My News: and You! are welcome to it! Agreement not required

Comments I have sent to Senators Brown and Voinovich.

I cannot urge you strongly enough to vote not to confirm Judge Sotomayor. Her 17 year record

shows she is steeped in identity and racial politics. Her speeches show she is a believer that

SCOTUS should legislate from the bench. This view directly contradicts the founders intent.

Yesterdays performance was an attempt to deny and distance herself from that record. It is that

record which tells us and I would hope you who she really is how she really thinks and how she

will rule and has ruled on cases which have and will come before her. Yesterdays performance

was an example of good coaching and not an example of who Judge Sotomayor really is. Read her

speeches and her writings. Read the complaints against her and do not listen to her testimony

for it is a tissue of lies created by an activist and a racist who knows that if she were to

give voice to what she really believes her confirmation would be a dead issue. In conclusion,

the constitution is not safe with Judge Sotomayor on the Supreme Court bench.

Ray T. Mahorney

WA4WGA

Future tense from American public media

Ray T. Mahorney

WA4WGA

does he have a point? I don't think so.

Ray T. Mahorney

WA4WGA

living proof of why socialized Obamalamadingdong care is bad for the United States.

Ray T. Mahorney

WA4WGA

Future tense from American public media

Ray T. Mahorney

WA4WGA

compared with the folks in Indonesia the disabled in the western world may not have it so bad.

Ray T. Mahorney

WA4WGA

(reality bites doesn't it?)

Big Hollywood - http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ -



Bono Discovers Sustainable Development Isn’t Sustainable



Posted By Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney‏ On May 20, 2009 @ 5:03 am In Celebrity News, Politics



THE BIG problem with renewable energy is that it just doesn’t renew itself. The sun does not

shine enough and the wind doesn’t blow enough to power the

towns, cities, factories, hospitals and schools that make our lives so livable.



No environmentalist would ever allow their child to be treated in a hospital fully powered by

“renewables”. They would not take the risk that the wind might

stop whilst their baby was on the operating table. They would insist that the hospital and the

life support systems had a fossil fuel powered back-up.



And so it is with “sustainable development”. It just isn’t sustainable. At least it does not

sustain a lifestyle that those who promote it would consider

acceptable for themselves. But of course that is the key. Renewable energy and sustainable

development are for “other people”.



Even though environmentalists come from societies and very often families that became rich

because of their use of non-renewable energy and unsustainable

development they will not allow these opportunities to be extended to the poor in the developing

world.



Environmentalists come from wealthy societies and families who cut down forests and burned coal

and oil to make their families and societies healthy and

prosperous. But, nowadays, for the poor in Africa and Asia and even middle America their path

out of poverty must be “sustainable.” No fossil fuels or

factories for them. But what this really means is sustainable poverty. It is a system that

condemns people to a lifetime of drudgery and subsistence farming

because modernity and industrialisation is “unsustainable.”



Which brings me to Bono, the lead singer of rock band U2 and more lately a campaigner for

sustainable development in Africa, Asia and south America. In

2005 Bono and his wife Ali Hewson set up Edun a clothing range that was going to prove there is

a different way to end poverty. It was going to be a non-corporate

and of course “sustainable”.



At he time MSNBC said it would be [2]

“clothing with a conscience”

. Vogue magazine said Edun was going to “flip capitalism on its head”.



But now it seems that Bono has now discovered that big companies with their big carbon

footprints are useful if you want to keep paying the wages and produce

the goods and sell them. Last week the rock star announced he has sold out to LVMH, the worlds

largest luxury goods company. Announcing the deal Bono all

but admitted that his touchy feely version of capitalism and development just didn’t work.

Selling out to LVMH was a great deal, said Bono, and would “bring

greater and longer-term stability to our manufacturers and the communities they support”.

In other words my Clooneyesc view of business is plain wrong and I now have to admit that I can’t

pay the workers salaries without a proper business running

the company. They, with their international marketing skills and economies of scale will make

the business truly sustainable – that is – they will ensure

that the workers have work and a salary every week and for years to come.

It is an admission that capitalism works and is the only way to ensure a better future for some

of the world’s poorest people. And now Bono’s clothes with

a conscience will be marketed and sold by a company that also sells Louis Vuitton, Donna Karan

and Givenchy. LVMH’s also make and sell the delightfully

unsustainable Moët & Chandon, Dom Pérignon and Veuve Clicquot. It also makes and sells parfum

Christian Dior and Givenchy and luxury jewellery and watches

such as TAG Heurer, Christian Dior and De Beers Diamond Jewellers.

Neither side felt it necessary to say how much Bono got for selling half the company to LVMH.

Edun has, in the past, made much of the company’s transparency.

However it seems that the transparency only extends to poking our noses into what the workers

earn. Bono and his wife are exempt from such questions. But

good luck to them. It is really not important to know how much money they have.

But it is important for them to stop keeping people in poverty in the name of sustainability. We

used our resources – we burned coal and oil and chopped

down our forests. We drove our cars and flew our planes. We have used capitalism to conquer

disease and poverty and as a consequence our children are the

best-educated and healthiest in history.

But it seems that now some of these children want to stop the poorest on the planet from having

what we have. Bono loves sustainable development but only

for other people. U2’s latest album was recorded in separate sessions in France, the UK,

Morocco, the US and Dublin. The band is now going on a worldwide

tour to promote it.

This is not “sustainable” but it is necessary to keep people in work and to keep Bono’s bank

balance healthy. And this is a good thing. U2 will provide

employment for hundreds if not thousands through selling the album and going on tour. But it is

being done the old fashioned way – through unsustainable

but wealth creating capitalism.

