Monday, August 31, 2009

Who Started WWII? Russia Denies Culpability

Cross-posted over at

Stalin smiles as he joins the Nazis.

European leaders are meeting tomorrow to reflect on the beginning of the second World War, happening seventy years ago on September first. Tensions have risen as the question of who started WWII are asked:
Ultimately, however, the row which threatens to eclipse a gathering on Tuesday of European leaders in Gdansk is not about history or the past. It is all about the present, specifically Russia's claim of having "privileged interests" in its post-Soviet neighbours. Russia's president, Dmitry Medvedev, made his own explosive contribution to the debate, saying it was a "flat-out lie" to suggest that Stalin bore any responsibility for starting the second world war, which he described as "the 20th century's greatest catastrophe". According to Medvedev, it was Stalin who in fact "ultimately saved Europe".

Anyone who has studied the issue at all recognizes the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, signed in August of 1939, whereby Stalin teamed up with Hitler to cut up Europe. The news shocked the world, and damn near guaranteed world war. Very soon after they attacked Poland on opposite borders, crushing her. The reward? The USSR was supposed to get Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, a whole lot of Romania and two-thirds of Poland in exchange for supporting the Third Reich. Why the normally suspicious Stalin trusted Hitler is a mystery that may never be answered, but it was known that the Soviet mass murder saw in Adolph much to admire. The military victory was not long celebrated.

On June 22, 1941 Germany invaded Russia; tens of thousands of smiling Russians were slaughtered waving in welcome to their German allies. Stalin executed informants bringing news that Germany was invading, he refused to believe it. When proof finally convinced him, he was so shocked by the betrayal that he shut himself up in a room and saw no one for a week, they say he was in a drunken stupor, no doubt now regretting his paranoid purge of the Russian officer corp. The nation was reeling as German troops stormed toward Moscow without opposition, massacring civilians without remorse. The only thing that would save the young communist nation was the Russian winter.

But Hitler's deceit doesn't forgive Stalin's evil designs. The pact was a deal among demons. In moral terms, there was no difference between the two men. Today Hitler is irredeemable but Russia still works to reframe Joseph Stalin:
The Kremlin now argues that Stalin had no choice but to forge the pact with Hitler in August 1939. It says Britain and France made war inevitable by signing the Munich agreement. And it puts the boot firmly into Poland; the Kremlin says the country was a willing Nazi ally and accomplice to Hitler's partition of Czechoslovakia the previous year.

Historians are unimpressed. "This is a very stupid argument," Vladimir Ryzhkov, a historian and former Russian opposition MP said. "You are saying that Poland was bad for allowing the division of Czechoslovakia, but that Stalin was good when he agreed to divide eastern Europe with Hitler."

It's obvious that the new Russia has many of the same aspirations as the old Russia. The first thing they must do is re-write history. Fortunately for them we have a president who is eager to re-learn...

The Politicization of Ted Kennedy's Death

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse

Politics right to the grave's edge

As my regular readers know, I have refrained from criticizing the late Senator Ted Kennedy out of respect for his passing. I am also reluctant to take shots at those of his colleagues and followers who are mourning his death. Something, must be said, however, about the crass politicization of his death for partisan purposes. Generally, the funeral was done well. His wife, Victoria, especially, was a picture of grace and class. Unfortunately, political necessities-urgent necessities for the Democrats- have put a damper on what was otherwise a good send-off for Senator Kennedy.

In the final weeks and days of Kennedy's life, we began to hear calls for a change in Massachusetts state law that would allow the governor, Deval Patrick, to appoint a successor to fill Kennedy's seat. The senator himself asked for such a change. As things now stand, the state of Massachusetts must wait a period of some 5 months, then have a special election. Of course, a few years ago, the law was different. It called for the governor to appoint a successor to a senator whose term was cut short. In 2004, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts was running for president. With the prospect of his election, Democrats in Massachusetts feared that the then- governor, Mitt Romney (a Republican)would appoint a Republican to fill Kerry's position. As a result, the Democrats,with Kennedy's help, changed the law. Of course, with Kerry's defeat, it became a moot point, but the law was changed. Now the Democrats want to change it back to ensure a Democrat fills Kennedy's seat. Pure politics.

