtows to Muslim apologists and claims that when Muslim girls and young women are murdered by their male relatives, they are merely victims of domestic violence.

17-old Rifqa Bary – the Ohio teen who fled her family after they discovered they had converted to Christianity – is an honor killing victim in the making.

Media exposure at Newsmax and elsewhere is helping to prevent this tragedy from occurring.

As I reported on Thursday, a Florida court has temporarily thrwarted efforts by Rifqa’s family to get her back to Ohio.
http://newsmax.com/timmerman/rifqa_bary_scared_mosque/2009/09/04/256426.html

To learn more how honor killings are actually conceived of and planned, see
http://kentimmerman.com/honor-killing.html

Even if you don’t read the book, you should read the blurb – and take a look at the on-line resources, here:

http://kentimmerman.com/hk-web.html

Today, Pamela Geller provides an update on the Rifqa Bary story at Newsmax.
http://www.newsmax.com/pamela_geller/rifqa_bary_islam_convert/2009/09/08/257464.html

Finally, if you want a detailed, academic account of how extensive Muslim honor kiilling has become in America, read this chilling essay by Dr. Phyllis Chesler, whom I cite at the end of my Newsmax article, below.
http://www.meforum.org/2067/are-honor-killings-simply-domestic-violence

Best,
Ken Timmerman

Teen Christian Convert Bary Fears Mosque with Terror Ties

Friday, September 4, 2009 9:21 AM
Newsmax.com
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size

17-year old Rifqa Bary, who fled her Muslim family in Ohio this summer after they suspected she had converted to Christianity, will stay in Florida for the time being, an Orlando, Florida judge decided on Thursday.

Circuit Court Judge Daniel Dawson issued a gag order on all lawyers involved in the case after a lawyer for the girl’s mother started to quote from a sealed law enforcement document during Thursday’s hearing, to argue that the girl faced no danger if she was returned to her family.

The sealed document, an investigative report from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), included a videotaped interview with the 17-year old girl, where apparently she did not mention any fear of returning home.

However, the girl’s court-appointed guardian told the court that Rifqa had felt intimidated by the law enforcement officers who interviewed her and objected because the interview had been conducted without the presence of her lawyer.

In an affidavit presented to the court on Monday, Rifqa said she left home on July 17 after her father threatened to kill her because she had become a Christian.

“In a fit of anger that I had never seen before in my life, he picked up my lap top, waived it over my head as if to strike me with it and said 'If you have this Jesus in your heart, you are dead to me! You are no longer my daughter.' I continued to remain silent and then he said to me even more angry than before, 'I will kill you! Tell me the truth!'"

The case has attracted national attention, because Rifqa’s flight from her family in pursuit of religious freedom shatters one of the myths that Muslim advocacy groups are so keen to purvey.
[...]

Read the full story here:
http://newsmax.com/timmerman/rifqa_bary_scared_mosque/2009/09/04/256426.htmlT

Live show today at 3:05pm ET WBT/Charlotte

2009-09-07T10:32:00.001-04:00

More on Obama and the internet

2009-09-02T12:05:00.003-04:00

My friend Jim Kouri whose columns appear on the right side of the page has an article regarding Obama's cyber takeover. Good piece to read along with Matt Burke's article if you scroll down this page.
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news162.htm

Wednesday Briefing

2009-09-02T11:50:00.001-04:00

Got this email from www.Townhall.com:

Dear Townhall Reader:

Are Obama and his friends taking you as a fool?
You have to wonder what they really think about the intelligence of the American people.
Obama repeatedly has out-and-out lied about his healthcare plan.
Here are just 5 of the big whoppers.

Lie #1: 'You Keep Your Doctor, You Keep Your Insurer'

This is a complete fabrication.
Under plans Obama has backed in the House and the Senate, almost any business can opt their employees into the "public option" — the government health plan.
That means you could lose your insurer. And if your doctor is worth his salt, you'll lose him or her as well.
Why? Because great doctors probably will not want to get the very low rates the government will pay private doctors who are part of the new government system.
So, without your consent, you very easily could lose your insurer and your doctor.

Lie #2: The Elderly Will Not Face Rationing or Medicare Cuts

More baloney.
In fact, just last week, The New York Times, a very liberal and very pro-Obama newspaper, admitted that fears of rationing for elderly patients are "not irrational."
The truth is that Obamacare would almost 50 million new patients to government care.
Who would pay for it. You would!
Seniors on Medicare will be the first hit.
Here's what the Times reported: "Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly, on the assumption that doctors and hospitals can be more efficient."
This means that faceless bureaucrats will decide the type and quality of your care.
It is a very dangerous thing to give your life and well-being over to government bureaucrats!
Imagine if you or a loved one is older than 80 years and critically needs heart surgery.
Instead of getting the heart procedure, you or that loved one could be informed that you are simply too old.
We at the League of American Voters have been warning of this danger and have a powerful TV commercial exposing the risks to seniors.

Lie #3: There Will Be No "Death Panels."