If it is good enough for Bono and his band of Irish multi-millionaires then it should be good

enough for the poorest on the planet.



Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney are the directors and producers of “Not Evil Just Wrong,” a

documentary which looks at the true cost of Global Warming hysteria.

Article printed from Big Hollywood: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/



URL to article:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/…stainable/



URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/…weto_1.jpg

[2] “clothing with a conscience”: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/…d/7182840/

[3] Image: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/…ehouse.jpg

[4] noteviljustwrong.com: http://noteviljustwrong.com/

Copyright © 2008 Big Hollywood. All rights reserved.

Ray T. Mahorney

WA4WGA

Napster cuts music plan to $5 a month



May 18, 2009 7:27 PM (ET)



By RYAN NAKASHIMA

Associated Press



http://apnews.myway.com/…UTUO0.html





LOS ANGELES (AP) - Napster.com on Monday cut the price of its online

music streaming service to $5 a month from $12.95, and threw in five

song downloads for customers in a move to better compete with rival iTunes.



The Los Angeles-based company gained notoriety in the early years of

music downloading with its free browser-style music swapping service,

but following copyright lawsuits emerged as a subscription-based

service. It has struggled to grow its user base from over 700,000 last

August, and compete with music retailers like Apple Inc.'s iTunes store.



It was acquired by Best Buy Inc. in October for about $122 million in cash.



Napster Chief Executive Chris Gorog said the new offering stands up well

against iTunes because 5 songs a month will cost just $5 even if they

are new releases. By comparison, Apple Inc.'s iTunes recently began

charging up to $1.29 for newer, more popular tracks.



Napster also allows unlimited full-length song previews versus iTunes'

30-second samples.



"It's a killer offer we believe stands up nicely across any competitive

lens you put it through," Gorog said.



Subscribers can also buy additional MP3-format songs priced between 69

cents and $1.29.



Gorog would not say how Napster's $12.95-a-month streaming service had

been affected by other sites that stream songs for free, such as MySpace

Music, which launched in September.



Sites such as MySpace, Pandora and imeem pay for song streams with

advertising revenue, but Napster does not have any ads.



Music analyst Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group said the offering lacked

real synergy with its acquirer, consumer electronics retailer Best Buy.



"I'm struggling to see how this helps Best Buy," Enderle said. "I don't

see how you get store traffic with this."



Gorog said the plan will be marketed through Best Buy stores starting

Tuesday including with pre-paid cards that will cost from $5 for one

month to up to $60 for a 12-month subscription. Online buyers of

lengthier subscriptions will get a few extra song download credits

thrown in.



He said the company plans to offer a streaming service on mobile devices

in the future.



Users of Napster's existing $12.95-per-month computer-based music

streaming service will be switched over automatically on their next

billing cycle.



Others who pay $14.95 a month to be able to download unlimited numbers

of songs and play them from portable devices, will be given a choice to

stick with their plan or switch to the new plan. Subscribers who pay

$7.49 to have five over-the-air song downloads to mobile phones will not

be affected.

'Hate Crimes' Bill is Full of Swill

Matt Barber

Thursday, May 07, 2009



Senate sponsors and liberal activist proponents of the federal "hate crimes" bill, S. 909, have

been caught in a series of bald-faced lies. So confident

am I of this, that if they can prove me wrong (for real I mean - you know, with evidence and

such) I'll join their little soirée, don a very large pink

evening gown and publicly voice support for the legislation.

To the express exclusion of other identifiable groups - including veterans, the elderly and the

homeless - S. 909, in its current form, would grant special

federal resources and preferred minority status to pedophiles, homosexuals, cross-dressers and -

as Democratic sponsor Alcee Hastings recently admitted

on the House floor - a host of other APA recognized "sexual orientations" (i.e., deviant sexual

fetishes and perversions).



Not only is this legislation constitutionally dubious on First Amendment grounds, and a prima

facie violation of Fourteenth Amendment required "equal protection

of the laws;" it also flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment, which explicitly limits the

federal government's authority in such matters to those powers

delegated by the U.S. Constitution.



Here's how they're doing it:



In order for the feds to usurp the States' police power, liberals in Congress have had to openly

place, within the very language of the bill, a series of

transparent lies. To get around that pesky old Constitution and accomplish this brash federal

power grab, they've been forced to misuse and abuse the Commerce

Clause.



In a feeble attempt to constitutionally justify federal interference with local law enforcement,

S. 909's sponsors have made - within the bill's "Findings"

section - several outlandish and unsustainable claims relative to "interstate commerce." So

outlandish are these claims, in fact, that the same language

was intentionally withdrawn from the House version before it was passed and referred to the

Senate.



But since the bill's Senate sponsors recognize that failure to include these fantasy "findings"

immediately renders the legislation unconstitutional, the

interstate commerce language has quickly and quietly found its way home.



First, while addressing "hate crimes" allegedly motivated by so-called "sexual orientation"

bias, the bill asserts that existing law is "inadequate to address

this problem." This is patently untrue.



When the legislation's 1968 "hate crimes" forerunner was introduced, there were multiple and

verifiable cases of local prosecutors refusing to indict whites

for violent crimes committed against blacks. Moreover, the 1968 law was actually conceived and

passed with the primary purpose of righting this specific

wrong.