Secondly, as Kennedy's death approached, many Democrats, like former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, for example, publicly called for the pending government health bill to be named after Ted Kennedy. Reason? To inspire increased public support. "Do it for Teddy", if you will.

Even during the funeral, the health care issue was brought to the fore. I would like to know which adult gave that prayer to Kennedy's young grandchild to read in the Boston mass, something along the lines of, "that universal health care........"

"Lord, hear our prayer."

Then, at the gravesite, a letter was read that Kennedy had written to the Pope. It was touching enough until the reader got to the part where Kennedy was describing his attempts to get universal health care passed.

I'm sorry, folks. It was crass politicization of an event that even Kennedy's enemies were treating with respect. It was reminiscent of the Paul Wellstone funeral, when Trent Lott was booed as he came to pay his respects and Wellstone's son gave a tub-thumping political speech that would have embarrassed his father.

Now, finally, the Democrats, realizing that they are lacking a crucial vote needed to stop a Republican filibuster, are trying to find a way to ram this bill through on a majority vote. The partisan New York Times has even pointed this out in an editorial telling the Democrats they need to get this thing done by whatever means necessary (see below link). This last point also points out another reason why Democrats want that Massachusetts law changed back to the way it used to be. Crass politics.

So whether you are Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, for or against the government health care plan, I hope you will all pay attention to how this plays out and specifically how the Democrats use Kennedy's death to advance their political agenda. So far, it lacks any class, whatsoever.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Mark Lloyd-Architect of the Fairness Doctrine?

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse

Mark Lloyd-FCC Diversity Chief

That old bugaboo, the Fairness Doctrine, is still waiting in the wings. With Obama and the Democrats in power, only public vigilance is standing between us and the shutdown of conservative talk radio. Oh, the Henry Waxmans of the world will assure us that nothing is in the works...until, BAM! It's a done deal. Of course, they won't say that it's all about restoring balance to political talk radio. They have a more subtle way to get it done. It's called things like "localization" and "diversity". They are going to control licensing and who owns radio stations. They are going to hit private talk radio stations with so many regulations, they will all throw in the towel and switch to country music instead of talk shows. Enter Mark Lloyd, President Obama's new head of Diversity for the FCC.

Mark Lloyd comes right out of the Marxist playbook. He doesn't care a whit about freedom of speech. What Mr Lloyd cares about is the government controlling the dissemination of political thought over the airwaves.

Here is a clip (from the Glenn Beck Show on Fox News) showing Lloyd speaking at a conference in 2008, in which he sings the praises of Hugo Chavez and his handling of the media in Venezuela:

Did you catch the references to those evil property-owners in Venezuela and the US trying to oust Chavez? Does that give you some clues about Mr Lloyd's agenda?

Want more? Here is Lloyd commenting on the idea of freedom of speech in general:

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”

Prior to joining the White House, Lloyd was a senior fellow at the liberal think tank, Center for American Progress, established by Clinton Administration henchman, John Podesta. According to Wikipedia, here is what that outfit thinks about talk radio:

"The Center for American Progress was criticized by conservative commentators for its 2007 report titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio."[15] The report states: "out of 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive." The report did not include analysis of the content of other radio providers, such as universities and public radio. The report suggests three steps to increase progressive radio voices in talk radio: restoring local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations; ensuring greater local accountability over radio licensing; and require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting."

That is exactly what Mr Lloyd wants. He wants private outlets to pay to support that insipid, liberal, and publicly financed National Public Radio.