More lies.
Sure, they don't call them "death panels" in the legislation, but that's what their job will be.
These committee members will set guidelines with which faceless bureaucrats will make decisions about you and your healthcare.
They will decide who lives and who dies. They decide who gets critical procedures and expensive medicines.
Again, according to the New York Times, the Democratic plans call for saving money by creating new oversight committees.
The Times says that Medicare and insurers would be expected to follow "advice from a new federal panel of medical experts on 'what treatments work best.'"
Again, this very liberal paper concluded: "The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing, which could affect access to the most expensive services in the final months of life."

Lie #4: The Obama Plan Contains Costs

Absolute nonsense.
The Obama plan will cost more than $1 trillion in new federal outlays, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
This past weekend, Sen. Joe Lieberman claimed that most of this cost comes from adding 50 million people, currently uninsured, to the government health system.
But as Lieberman pointed out, we just don't have the money to do this right now.
You can add only so many people to the government system by cutting medical care to seniors on Medicare and raising taxes.
Democrats clearly plan to do both.

Lie #5: Illegals Are Not Covered by Obamacare

President Obama has stated time and again that illegal aliens are not covered under his new plan.
Still, Democrats say they want to add almost 50 million uninsured. Yet almost one-quarter of these uninsured are illegal aliens.
None of the Democratic plans excludes illegal aliens.
In fact, when Republicans proposed an amendment to the House plan to block illegals from getting free government healthcare, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her minions soundly defeated the motion.
Many, many lies are emanating from Washington today.
This is why the work of the League of American Voters is so critical now.
Dick Morris, the famous Fox News analyst and campaign strategist, says the League is the No. 1 organization today fighting Obamacare.

Next Live Show scheduled is Monday September 7

2009-09-01T21:45:00.002-04:00

Live on WBT/Charlotte 3-6pm ET. www.WBT.com

Tuesday Briefing

2009-09-01T09:37:00.001-04:00

UPDATED---

Can the President seize control of the Internet in an Emergency?
By: Matt Burke
August 31, 2009

This morning, much of the chattering class is abuzz with the rumors that President Obama is attempting to seize control of the internet. A post on Redstate.com this morning summarizes well the proposal: “S. 773, a bill by West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Democrat, has a 55-page draft bill that would create new “emergency” powers for the President, a ‘cybersecurity’ Enabling Act of sorts, that would give the President the authority broad powers over any “non-governmental” computer networks, whether public or private, that are declared by the President to be “critical.””[1]

If the President were to get these powers, it would just be the latest in a historical series of Presidential power grabs that have been criticized later. Such would include President Jefferson shutting down the Supreme Court, President Jackson openly defying a Supreme Court ruling, President Lincoln arresting newspaper editors and President Franklin Roosevelt interning Japanese American citizens. Neil Stevens Redstate.com post details President Truman attempts to nationalize the steel industry during the Korean War and how the Supreme Court denied him this authority in the Youngstown decision.

In short, Youngstown, through Justice Jackson’s concurrence, states that Presidential authority is at its highest point when it is exercising Constitutional authority granted by a bill from Congress. Presidential authority is at its weakest when it has neither Congressional approval nor Constitutional authority. The area in between is known as a “twilight zone”.

Presumably, S.773 is designed to prevent a massive cyber-attack on the United States, similar to the plot of the movie Die Hard: Live Free or Die Hard, one that would paralyze the country and steal national security, or billions of dollars. Think of the Y2K crisis and how our weaknesses and reliance on computers were exposed. Thankfully, nothing came from the Y2K crisis

If the President were to be given the “emergency” power to seize control of the internet by an act of Congress, would it stand Constitutional scrutiny? Possibly. Congress can regulate interstate commerce, and the internet is certainly an instrument for interstate commerce.

Also, using the Die Hard analogy above, such a power would be under national security, and our nation’s military forces do have cyber security as part of their mission. Recent news reports reveal attempted cyber attacks on the Federal Government’s websites from North Korea and China; however these attempts have been happening for years. Countries no longer need guns, planes or missiles to attack another country; soldiers armed with laptops from thousands of miles away can cripple a country. The threat is real.

So, under Youngstown, the President would be exercising Constitutional authority under a grant from Congress, either as a national security power or interstate commerce.

However, if these powers were used to circumvent the First Amendment, such as to control blog posts or YouTube postings of protests, then we as citizens have a right to be alarmed. Also, what about the Fourth Amendment protections of the citizens to be secure in the papers, persons and effects without unreasonable search and seizure? Does S.773 grant the President an open ended warrant to search and seize whenever he/she feels is appropriate on any computer attached to the internet? Such a warrant would be easily challenged in any court.

Putting my political hat on, I would be surprised if this bill were to be passed as proposed. Silicon Valley has a strong history of donations and power to the Democratic Party, and I would be shocked if the Democrats were to abandon their own, especially coming in an election year, one where the Democrats will need all the money and support that they can get from their party faithful.

Taking off the political hat and putting the legal one back on, if this bill were to be passed and signed, there is little we can do to challenge it until it is actually used against someone. I suppose that various media outlets could seek an injunction preventing the bill from applying to them, but that will not touch the other portions of the bill. If this power were to be used as a limited, national security defense that returns the internet to a “status quo ante” after a cyber attack, then the courts would probably look favorably upon this. If it is used a control device over the population, then hopefully the courts would resist.