The exact opposite is true today. As FBI statistics reveal, in the relatively few instances

where bias motivated crimes are committed against homosexuals

or cross-dressers, those crimes are, without fail, zealously prosecuted under existing law.

Victims are granted "equal protection of the laws" regardless

of sexual preference or proclivity.



Yet these same victims are, nonetheless, shamelessly and publicly exploited by homosexual

activists and the mainstream media as the latest "hate crimes"

cause célèbre. This, even as hypersensitive local prosecutors bend over backwards to take-down

alleged "gay-bashing" assailants as to avoid kneejerk accusations

of systemic "homophobia."



To illustrate the point, one need look only to the most famous supposed "hate crimes" victim of

all, Matthew Shepard, who, as it later turned out, was killed

during a robbery for drug money gone awry.



This fact notwithstanding, the left continues to disgracefully politicize Shepard's memory by

claiming he was murdered simply for being "gay." Indeed, this

very legislation, S. 909, is cited as the "Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act."



The bizarre irony is palpable. The two thugs who killed Shepard are currently serving life

sentences for their crimes - and rightfully so - in the complete

absence of any discriminatory and unnecessary "hate crimes" legislation. Justice prevailed and

existing law was undeniably "[adequate] to address this

problem."



In fact, I challenge proponents of S. 909 to provide one verifiable example of a prosecutor

refusing to charge a violent criminal because the victim was

a homosexual or a cross-dresser.



They won't. They can't.



But back to the interstate commerce charade:



Here, the federal government's own statistics serve to derail the "hate crimes" gravy train.

According to the FBI, in 2007 - out of 1.4 million violent

crimes in the U.S. - there were a mere 247 cases of aggravated assault (including five deaths)

allegedly motivated by the victim's "sexual orientation."





Yet S. 909 makes the fantastic claim that there is an epidemic of such "hate crimes." So many,

in fact, that it "poses a serious national problem." The

bill hysterically declares - while providing zero evidence - the following nonsense:



· Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways;



· [T]he movement of members of targeted groups (homosexuals, pedophiles, cross-dressers, etc.)

is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move

across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence;



· Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or

sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial

activity;



And, here's the kicker. Wait for it .. Wait for it:



· Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.



So there you have it, folks. If it weren't so serious, it'd be comical. But let's make sure we

have it straight. According to Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy,

Barack Obama and their S. 909 cheerleading cohorts, we must pass S. 909 immediately because

right here, right now in America, it's not at all unusual to

witness terrified hordes of fabulously dressed - yet wrongfully unemployed - "gays" and

otherwise gender confused blokes in lipstick and Jimmy Choo pumps,

frantically fleeing Dolce & Gabbana before they've even had a chance to make a purchase, while

inbred, homophobic, bat-wielding rednecks hotly pursue them

across state lines.



Don't think I'll be wearing that pink evening gown any time soon.



Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

http://townhall.com/…l_of_swill



Ray T. Mahorney

WA4WGA

May 10, 2009



Hate Crime Legislation - Back Door to Censorship

By

James Simpson



An

extension of the Hate Crimes law

recently passed the House of Representatives which will essentially codify into national law

the "speech codes" that are smothering academic freedom on

college campuses today. This law is the back door method Obama and his fellow socialists will

use to stifle free speech in this country, as explained in



an informative article by Jerry Kane

at

American Daughter.



To heck with the "Fairness Doctrine." Who needs to limit censorship to the airwaves? This

legislation will silence anyone who disagrees with them.



Hate crimes legislation has its roots in the communist-inspired, so-called

Frankfurt School

founded in Frankfurt, Germany by Bolsheviks in the 1920s. Its goal was to implement communism

in the West quietly by gradually subverting popular culture

-- a movement known as

Cultural Marxism

. One of its leading lights,

Herbert Marcuse

, opined that the prevailing Western social order is repressive by definition and discriminates

against minorities simply by existing.



This creates a phenomenon he called "

repressive tolerance

" because even though other views are allowed within Western culture -- you know, by that

insignificant little old thing called the First Amendment -- the

Capitalist view is still permitted. It goes without saying that Marcuse considered that to be

unacceptable.

Instead, he proposed what he called "

partisan tolerance

," i.e. tolerating the views of those "repressed minorities" only -- who Marcuse assumes share

his partisan hatred for everything noncommunist -- while

actively muzzling the views of the majority.



So now we have a word for Democrats' eye-popping hypocrisy when they wrap themselves in the

mantle of free speech while simultaneously attempting to suppress

non-Leftist ideas. We have a word for the Left's double standard in championing "repressed

minorities" only when those minorities share their politics,

while savaging principled, accomplished minorities like Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell or Janice

Rogers Brown. We have an explanation for why so many college

campuses, supposedly the society's heart of open-minded intellectual inquiry, actively, even

violently intimidate conservative speakers -- when they let

them onto campus at all.



They have been practicing "partisan tolerance." That is, tolerance of the extreme Left and

virulent intolerance of anything else.



Marcuse, among other Frankfurt School advocates, was brought to the U.S. in the 1930s by

Edward R. Murrow

who at the time headed a program to resettle intellectuals facing Nazi repression.

According to Wikipedia

, Marcuse worked at the OSS, the State Department and taught at Columbia, Harvard and Brandeis.

Now doesn't that tell you something? He has been called

the "Father of the New Left" and inspired many of the 1960s' young radicals, who now have

tenured teaching positions at colleges throughout the U.S. It

is easy to see his Frankfurt School influence in university speech codes - indeed it is largely

the reason they exist.