But you liberals, of course, have nothing to worry about. You will continue to have your MSNBC, AIR America, CNN and all your liberal newspapers. Those of you whose view of life has been shaped by David Letterman, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher will be just fine. But if I recall correctly, I used to hear liberals scream about freedom of speech not so many years ago. Do you really care about freedom of speech? Or only your speech? For those of you liberals who truly care about freedom of speech-for all-then you too should be concerned about what's coming down the pike. As for us conservatives, we need to stand up and scream just as loudly about this as we do about government health care.

Things are moving fast, folks.

Friday, August 28, 2009

In the Tank-Our News Media

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse

Having lived in Thailand in the late 1970s, when the military was essentially in charge, I saw first-hand how it works when the news media is controlled by the government. The newspaper we read was the Bangkok Post, one of three English-language dailies in Bangkok. Sufice to say, the did not put out much, if any, criticism of whoever was in power. In one year, there was a brief coup, and the Post, now taken over by the "new government" descfribed the coup as the salvation of the nation. The only problem was that the counter-coup took back the government within 48 hours if memory serves me correctly. Of course, the Post, like all the other papers, greeted the counter-coup as the salvation of the nation and had to explain why they wrote what they had written a couple of days earlier. very messy, indeed.

Now it seems we are living in a nation under dictatorial rule, at least if you read and listen to the slobbering stuff coming out of the media (Fox News and talk radio excepted). You would almost think that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC (especially)and CNN were all arms of the government. Of course, you know they weren't under Bush, so that means they are in ideological agreement with Obama and the Democrats. Such is the case with the health care debate. This week, we have continued to witness more glaring examples of how the media is in lockstep with the current administration and the Demoocrats in general. A few examples.

The other night, I watched an hour-long special on the life of Ted Kennedy on MSNBC hosted by Lester Holt. I won't go into the fact that it was a positve portrayal of Kennedy (of course, they had to cover Chappaquiddick) out of respect for the now-deceased Senator. Let's leave that aside. What really caught my attention was the portrayal of Kennedy's father, Joseph Kennedy Sr. Not only was it a positive portrayal of a man who by most accounts was a scoundrel, but it left out virtually every negative fact known about him. In discussing Joe Kennedy Sr. It said nothing about his years as a bootlegger during prohibition. It said nothing about his womanizing. While mentioning in a few words that he dabbled in movie producing in Hollywood, it left out his messy affair with actress Gloria Swanson. The only negative note was the fact that as ambassador to London in the years leading up to World War II, it was stated that Kennedy had to resign because "he opposed America's entry into World War II". I'll say he did. What Mr Holt failed to say was that Joseph Kennedy (the Ambassador to London) was a fervent admirer and supporter of Nazi Germany. That was why he opposed our entry into the war on the side of the country he was serving in. For that reason, Roosevelt eventually had to get him out of London. So what was the general theme about Joseph Kennedy that Holt's special attempted to give the viewer? Joesph Kennedy wanted one of his sons to become president because "he had instilled in them the spirit of public service."

But enough said about that farce. We are talking about MSNBC, you know.

Then there was the town hall meeting held in Redding, California this week by some Republican congressman named Wally Herger. One 67-year-old gentleman named Bert Stead stood and made a sarcastic reference to himself as a "proud, right-wing terrorist". The audience understood the context of the comment and applauded. Herger also understood and called the man, "a great American." You can watch it below:

But the "journalists" at MSNBC didn't get it. They were appalled. In fact, they were horrified. First, the sycophantic Chris Matthews attacked the statement and Herger for not denouncing it.

MATTHEWS: "Next up, here's one from Republican Congressman Wally Herger of California. At his town hall meeting some guy yelled out, bragging that he was quote, "A proud right wing terrorist." To which the Congressman responded, "Amen. God bless ya! Now there's a great American." A great American. A guy who thinks it's okay, in this day and age, to call himself a right wing terrorist. This is the dangerous edge, in which these people, including some elected officials are now dancing. We've been here before. Words lead to actions, words create the national mood, the mood creates a license. People take that license and use it. I'm not spelling it out any further because I don't want to."