If I were to craft the legislation, I would put in a provision that if the President were to exercise authority under this statute, he/she must present a case before the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court within 48 hours for review and clearance. The FISA Court is adept at hearing National Security cases and keeping the facts secret (to my knowledge, there has never been a leak from the FISA Court). It would also be at the Court’s discretion to have regular reviews of the President’s actions, to make sure that the President is only using his authority for a limited period of time. This would provide an appropriate level of review and protection, ensuring that all three branches would be involved in the process.

[1] Neil Stevens, “Democrats Echo Truman and Threaten to Nationalize the Internet”, http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2009/08/29/democrats-echo-truman-and-threaten-to-nationalize-internet/, August 31, 2009

Podcast up on WBT.com web site

2009-08-31T16:08:00.002-04:00

You can listen to Monday's show at the www.WBT.com web site. Click on "Listen" at top of page and then "Podcasts." Then click on Keith Larson's podcasts and today's show with me hosting is up there.
Next scheduled show is next Monday September 7, 2009 from 3:05-6pm ET on WBT/Charlotte.

Monday August 31 Briefing

2009-08-31T07:41:00.004-04:00

Back to work this morning on WBT/Charlotte. So much to talk about. Health care debate heats up in North Carolina tomorrow as Sen. Burr's town hall forum is scheduled for Charlotte. Sen. John McCain and Sen Mitch McConnell are scheduled to be there.

Newsweek's Jonathon Alter called Rush Limbaugh "the blowhard of our time." Always funny to me that a columnist would rip a talk show guy. Print media has the worst history of any of the journalistic platforms and is where we get the term "yellow journalism." I've dealt many times with the print media and their characterization of what we do. They simply do not like the fact there is no longer a liberal monopoly any more. They probably weren't happy with some who say there should be a Rush Limbaugh school of Journalism created to help with the balance.

Can the President seize control of the Internet in an Emergency?
By: Matt Burke
August 31, 2009

This morning, much of the chattering class is abuzz with the rumors that President Obama is attempting to seize control of the internet. A post on Redstate.com this morning summarizes well the proposal: “S. 773, a bill by West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Democrat, has a 55-page draft bill that would create new “emergency” powers for the President, a ‘cybersecurity’ Enabling Act of sorts, that would give the President the authority broad powers over any “non-governmental” computer networks, whether public or private, that are declared by the President to be “critical.””[1]

If the President were to get these powers, it would just be the latest in a historical series of Presidential power grabs that have been criticized later. Such would include President Jefferson shutting down the Supreme Court, President Jackson openly defying a Supreme Court ruling, President Lincoln arresting newspaper editors and President Franklin Roosevelt interning Japanese American citizens. Neil Stevens Redstate.com post details President Truman attempts to nationalize the steel industry during the Korean War and how the Supreme Court denied him this authority in the Youngstown decision.

In short, Youngstown, through Justice Jackson’s concurrence, states that Presidential authority is at its highest point when it is exercising Constitutional authority granted by a bill from Congress. Presidential authority is at its weakest when it has neither Congressional approval nor Constitutional authority. The area in between is known as a “twilight zone”.

Presumably, S.773 is designed to prevent a massive cyber-attack on the United States, similar to the plot of the movie Die Hard: Live Free or Die Hard, one that would paralyze the country and steal national security, or billions of dollars.

If the President were to be given the “emergency” power to seize control of the internet by an act of Congress, would it stand Constitutional scrutiny? Possibly. Congress can regulate interstate commerce, and the internet is certainly an instrument for interstate commerce. Also, using the Die Hard analogy above, such a power would be under national security, and our nation’s military forces do have cyber security as part of their mission.

However, if these powers were used to circumvent the First Amendment, such as to control blog posts or YouTube postings of protests, then we have a right to be alarmed. Also, what about the Fourth Amendment protections of the citizens to be secure in the papers, persons and effects without unreasonable search and seizure? Does S.773 grant the President an open ended warrant to search and seize whenever he/she feels is appropriate? Such a warrant would be easily challenged in any court.

Putting my political hat on, I would be surprised if this bill were to be passed as proposed. Silicon Valley has a strong history of donations and power to the Democratic Party, and I would be shocked if the Dems were to abandon their own, especially coming in an election year, one where the Dems will need all the money and support that they can get from their party faithful.

Taking off the political hat and putting the legal one back on, if this bill were to be passed and signed, there is little we can do to challenge it until it is actually used against someone. I suppose that various media outlets could seek an injunction preventing the bill from applying to them, but that will not touch the other portions of the bill. If this power were to be used as a limited, national security defense that returns the internet to a “status quo ante” after a cyber attack, then the courts would probably look favorably upon this. If it is used a control device over the population, then hopefully the courts would fight.