In fact the

New School

, currently run by former Democratic Senator

Bob Kerrey

of Nebraska, counts the Frankfurt School as one of its

main influences

. Barack Obama has an indirect connection to the school, in that his father was offered a

scholarship there.

According to Wikipedia:



block quote

In the early 1960s, the New School offered the father of the US President, Barack Obama, a

generous scholarship package that would have paid for his immediate

family (including wife Ann Dunham and son, the future President; then residents of Hawaii) to

join him in New York City, where he would complete his PhD.

He declined and instead abandoned his family and departed for Harvard University, where he had a

less-generous scholarship with no family allowance.



block quote end



The Frankfurt School was dedicated to the destruction of the West. One of its founders, Willi

Munzenberg, stated explicitly that its goal was to:



block quote

...organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilisation stink [sic]. Only then,

after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible,

can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.



block quote end



According to an article by Timothy Matthews in

Catholic Insight

, key strategies to achieve this goal were:



block quote

1. The creation of racism offences.

2. Continual change to create confusion.

3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.

4. The undermining of schools' and teachers' authority.

5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.

6. The promotion of excessive drinking.

7. Emptying of churches.

8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.

9. Dependency on the state or state benefits.

10. Control and dumbing down of media.

11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.



block quote end



Munzenberg stated flatly, "We will make the West so corrupt it stinks."



Today, his mission appears to have been largely accomplished. Assisted by American public

education advocates, Frankfurt School proponents aggressively

worked their way into our public education system to the point that today their priorities

virtually define it. Their influence explains most of today's

sick popular culture.



So this is the last piece in the

Manufactured Crisis

puzzle. It seems apparent that "Hate Crimes" legislation is the vehicle by which free speech

will be permanently silenced in America. And after that, the

thugs will be firmly in charge.



You need look no further for proof that Marcuse's "cultural Marxists" are in charge in

Washington now. Since it is their intention to destroy this country,

intellectual appeals to them will fall on deaf ears. The only recourse is to lobby Senate

Republicans and those few remaining Democrats with a shred of

integrity, if indeed there are any.



We are witnessing the death of our country.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/…ck_do.html at

May 13, 2009 - 01:08:17 AM EDT

Ray T. Mahorney

WA4WGA

http://online.wsj.com/…98941.html

Obama and the 9/11 Families

The president isn't sincere about 'swift and certain' justice for terrorists.By

DEBRA BURLINGAME



In February I was among a group of USS Cole and 9/11 victims' families who met with the

president at the White House to discuss his policies regarding Guantanamo

detainees. Although many of us strongly opposed Barack Obama's decision to close the detention

center and suspend all military commissions, the families

of the 17 sailors killed in the 2000 attack in Yemen were particularly outraged.



Over the years, the Cole families have seen justice abandoned by the Clinton administration and

overshadowed by the need of the Bush administration to gather

intelligence after 9/11. They have watched in frustration as the president of Yemen refused

extradition for the Cole bombers.



Now, after more than eight years of waiting, Mr. Obama was stopping the trial of Abu Rahim

al-Nashiri, the only individual to be held accountable for the

bombing in a U.S. court. Patience finally gave out. The families were giving angry interviews,

slamming the new president just days after he was sworn

in.



The Obama team quickly put together a meeting at the White House to get the situation under

control. Individuals representing "a diversity of views" were

invited to attend and express their concerns.

http://online.wsj.com/…98791.html

Gordon Brown's Free Fall

Britain's prime minister may be on his way out.By

IAN BREMMER



It's hard to believe it's been 30 years since Margaret Thatcher became Britain's prime minister.

She is now in declining health and no longer speaks in

public, but if this week's anniversary of Mrs. Thatcher's election proves anything, it's that

mention of her name can still start an argument.



Some honor her as an unwavering champion of common people and simple principles. Others denounce

her as an unbending, heartless ideologue. But virtually

all agree that no American president has had a more reliable foreign ally.



A generation later, facing tremendous international dangers, President Barack Obama could use

such a partner. That's why the unraveling of Gordon Brown's

government and Britain's economic emergency are such bad news for Washington.



Just how poorly are things going for Mr. Brown? His popularity has fallen further and faster

than any prime minister since reliable polling became available

nearly 80 years ago.



Just six weeks ago, the G-20 summit in London provided him the opportunity to play the role of

effective economic crisis manager. But since the event, he's

had to fire a close adviser, Damian McBride, when the press discovered that Mr. McBride had

attempted to smear various members of the opposition with salacious

falsehoods. Mr. Brown's annual budget drew an avalanche of criticism because it raises the

income tax rate for top earners to 50%. He thus broke the Labour

Party's pledge not to raise income taxes. He's also losing control of his parliamentary

majority.



On the foreign-policy side, Mr. Brown drew surprisingly little attention at home for his visit

last week to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He won faint domestic

praise for the final British pull-out from Basra in southern Iraq. In fact, pressure is now

growing in London for a 9/11-style commission to study how

and why British troops were sent to Iraq in the first place.



Cameras and microphones now trail Labour Party heavyweights in hopes of capturing a major public

blow against what's left of Mr. Brown's authority. And

polls show that Labour now trails the Conservative Party by 15 to 20 percentage points.



Mr. Brown needn't face national elections for a year, but he will have to endure local and

European Parliament elections in early June -- and his party

will likely suffer blowout losses. Unless Labour sharply outperforms expectations four weeks

from now, the prime minister will face intense pressure to

resign.