[1] Neil Stevens, “Democrats Echo Truman and Threaten to Nationalize the Internet”, http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2009/08/29/democrats-echo-truman-and-threaten-to-nationalize-internet/, August 31, 2009

Live next on Monday August 31, 2009

2009-08-27T10:35:00.002-04:00

9:05a-12noon ET on WBT/Charlotte. I'm also scheduled for September 7 from 3-6pm ET. Charlotte is a great city and WBT is a premiere station. It is always a thrill to be asked to host there.

Meanwhile, I haven't been writing much this month as it has been an incredibly busy one. We are renovating our basement and that has taken an enormous amount of personal time. That being said, it doesn't mean that I haven't been keeping up to date on what is going on in our nation. I'm excited that individuals are making themselves heard in town hall meetings around the country on this health care takeover plan. While democrats continue to say those who oppose the plan are part of a GOP organized effort, the reality is that Americans still do not want the government running health care.

Look forward to talking with you Monday live on WBT/Charlotte. You can listen live at their web site at www.WBT.com or watch/listen through BLOG TV by clicking the box at the right of the screen at show time.

Thursday's Briefing

2009-08-06T10:21:00.003-04:00

Time to get back on air....tonight live at 9:05p ET on WBT/Charlotte... www.WBT.com

The democrats are furious at Americans who are showing up at town hall meetings on the national healthcare plan and opposing it. They seem surprised that the American people are standing against this confiscation of the health care system. Nancy Pelosi said that some of these protestors are carrying swastikas. If they are, it is to portray the administration and congress for their activity. This is why we call all of Obama's programs "Obamunism." It is not quite communism but it is way past socialism.

Next Live Show thursday August 6

2009-07-28T12:13:00.000-04:00

WBT/Charlotte.

Friday Briefing

2009-07-17T16:05:00.003-04:00

Live today on KTRH/Houston 6:05-9pm ET. http://www.ktrh.com/ or listen/watch live by clicking on the Blog TV box on the right side of the page.

Houston's unemployment rate hits 8%. We'll discuss the economic situation with capitalist Bill Glynn. You can read his rants at http://www.billyg.net/

Jim Kouri, VP National Association of Chief's of Police and columnist for examiner.com, will be on with me at 8:05p et to discuss Obama's changes in our national security. Jim's column's appear on the right of the page and directly at www.examiner.com. His website is www.jimkouris.us

Other topics today:

1. Health care bill gets committe approval.
2. What cap and trade will do to the Houston oil/gas industry
3. Social studies textbooks in Texas
4. Islamic Supremacist group holds first US Conference

Thursday Briefing

2009-07-16T10:25:00.010-04:00

Live today and Friday on KTRH/Houston 6:05-9pm ET. You can watch/listen live at showtime by clicking on the Blog TV box at the right of this page.

Been away from the blog a couple of days but will have more as we discuss the topics today on KTRH...

Billboards in Houston say MLK was a republican angers black activists.

Students in Houston hit with fines for using cell phones in school.

Matt Burke who writes for my web site and is lawyer by tried and republican by common sense will join me at 7:35pm ET to talk about the Sotomayor circus. Does any one understand what she is saying at this hearing?

(Here are Matt's thoughts about the hearing so far)

Thoughts about the Sotomayor confirmation hearings:

Most commentators will state that she did well enough during the hearings to secure her confirmation, and I agree. Judge Sotomayor will be the next Justice on the Supreme Court. After listening to the hearings, and reviewing her record, I do like the fact that:

She was a ruthless prosecutor in the Manhattan District attorney’s office. That tells me that she understands the criminal mind, and realizes that criminals must be investigated, prosecuted and punished. I do not believe that she shares the liberal belief that most criminals are wrongly accused or are just victims of society.
She takes the war on terror seriously. She has had many terror cases on appeal, and she went with the government on all of them.

I also find interesting:

Judge Sotomayor and Justice Alito share similar traits, both are Catholic, both went to Princeton, both served on an appeal court and authored a notorious case that was overturned by the Supreme Court (Casey for Alito, Ricci for Sotomayor). How interesting that Sotomayor’s religion never came up once, yet was a crucial factor in Dems opposition to Alito.
I am surprised at the strategy employed by Sotomayor, presumably with direction from the White House. To listen to her, you would think that she was a strict constructionist. Sotomayor does not need Republican support to win confirmation, she only needs Dem support, and they favor a more activist Justice. I think this strategy was hatched in the White House during Sotomayor’s “murder sessions”, which were grueling practice sessions conducted by White House officials. I think it is very interesting that they thought the way to win approval with the American people is to show Sotomayor as a strict constructionist. Is this an admission that the liberal judicial philosophy does not resonate with the American people, and they know it?
Many people think that her decision in the Ricci case shows that she is a racist. While that may be true, there might also be another explanation: lack of diligence.

The Ricci case was decided on a summary judgment motion at the trial court, which means that the case was never heard by a jury, nor were any substantive facts heard. Frank Ricci appealed this decision.

You have better odds winning the lottery than you do winning an appeal, especially one that was decided on a summary judgment.

I think that maybe she did not research the case enough and just went with the opinion of the trial court judge, who did write an extensive opinion.