Will Mr. Brown go down without a fight? Not likely. He waited his turn for a decade as Tony

Blair's chancellor of the exchequer. Perhaps he believes a hoped-for

economic revival over the next year will boost his popularity and provide him his first true

mandate.



If he is forced to resign later this summer, his most likely immediate successors are Alan

Johnson (the popular health secretary) and Jack Straw (the former

foreign secretary, now justice minister). Either would likely be forced to call early elections,

since the British public -- especially the media -- will

not long accept another unelected prime minister.



If, as expected, the Conservatives return to power following the next elections and David

Cameron becomes prime minister, Mr. Obama will again have a reliable

ally across the Atlantic. In the meantime -- whether Mr. Brown clings to power or a transitional

prime minister emerges to guide Labour -- the U.S.-British

partnership will face a period of frustrating stagnation because both governments are consumed

by political and economic headaches at home.



That's too bad for the foreign-policy interests of both countries. The United Kingdom remains

the world's fifth-largest economy, and London is still its

second-largest financial center. It's a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, one of

three drivers (with Germany and France) of European Union

policy. It's the world's second-largest source of foreign direct investment and its third

largest foreign-aid donor.



In short, Britain matters. Any coordinated solution to problems facing the global economy must

involve British policy makers. Britain's is one of a dwindling

number of governments that has been both willing and able to add troops in Afghanistan, play a

leading role on climate change and other transnational challenges,

and may even take in a few prisoners soon to be released from Guantanamo.



But Britain's political leadership is mightily distracted at the moment. Its public finances are

in rough shape. The 2009 budget deficit appears set to

reach 175 billion pounds -- about 12.5% of the country's GDP. The national debt will likely grow

from 50% to 80% of GDP within the next five years and

could run higher. Total personal debt has increased to about 1.5 trillion pounds. Unemployment

has surpassed two million, and may well reach three million

-- a rate of 10% -- sometime next year. In other words, the next prime minister will inherit

such a mess that Labour's next generation might actually prefer

to let Mr. Cameron's Conservatives try to sort it all out.



Some will say Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Brown have little in common. But as many British

commentators noted this week, senior officials within Mrs. Thatcher's

party -- not voters -- put an end to her leadership. A generation later, another prime minister

looks increasingly vulnerable to just such an uprising.



Mr. Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group, is co-author of the "The Fat Tail: The Power of

Political Knowledge for Strategic Investing" (Oxford University

Press, 2009).



Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A11



Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved



Ray T. Mahorney

WA4WGA

Please note that Interstate 90 will be closed next weekend across

South Dakota

. This closure will allow the Federal Government free access to haul a 200 ton piece

of coal to

Mt. Rushmore

so that President Obama can be added to the Presidents on the monument.

Upon Delivery, I-90 will be converted into a toll road in which the proceeds will

go to supply new vehicles, free of charge to those who have had theirs repo'd, or

cannot otherwise afford them. The Top 5% earners will be required to supply fuel

for these vehicles through a charitable contribution. This charitable giving will

be tax deductible to a maximum of one-half of one percent of the total yearly contribution.

This government project will create 11.1 NEW jobs in

South Dakota

, thus reducing the unemployment rate in that state by 0.0000005% immediately. However,

this will require an additional 3.7

Bill

ion taxpayer dollars to initially purchase the vehicles from GM and Chrysler. An

additional 95 Trillion taxpayer dollars will be distributed to AIG to provide quality

insurance for each vehicle.

Supportive comments only can be twittered to the Presidents new website

www.holyshittheyelectedme.com

More questions for Jaqui Smith. Did you know who Michael Savage was and had you heard his

program before you decided to ban him from entering your country? I doubt it. From what I've

seen, you're not competent at the job you currently hold you've made one misstep after another

after assuming the post of home secretary so there's no way you could have been aware of an

American talk show host let alone what goes on in your own office. Now, because you likely

didn't know who Michael Savage was before banning him from entry it's fair to ask you Mrs. Jaqui

Smith: Who put you up to your action? Could it have been CAIR? (The Council on American

Islamic Relations) I would not be surprised given the tendency of you and your government to go

out of your way to grant Islam which is not a religion all manner of concessions just to keep

from offending them at the expense of freedom for your own people. Are you Secretary Smith in

your heart of hearts a "pocket dictator?" I think people would like to know an answer to that

one and I would like to know before I come over there. If you are and if you can arbitrarily

ban a talk show host a private citizen who has not espoused violence against any minority or

ethnic group in the entire fifteen years he's been on American air, then who will next appear on

your undesirable list? Secretary Smith; Savage gets it right when he says that these terrorists

you seem so eager not to offend should be deported it is not the average Britain or American who

needs to get their minds right concerning Moslem terrorists it's you and your kin on the

terrorist appeasing left who need to wake up and realize where the real threat is. From where I

sit Home Secretary Jaqui Smith, it is your blindness to what radical Islam represents and your

lust for power which constitute a greater threat to the citizens of Britain and a greater cause

of "inter community tension" than a visiting American talk show host. Now, lets see if I get

banned from going to Britain?

Ray T. Mahorney

WA4WGA

looks like the home secretary stepped in it again. Not a day goes by when she doesn't but in

this case she has made a grand mess. The first thing you

have to understand is that Savage would not be able to attract an audience if there were not

some truth in what he said. I personally think his presentation

is a bit over the top but there is truth in what he has said. By summarily banning Savage, she

raises his profile which will have the effect of calling

attention to the truth of what he says which Mrs. Smith would rather distract the public from

and boosting his audience numbers and for that his advertisers

thank Madam Secretary. What she has also done is show that she is ignorant of the Koran and

what it instructs Moslems to do with and to those who do not

convert willingly. Perhaps she should read it? If she did though she might find that she is

faced with an uncomfortable and inconvenient truth about

what the Koran says and what Islam is. This truth would put the lie to the current labor

governments insane policy of appeasing radical Islam. With the

internet no ban can be truly effective but if the government were serious about banning Savage,

it would block the IP address of his website. Censorship

anyone? Does Mrs. Smith want to step in it again? She probably does.