WND has a story on the Obama Birth Certificate controversy that includes an Army Major refusing to serve because it is unclear whether Obama has the right to be called Commander-in-Chief. The case is before Federal Judge Clay Land. I know Land personally from my days in Columbus. I couldn't hazard a guess on how he will rule but I do know Judge Land believes in the Constitution and that the document should mean what is written.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/

Usually, I don't reprint or link a story that we already have linked on the right side of the page but MSNBC's Chris Matthews comments that President Carter was a "prophet" when he gave his famous speech saying that future American generations must face it that things will not be as good as for their parents. A comment that demonstrated the lack of faith in the American people that liberals have.

(MRC.org)

Matthews Commemorates 'Prophet' Jimmy Carter's 'Malaise' Speech
By: Geoffrey Dickens
July 15, 2009 19:33 ET

Leave it to Chris Matthews, a former speechwriter to Jimmy Carter, to actually commemorate the 30th anniversary of the former president's infamous "malaise" speech. On Wednesday's Hardball, Matthews invited on his former bosses from the Carter White House, former speechwriter and now New Yorker senior editor Hendrick Hertzberg and former aide Gerald Rafshoon to mark the event and claim that Carter was vindicated by history as Matthews proudly asserted Carter was "Dead on," about "putting on a sweater, lowering the thermostat," to solve the energy crisis. And Hertzberg did Matthews one better by proclaiming Carter a "prophet."

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Rick it seems to me Carter was dead on, on the need for energy sufficiency and dealing with the energy conservation. Putting on a sweater, lowering the thermostat. All of those things made sense. He was right about the problem of nuclear proliferation. Of arms getting to countries like Iran. He's way ahead of his time on that. And also his concern for human rights. Right? So he was right, but?

HENDRIK HERTZBERG, NEW YORKER, FORMER CARTER SPEECHWRITER: Well he was, he was in this particular speech, especially, which was really unlike anything that he had ever said, it was unlike anything any president had ever said. In this particular speech he was sort of a prophet. He spoke as a prophet. And, and I mean by that, not as someone who is predicting the future but as someone who is diagnosing, diagnosing the national soul. This was something that an awful lot of people in the White House, Vice President Mondale foremost among them, did not want him to do. I was one of those who thought it was, that it stood a chance of really breaking through to the American public. And I still think it might have....But, but that spiritual crisis, that, that Carter diagnosed he was right about that and the result was not that we faced up to it but that we retreated into years and years of fantasy and of phony optimism and, and notion that we could just consume and consume and consume.Later on in the segment Matthews turned to the transition from George W. Bush to Barack Obama as he determined: "It took Bush to make us see the importance of an Obama...Rick what do you think about Obama coming in after, a sophisticated Obama coming in after a different kind of, an incurious president like Bush?" This led Hertzberg to liken Obama to Carter which, at least in his mind, was a compliment to the current President as he declared:
"Yeah I think there's no question that it really required the comprehensive disaster on every level, really of the Bush administration, to make Americans ready to take this extraordinary and wonderful leap of faith that they took in electing this remarkable president that we have now. I mean I don't make a lot of comparisons between Obama and Carter. I think they're so different temperamentally, politically, in a lot of ways but one thing they do have in common, I think is they both believe in speaking to the American people as if they were adults. And that's something that the eight years of Bush made us hungry for.

"The following exchanges were aired on the July 15 edition of Hardball:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Rick it seems to me Carter was dead on, on the need for energy sufficiency and dealing with the energy conservation. Putting on a sweater, lowering the thermostat. All of those things made sense. He was right about the problem of nuclear proliferation. Of arms getting to countries like Iran. He's way ahead of his time on that. And also his concern for human rights. Right? So he was right, but?

HENDRIK HERTZBERG, NEW YORKER, FORMER CARTER SPEECHWRITER: Well he was, he was in this particular speech, especially, which was really unlike anything that he had ever said, it was unlike anything any president had ever said. In this particular speech he was sort of a prophet. He spoke as a prophet. And, and I mean by that, not as someone who is predicting the future but as someone who is diagnosing, diagnosing the national soul. This was something that an awful lot of people in the White House, Vice President Mondale foremost among them, did not want him to do. I was one of those who thought it was, that it stood a chance of really breaking through to the American public. And I still think it might have. But as it turned out if you, if you, if you diagnose a problem and you're President of the United States you also have to solve that problem, otherwise don't bring it up. And, and-

MATTHEWS: That's right. Well let's take a look at, yeah. The problem with-

HERTZBERG: -we proved unable to solve it. Although what Gerry says is absolutely right in terms of the concrete realities of energy. But, but that spiritual crisis, that, that Carter diagnosed he was right about that and the result was not that we faced up to it but that we retreated into years and years of fantasy and of phony optimism and, and notion that we could just consume and consume and consume.

MATTHEWS: Yeah I think the big car and the big gas guzzlers was not the solution to the energy crisis. Let's take a look now at a transition that makes a lot more sense to a lot of us, to a lot of us here. That's President Bush 43 leading to President Obama. You might say he begat Obama. It took Bush to make us see the importance of an Obama. Let's watch.(Clips of George W. Bush and Barack Obama delivering speeches)

MATTHEWS: Wow! You know I've often thought it took a Hoover to give us a Roosevelt. Did it take a Bush to give us an Obama? Gerry

GERALD RAFSHOON, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL AIDE: Well every new president is the antithesis of the failed president that either he defeated or his party defeated. And it took a Jimmy Carter to come in after Nixon and Watergate and the, and the scandals of the CIA and the Vietnam War and people looked outside of Washington for somebody who's, who would tell the truth.

MATTHEWS: Right.RAFSHOON: The truth became a very important thing to tell. And one of the things that we had with Carter, whether you like it or not, he always wanted to tell the truth.

MATTHEWS: I know he did.RAFSHOON: And when, and when you start talking about the problems that a president faces, he owns those problems.

MATTHEWS: Rick what do you think about Obama coming in after, a sophisticated Obama coming in after a different kind of, an incurious president like Bush?

HERTZBERG: Yeah I think there's no question that it really required the comprehensive disaster on every level, really of the Bush administration, to make Americans ready to take this extraordinary and wonderful leap of faith that they took in electing this remarkable president that we have now. I mean I don't make a lot of comparisons between Obama and Carter. I think they're so different temperamentally, politically, in a lot of ways but one thing they do have in common, I think is they both believe in speaking to the American people as if they were adults. And that's something that the eight years of Bush made us hungry for. And-

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

HERTZBERG: -and we're, we're, we're, that's the kind of president we got now.

MATTHEWS: Well if you like reading Rick Hertzberg, read the New Yorker every week. He's up there in Talk of the Town and elsewhere in the magazine. Rick Hertzberg, my former boss at the White House, former chief speechwriter. And Gerry Rafshoon who almost personally brought Jimmy Carter to the White House.

—Geoffrey Dickens is the senior news analyst at the Media Research Center.

2009-07-10T17:11:00.002-04:00

Live at 6:05-9pET on WOAI/San Antonio.....watch/listen by clicking on the Blog TV box at showtime. Podcasts of shows this week can be heard at www.WOAI.com

Thursday Briefing

2009-07-09T16:24:00.003-04:00

It appears that despite all the money by Homeland security and new procedures, federal facility security is "abysmal." This is according to a Congressional report that came out this week. My buddy Jim Kouri who writes for http://www.examiner.com/ will be joining me live tonight on WOAI/San Antonio at 8:05pm ET. You can read his column linked at the right side of the page.

..US Military Chief says clock ticking on Iran nuke...time is running out he says. VP Joe Biden indicated that Israel had a "green light" to deal with Iran but President Obama said this week there is no "green light." Nuke weapons expert and author Lee Boyland will join me about this and other issues. http://www.leeboylandbooks.com/ Lee will appear at 7:05pm ET on the show tonight.

6:35pm ET. Jim Gilchrist of the Minutemen will be on to get his reaction to the Senate vote yesterday approving a 700 mile fence along the US/Mexico border to curtail illegal immigration. Will it work? It is expensive.

...ABC news reporting that the Obese account for the greatest cost in healthcare....this is a prelude to saying we need a "fat" tax on junk food and things like McDonald's hamburgers...

Live tonight 6:05-9pm ET on WOAI/San Antonio. http://www.woai.com/

Wednesday Daily Briefing

2009-07-08T12:16:00.011-04:00

Live at 6:05-9pm ET on NewsRadio 1200 WOAI/San Antonio today
http://www.woai.com/

Topics today include:

PETA urges ban on Downtown Horse Drawn Carriages
San Antonio drivers do not fare well in insurance survey
Senate votes to require actual fencing to 700 miles of the Mexican Border

6:35pm et Jerome Corsi will join me. He is most recently author of the book "Obama Nation" and writes for WND. His weekly newsletter Red Alert is available at: http://www.redalert.wnd.com/

Jerome dropped this on us during the program tonight...and I just got the release dealing with Obama's Birth Certificate issue:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 5 OBAMA BIRTH MYSTERY: MORE THAN 1 HOSPITAL© 2009 RedAlert.WND.com

By Dr. Jerome R. Corsi and Joe Kovacs

More than eight months after Barack Obama was elected president, the mystery surrounding his precise birthplace is deepening as the myth-busting website Snopes.com – along with several news agencies and an Obama community blog – directly contradict the president's own claim regarding the hospital in which he was born.In an official letter signed by Obama on White House stationery, the president celebrates his birth at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii. The facility has posted that letter on its website, along with video of the letter being read in public.
Link: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103306

Barack Obama states in this letter on White House stationery that he was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu. The letter was posted by the medical center on its website.But according to Snopes, the popular online hoax-buster that many rely on as the final word on both important and frivolous stories, Obama was born at a different hospital in the Hawaiian capital.Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth certificate documentation here.In Snopes' entry concerning allegations that Obama is a "radical Muslim," the site addresses the birth history of the commander in chief, stating, "Barack Hussein Obama was born on 4 August 1961 at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. WND took a screen shot of the entry and highlighted the name of the hospital.

Link: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103306

The Obama administration today through the Assistant Attorney General actually said that terrorists captured on the battlefield have constitutional rights. That is as ridiculous an opinion as one could have. Under that theory, Japanese and German prisioners taken in World War 2 would have the right to get an attorney and be released. What really is amazing is how such "learned" people can be so stupid today.