Ray T. Mahorney

WA4WGA



Akron Ohio

America's are terrorists if they own a bible, a pocket Constitution or guns, and still believe

in Life, Liberty and Freedom

Obama and ACORN GPS Marking EVERY Front Door in America?



JB Williams

Restore our Constitution

By JB Williams Wednesday, April 29, 2009



Republican Senator Judd Gregg was Obama's first choice for the Secretary of Commerce post, and

Gregg was actually considering joining the Obama team, until

he found out that control of the US Census was being stripped from the Commerce Department and

placed under the direct control of White House Chief of

Staff, Rahm Emanuel.



Then, the same week that Americans learned that they were "domestic terrorists"-at least

according to Obama's new DHS (Department of Homeland Security),-if

they own a bible, a pocket Constitution or guns, and still believe in Life, Liberty and

Freedom, - they also learned that Obama's Census Bureau had hired

thousands of new temporary employees, equipped each with a handheld GPS computer and sent them

out to mark GPS coordinates for every residential front

door in America.



Oddly, it was this same period that news was breaking of an international flu pandemic,

suspected of being a weaponized strain of the virus never before

seen, - and that Obama's team still sees no need to close the US-Mexican border, despite the

cross continental spread of a deadly illness now claiming

American lives.



Now, if any one of these events happened alone, one might not get too excited. But when a string

of such events happen all at once, one begins to question

the string of freedom and life threatening coincidences.



I can't resist the urge to question the authority and purpose behind such a BIG BROTHER

initiative, when the official Census itself is not due to be taken

until 2010.



No imagination is required to think up a whole laundry list of evil that could be done with a

nationwide GPS grid of coordinate's markers painted on every

private home across the country. But I was having trouble thinking up one good reason for it,

even one legitimate use that would justify what must be a

very expensive undertaking.



According to one of the Census workers, who spoke with me on condition of anonymity, they must

GPS mark the coordinates "within 40 ft of every front door"

in America and they are supposed to complete that mission nation wide, within 90 days, by the

end of July 2009.



The workers were not told why they were GPS marking every front door. But a supervisor is sent

out to follow them door-to-door, to make certain that no

door is left unmarked. Every door will be marked by one employee, and then checked by a

follow-up supervisor.



So, I had to ask, why?



Why does the Obama administration need or want the latitude and longitude coordinates for every

home in America? Why the rush to GPS paint every home in

the next 90 days? Why must the marker be within 40 ft of every front door? For what possible

purpose does the Fed need GPS coordinates for every home,

and under what authority do they have the right? Census workers, whom I asked, had the same

holy-crap look on their faces that I had by then.



ACORN

signed on as a national partner with the U.S. Census Bureau in February 2009 to assist with the

recruitment of the 1.4 million temporary workers needed

to go door-to-door to count every person in the United States - currently believed to be more

than 306 million people. But the count doesn't take place

until 2010. This is April 2009.



Obama's interest in an ACORN controlled 2010 Census, for the purpose of redistricting to the

advantage of Democrats before the 2010 mid-term elections,

comes as NO shock from a regime known for their heavy handed

Rules for Radicals

political strategies. But what does this have to do with GPS marking every home in the country?



The 2% of Americans, who have served military duty at some point in life, are very familiar with

the most common use of GPS target painting. The other 98%

of Americans might want to pick up a book on the subject, such as

The Precision Revolution: GPS and the Future of Aerial Warfare ...



Their Authority?



RightSoup.com has just about the only online report available on the matter, and they report,

"Why does the government (and ACORN) need to have the GPS

coordinates of your FRONT DOOR? Your house is probably on Google Maps already. But the front

door? Sounds like a jackboot convenience to me. This is a

developing story, and several reports of those who have already been visited by the GPS squad

can be found in this forum thread

."



If you challenge Census Bureau employees about the GPS marking of your private residence, you

will be handed a preprinted explanation referring you to

Sec. 223, Title 13, U.S. Code, Chapter 7, Subtitle 2

, which explains the penalties for refusing to provide names and statistics of occupants when

asked for by a census taker. This only applies when they are

taking a census, (which will not be taken until next year), and the penalty for refusing to

answer questions for a census is up to a $500 fine.



However, since the actual Census is not due to be taken until 2010, nobody is asking for any

information today. They are only GPS marking your front door

today, and

Sec. 223, Title 13, U.S. Code, Chapter 7, Subtitle 2

provides the Fed NO authority to GPS paint your front door.



Best I can tell, the Fed has NO authority whatsoever, to paint the front door of every private

residence in America. Still, that is exactly what they are

doing. Now, the trillion dollar question is, why?



A State of Emergency



>From Wikipedia - The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C.

§ 1385

) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention of substantially

limiting the powers of the federal government to use the

military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services

from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police,

or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (such as states

and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United

States.



In short, the statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National

Guard operating under federal authority, from acting in a

law enforcement capacity within the United States.



As members of the military are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and the American

people against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, a federal

order to do the exact opposite, and take aim at American citizens, would be a clear violation of

the US Constitution and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878,

unless.