Meanwhile, the White House didn't know how to spell his name apparently..
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/07/08/white-house-spells-obamas-name-wrong/

In another important story of the day, look for the link at the right side of the page from CNSnews.com about Judge Sotomayor and her support of censoring a bible verse on a billboard.

My buddy Lee Boyland has a new article out this morning about the situation in Honduras.
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/l_boyland/2009/07082009.htm

2009-07-07T19:31:00.004-04:00

Live all this week on WOAI/San Antonio 6:05-9pm ET.

For the best information about pending bills before Congress, i've added links to the Americans for Tax Reform web site. http://www.atr.org/

Doing my best to do NO Michael Jackson talk today on WOAI.

From my buddy Lee Boyland
http://www.leeboylandbooks.com/

Subject: Freedom of speech

America’s freedom of speech is touted by the news media, elected representatives, officials, and the courts, while at the same time we are being suppressed from saying anything that is “politically incorrect.”

First example:

The three major billboard companies have refused to sell billboard space for an advertisement that simply asks, "Where's the Birth Certificate?" These three major companies, who control most of the advertising billboards nationwide, are using their market domination to suppress freedom of speech.

This is a violation of American citizen’s right of free speech. We demand that you, our elected representative, intervene.

Second example:

Gerrt Wilder’s video Fitna is another example of suppression of free speech. The video examines five verses from the Qur’an (4:56, 4:89, 8:39, 8:60, and 47:4) that reveal the frightening message buried in Islam’s Holy Book. The video only contains verses from the Qur’an and video of Islamic clerics’ sermons and speeches. Mr. Wilder provides translations of Qur’anic verses and allows the clerics to speak for themselves.

Islamic organizations mounted a campaign to prevent Mr. Wilder from showing Fitna and speaking in the U.S. Islamic organizations intimidated Lowes Hotels into canceling an event in Little Rock, AR, where Wilder was going to speak. IS THIS THE PC VERSION OF FREE SPEECH AND RELIGION? We [I] demand that you stand up for our freedoms and slap down those who seek to curtail our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

Displaying Jesus on the cross, or the Virgin Mary makes one an idolater in Muslim eyes, as does believing in the trinity (there can be only one God, not three). Recognize the dangers Islam presents to the Constitution and our religious freedom. Vote down all attempts to sneak Sharia law into our laws.

We the people who elected you demand this.

Sincerely,

Monday July 6, 2009

2009-07-06T10:43:00.004-04:00

Live today on WOAI/San Antonio 6-9pm ET. Watch/listen live by clicking on the Blog TV box at showtime.

6:35pm Joining me is John Wohlstetter of the Discovery Institute. We'll discuss Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the US Supreme Court, the latest info regarding Iran, and other breaking issues. His latest book is The Long Road Ahead and the Short War Upon Us.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=19&isFellow=true

John's Blog is:
http://www.letterfromthecapitol.com/

7:35pm Joining me is Vern Moter. A Financial and business expert to discuss the Congressional move for "Cap and Trade."
http://www.yourpracticaladvisor.com/

We'll also discuss whether inmates in Texas should have air conditioning during this hot 100 degree days and Rep. Peter King's comment saying that Micheal Jackson was a pedophile and should not be glorified just for his music.

This is from my buddy Lee Boyland:
http://www.leeboylandbooks.com/

Subject: The Constitution

Is the Constitution a living document?

The Constitution of the United States of America, all thirteen of them, was written in four months by fifty-five delegates behind closed doors in Philadelphia. It was signed on September 17, 1987 and the greatest nation in the history of the world was born. The Constitution established a Constitutional Republic, or as some say a Democratic Republic. It did not establish a Democracy.

Our Founding Fathers realized that the Constitution would require change and in Article V they provided a method to make such changes. The power to amend the Constitution is vested in the states and the people. It is not vested in the Federal Courts, the Supreme Court, or the Congress alone.

The current Administration and Democratic controlled Congress, supported by the Supreme Court, have ignored the method established to amend the Constitution by “setting aside” provisions that restrict actions they wish to take. They claim the authority to do, based on the false doctrine that the Constitution is a “living document” that was intended to be continually reinterpreted to accommodate current changes in public moors and political situations. If we accept this lie, we might as well just throw out the rule of law, tear up the Constitution, and let the president and Congress do whatever they want. Isn’t that what they’re doing anyway?

We, the people who elected you, demand that you accept the fact that the Constitution IS NOT a “living document”, and that all Articles and Amendments are in full force. You can begin by ensuring that Barrack Hussein Obama is fulfilling the requirements established in Article 2 of the Constitution—starting with the oath he took to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

If you wish to retain you elected office, listen to those who elected you.

Sincerely,
Lee Boyland

Take this Job and Shove it --Sarah Palin

2009-07-03T10:20:00.012-04:00

For my moment by moment thoughts on this breaking story check out my Twitter comments on the right side of the page or go to: www.twitter.com/dougtalks997

My buddy Matt Burke who has been involved in republican politics is on with me at 9pm ET on WBT/Charlotte. Here are some ideas he has about Gov. Palin's resignation:

. She is tired of the intense media scrutiny that has followed her.