US Military personnel are trained to follow orders. But they are also obligated to refuse any

order deemed "unlawful." In order to make such an order appear

"lawful," the federal government would first have to declare a national "state of emergency,"

such as in the case of an international pandemic, which can

be demonstrated to threaten the health and well-being of American citizens.



Following a state of emergency declaration, a federal order for Martial Law would be expected,

to allegedly provide law enforcement and security for citizens.

This type of scenario can be followed by a presidential order to quarantine, disarm and contain

American citizens in the name of national security, all

of it, having the appearance of being "lawful."



Is this what is happening?



Connecting the Dots



Alone, individual events look concerning, but not conspiratorial. What about when you place the

pieces of the puzzle together and take a look at the entire

picture developing?



Under this "theory," how does the GPS marking of every private residence in the nation fit into

the picture?



I wish I knew. but I don't!



What I do know is this. Coincidences of this number and magnitude don't happen. They certainly

do not happen all at the same time, within hours or days

of each other, out of the wild blue tin-foil hat heaven.



I also know that people had better start asking the right people the right questions and

demanding answers fast. Begin with asking the mainstream press

why there has been no public notification of the federal governments GPS marking your front

door?



Then, I suggest contacting your local Census Bureau office immediately, and demanding an

explanation as well as advice as to what law gives them the right

to GPS paint every front door in America?



I'd also recommend sending a copy of this column to your state and federal representative,

demanding that they put a stop to it or explain why it's necessary,

and what law gives them the right?



Unfortunately, we live in a moment of history when real events are much stranger than nutty

conspiracy theories. The people have every right to know what

is happening. But unless you demand to know, nobody's talking!



Bill Clinton sold US nuclear technology to Red China for a mere $300,000 in campaign

contributions. The event landed Chinese bagman Johnny Chung in prison,

but put Hillary Clinton in the US Senate, and now at the helm of the US State Department.



Highly secured government servers are hacked daily. Soon, hackers will be able to grab a nation

wide GPS grid map, marking the front door of every home

in America.



How much is a GPS grid of every American household worth to the enemies of America, both foreign

and domestic? I'd estimate, PRICELESS!



There is a foul odor resonating from the current regime in Washington DC and most Americans can

smell it. Can most Americans gather the strength to do something

about it?

JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on

American politics, American history, and American philosophy.

He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. JB Williams' website is

jb-williams.com/



JB Williams can be reached at:

JB_Williams@comcast.net

Printed from:

http://canadafreepress.com/…icle/10688





Ray T. Mahorney

WA4WGA

May 3, 2009



Bluetooth Headset Makers in Class-Action Lawsuit — Give Me a Break



By GigaOm



http://www.nytimes.com/…12208.html





Have you ever received a letter notifying you that you’re involved in a

class-action lawsuit and that your rights may be affected? Usually it

involves the fact that you purchased something from a list of companies

who’ve been sued and a proposed settlement has been made that will

determine what your damages will be. I got one of these letters

yesterday that involves a suit against Motorola, Plantronics and Jabra,

concerning Bluetooth headsets they sold. The suit was filed because

these companies allegedly did not warn consumers of a “risk of hearing

loss and that Defendants acted wrongfully when they did not warn

consumers of the risk (if it exists).”



I had to read that part twice, how they are being sued because they

didn’t warn about a risk that might not exist. That’s what it says and

that’s what it means. Can you say frivolous lawsuit? I knew you could.

This is what’s wrong with this system in the U.S. Why bring a

class-action suit like this in the first place? The answer is money.

Millions of dollars are being pursued from these big, bad companies and

all under the guise of trying to protect us, the unknowing public.



Don’t get me wrong, I’m not railing against the ability to take recourse

against companies that wrong us as consumers. It’s important that we

have an avenue for redressing wrongs. I’m no legal expert, but from all

that I’ve seen of these class-action suits, I can’t say I’ve ever seen

any consumer get fairly represented when the redressing takes place. It

seems to me only the lawyers involved get any redressing. And they

deserve it; you can never have enough Armani suits.



This becomes glaringly obvious when you read through the aforementioned

document above. The defendants in the suit “deny their Bluetooth

headsets are unsafe or that they did anything wrong. Defendants are

settling only to avoid the risk and expense of trial.” In other words,

the law firms representing you and I bullied these companies into

accepting a class-action settlement to keep their potential risk as

small as possible. This is how class-action suits work and what’s wrong

with them.



If my best interests are being served by those who brought this

class-action suit against these companies, what does this settlement

mean for me and the other millions who bought headsets? Nothing, it

turns out.



“It is not practical or economical to provide benefits directly to

individual Class Members because the Class is very large and the amount

each Class Member would receive is very small. Therefore, the Class

Representative, the attorneys for the Class, and the Defendants agree

that the cost of distributing any kind of benefit directly to Class

Members would consume too much of the Proposed Settlement benefits.

Instead, they believe that providing funding to non-profit organizations

that focus on preventing hearing loss will indirectly benefit all Class

Members”.



In other words, there are too many of us consumers, so we wouldn’t get

much anyway. That’s the reason for the part of the settlement that “will

donate $100,000 to one or more non-profit organizations that focus on

preventing hearing loss.” This sounds like a drop in the bucket to me

but a brilliant strategy, because who among us can complain about a

lawsuit that gives part of the settlement to charity?