Just one year ago nobody knew who she was, and think of all the pressure her family has been under, an she may have just said I have had enough. She can write a book, or go on a speaking tour and really provide for her family.

2. She is getting ready to make a presidential run and is taking the time off to prepare her campaign. She has nothing left to proveIn Alaska.

3. She is preparing to run for senate against Lisa murkowski. She has a history of taking on the mirkowskis.

4. She is leaving the public eye completely.She is very young, so she can run in 2016, 2020 or even 2024.

Live Today on WOAI/San Antonio 6:05-9pm ET. Sitting in again for Joe Pags who has been busy with fill-in duties for Glenn Beck. Following 9pm, I'll be live on WBT/Charlotte until midnight. Both shows can be seen/heard live here on the web site by clicking the BlogTV box at the right of the screen at showtimes.

Here is a good one from a friend through email:

HOW TO START EACH DAY WITH A POSITIVE OUTLOOK

1. Open a new file in your computer.

2. Name it 'Barack Obama'.

3. Send it to the Recycle Bin.

4. Empty the Recycle Bin.

5. Your PC will ask you: 'Do you really want to
get rid of 'Barack Obama?'

6. Firmly Click 'Yes.'

7. Feel better?

GOOD! - Tomorrow we'll do Nancy Pelosi

_______________________

Best line I've heard in a while comes from Steve Gill (http://www.gillreport.com/) on his radio show today:

"Taxation with MIS-representation."

(From http://www.allaccess.com/)

Americans: Too Much Michael Jackson Coverage

Too Much Michael?A new national media study among 1,850 Americans revealed that the majority of respondents (63%) believe that MICHAEL JACKSON's death is receiving too much media coverage in comparison to the coverage of FARRAH FAWCETT's death. The study was conducted by HCD RESEARCH using its MEDIACURVES.COM website on JULY 1st, to obtain Americans' perceptions of recent celebrity deaths, with regard to the amount of media coverage they are receiving. While the majority of respondents (63%) reported that MICHAEL JACKSON's death is receiving too much media coverage, an even larger majority (80%) reported that they are engaged in the topic when they are exposed to it by the media. However, a slightly higher percentage of respondents (84%) indicated that they are engaged with the topic of FAWCETT's death when they are exposed to it by the media. Among the study findings: "With regard to the topic of MICHAEL JACKSON's death, indicate whether or not you feel the media coverage is appropriate."
Too much coverage 63%
Appropriate coverage 36%
Not enough coverage 2%

It isn't just that there is too much coverage it is also that the coverage is out of balance. Michael Jackson turned into a freak where children were not safe. We shouldn't be glorifying such a person in American society no matter how many songs he sold.

Tonight on WOAI at 8:05pm ET. Paul Lawrence Vann will join me and we'll discuss our nation's founding on this July 4th holiday weekend. http://www.paullawrencevann.com/

Benjamin Franklin called for divine intervention at the Constitutional Convention. He called it "a superintendeing providence" that, as he pointed out, had guided America through the Declaration of Independence and the Revolution with Great Britian. He was wondering why no prayer has been asked for now? We could certainly ask that question today.

Mr. President:
The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other-our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.
In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service-
Mr. SHARMAN seconded the motion.
Mr. HAMILTON & several others expressed their apprehensions that however proper such a resolution might have been at the beginning of the convention, it might at this late day, I. bring on it some disagreeable animadversions. & 2. lead the public to believe that the embarrassments and dissensions within the Convention, had suggested this measure. It was answered by Docr. F. Mr. SHERMAN & others, that the past omission of a duty could not justify a further omission-that the rejection of such a proposition would expose the Convention to more unpleasant animadversions than the adoption of it: and that the alarm out of doors that might be excited for the state of things within, would at least be as likely to do good as ill.
Mr. WILLIAMSON, observed that the true cause of the omission could not be mistaken. The Convention had no funds.
Mr. RANDOLPH proposed in order to give a favorable aspect to ye. measure, that a sermon be preached at the request of the convention on 4th of July, the anniversary of Independence; & thenceforward prayers be used in ye. Convention every morning. Dr. FRANKn. 2ded. this motion After several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing the matter by adjourng. the adjournment was at length carried, without any vote on the motion.

Our State of the Union:

1. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled at the power of the federal government over the individual states. The Constitution was put into place to
limit power.

2. The Founding Fathers would be surprised and angry at the amount of debt the nation has racked up.

3. The Founding Fathers would be shocked at the amount of power allowed to the Supreme Court. They were so concerned about an out of control judiciary and that is what they would see.

4. Our Founding Fathers would insist that any one running for President prove that he/she is a natural born citizen.

5. Our Founding Fathers would be shocked at the removal of all religious expression from our public places and schools.

6. Our Founding Fathers would be shocked at the lack of an advisorial media toward the government.

7. Our Founding Fathers would be amazed that we allowed illegal immigrants to protest their rights in our country.