The full settlement agreement shows the real purpose behind this (and

many) class-action lawsuits. In addition to the $100,000 generously

donated to several charities the proposed settlement will pay this:



"Class Counsel will ask the court for up to $800,000 in attorneys’ fees

and up to $38,000 for reimbursement of documented expenses. Class

Counsel will also request up to $12,000 total for the Class

Representatives, who helped the lawyers on behalf of the whole Class.

The Court may award less than these amounts. Defendants will separately

pay the fees and expenses the Court orders. These payments will not

reduce the amount Defendants will donate to charity."



"Defendants will also separately pay the costs to provide notice to the

Class and administer the Proposed Settlement, up to $1.2 million. If

those costs are less than $1.2 million, Class Counsel may request

reimbursement for additional documented expenses up to $12,000, which

Defendants will pay upon approval by the Court."



It’s easy to see where the money will really go and who gets it — the

law firms working in our best interests. No doubt the ultimate take will

be in excess of $2 million as evidenced by these documents and what is

really going on. To recap, the aggrieved parties (us) get nothing, a

charity gets a pittance and the seven law firms handling the suit get a

few million bucks. Sounds fair to me.



I win as a consumer in this suit because my best interests are being

looked after. When I buy a Bluetooth headset in the future there will no

doubt be a sticker on the box warning me that if I keep the volume too

high I risk my hearing. That’s a big win for me. I am consumer, hear me

roar.

with a year to go why not have national tire fire day to coincide with next years earth day

personally I think that's a great idea!

Ray T. Mahorney

WA4WGA

Green Ohio

(the subhead should read "love the planet kill your girlfriend.")

Earth Day Philly Style

Environmentalist Loved Planet, Murdered Girlfriend

By MICHAEL P. TREMOGLIE, The Bulletin



Published:



Wednesday, April 22, 2009



Today is Earth Day, a holiday created to honor the planet and to raise the consciousness of man's

effect on the environment. Philadelphia has a very strong

tie to this day. One of its native sons, Ira Einhorn, was a co-founder of the environmentalist

jubilee.



But Mr. Einhorn has another line on his resume. In addition to being a environmental guru, he is

the Unicorn Killer.



While a student at the University of Pennsylvania, Mr. Einhorn dated a Bryn Mawr College

graduate by the name of Holly Maddux. When the affair ended in

1977, Mr. Einhorn went into a jealous rage and murdered her.



He concealed his crime for 18 months by stuffing Ms. Maddux's body in a trunk that he kept in

his apartment. The foul odor of the decomposing corpse coming

from Mr. Einhorn's Powelton Village apartment caused neighbors to complain. In 1979, police

found the trunk stored in a closet in Mr. Einhorn's apartment.



Ira Einhorn, member of the counterculture pantheon, one of the founders of the environmentalist

movement, icon of the liberal intelligentsia, was charged

with murder. But it was not just a simple murder, it was a gruesome case of domestic violence.



At the bail hearing, Mr. Einhorn was praised by a contingent of luminaries - all testifying to

his character. There were Ivy League professors, an Episcopalian

minister and corporate executives who worked with Mr. Einhorn raising funds. They all stated

under oath that he was a man of the greatest integrity.



Arlen Specter, currently Pennsylvania's senior United States Senator, was Mr. Einhorn's

attorney. He managed to get the bail set at the unheard of amount

of $40,000 for the suspected murderer. Only 10 percent was needed to free him. Barbara Bronfman,

heiress to the Seagram liquor fortune, paid it.



Proclaiming his innocence, Mr. Einhorn told all that he was framed. He said it was the CIA or

the FBI who committed the murder and they were trying to

frame him for it because of his political activities.



Some will note that another notorious Philadelphia murderer, Mumia Abu Jamal, used this defense

a few years later. Like Mumia, Mr. Einhorn had no shortage

of leftist followers.



Mr. Einhorn skipped bail and left Philadelphia in 1981. More than a decade passed when the DA's

office tried Mr. Einhorn in absentia after being unable

to locate him. He was convicted in 1993.



Several years after the absentia conviction, in 1997, Mr. Einhorn was located. He was living in

France with a new girlfriend - a Swedish woman. The District

Attorney's office in Philadelphia immediately asked to have him extradited. However, the humane

French refused to extradite Mr. Einhorn. French officals

cited the use of capital punishment in Pennsylvania and the conviction in absentia as reasons

for their refusal.



Mr. Einhorn was able to convince the French courts not to extradite him until he received the

promise of a new trial. A Pennsylvania legislator, Dan O'Brien,

introduced a bill in the Pennsylvania General Assembly that allowed granting Mr. Einhorn a new

trial, if he asked for it, and if the French extradited

him. The bill did not vacate the original verdict.



When France began extradition, Mr. Einhorn's representatives requested the European Court of

Human Rights to review the case. The request was denied.



He was extradited to Pennsylvania in July 2001. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to life in

prison October 17, 2002.



But there is a little mentioned irony about the Einhorn saga.



Ira Einhorn was arrested for murder March 28, 1979, the day the Three Mile Island nuclear plant

accident occurred. Ira Einhorn, environmentalist, was charged

with murder during the same period as one of the greatest environmental accidents in United

States history.



But the real irony is that more people died in the apartment of Ira Einhorn, co-founder of Earth

Day than at Three Mile Island. The environmentalist killed

more people than the so-called environmental disaster.



Happy Earth Day.



Michael P. Tremoglie can be contacted at

mtremoglie@thebulletin.us



Copyright © 2009 - The Bulletin

http://www.thebulletin.us/…756314.prt



Ray T. Mahorney

WA4WGA