Then Keith Olbermann took over, naming Herger one of the "Worst Persons in the World", (along with nightly winner Bill O'Reilly, of course). Here's the tape from Countdown. It's 3:17 seconds long, and if you can't take the full video, the part about Herger starts at 2:30. (We should use old "Countdown" videos as our next harsh interrogation method against terrorists.)

Just as they have attacked and demonized other common citizens like Joe the Plumber and Katy Abram, now they have discovered a "real right-wing terrorist in California", a 67-year-old guy in California, who Olbermann labeled as an "idiot" and a "buffoon".

Finally, there was the town hall meeting in Oklahoma this week held by Tom Coburn (R-OK). In this event, one attendee was a tearful lady whose husband is seriously ill, the insurance company isn't helping, and the family desperately needs assistance. Coburn's reply was to ask the lady to give her name and particulars to an aide and that he and his staff would try to organize some help, calling on the local community. He did, however, reiterate his belief that the government is not always the solution to our problems (I am paraphrasing). Since the event, he and his staff and the local community have joined together to try and render assistance to the family.

But to the media, Coburn was cold and cruel to the lady "lecturing" her about not coming to the government. CNN's Rick Sanchez, a total partisan, reported it this way:

(The above video was conveniently cut off before Coburn asked the lady to give her name and information to one of the aides.)

This week, Coburn was interviewed by a CNN reporter, who tried to nail him on the issue. Once Coburn went through explaining what he and others are trying to do for the woman, the reporter asked him if he could do the same for the millions of others in similar straits. So the media spin is this: Coburn "blew the poor lady off", "lectured" her on not bothering the government, then when he tries to explain what he and his staff are doing to help, he is asked if he can do the same for millions of other needy Americans.

If you are a liberal and agree with what the media is putting out, you should ask yourself; is this really the kind of media we want in America? If we want a watch dog media that is skeptical of our leaders, fine, but it should work both ways. Instead, what we are treated to is a nightly spectacle of one network attacking another, and one announcer attacking another from another network. To make matters worse, we have media announcers attacking everyday people who happen to find themselves and their words on the news. Is that the kind of media we can be proud of? Hardly. What is needed is a cold, hard look at our media and how it has degenerated into the shambles that it is. It is not a pretty sight.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Shame on Holder; Shame on Obama

Eric Holder

Now that Attorney General Eric Holder has "made his decision" to go ahead and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the CIA "harsh interrogations" for possible criminal charges, I for one would like to explain why I think this is an outrage.

First of all, I view this as a political decision to go after person(s) and actions done in the Bush Administration. I do not view Eric Holder as a man of principle who is going against even the wishes of his boss, the President (more about that later). Holder is the same man who, as a Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration, rammed through two of the most questionable pardons in US history; the Marc Rich pardon, of a man who was a top ten fugitive when pardoned and with all kinds of questions of money given in return to the Clinton Library; and the pardon of the Puerto Rican FALN bombers, who had not even asked for a pardon. Now comes Holder as the law enforcement crusader, the independent who seeks justice for the Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds of this world.

The other thing that irks me about this process is the public posturing of President Obama and his spokespersons who loudly proclaim that the President wants to "look forward, not backward". That is meant to leave the impression that Obama is personally opposed to a prosecution of CIA interrogators and anyone else involved, but that he will not interfere with the independence of his Attorney General.


President Obama could have stopped this whole process months ago with one phone call or one word to Holder. The fact is that being the ideologue that he really is behind that moderate mask, he wants this to go forward. He wants to demoralize and emasculate the CIA. He just doesn't want to take the political heat for it. He wants to "remain above the fray". I don't see how that can work.

So where are we going with this and what will be the result? The immediate result is that many CIA interrogators, their supervisors, former Justice Department lawyers, who drew up the legal guidelines like John Woo and probably even Dick Cheney are going to go through a lot of worry in the next year or so. There will be lawyer expenses. Many CIA employees will decide it just isn't worth it to put your life and career on the line for a government that when administrations change will not stick up for you. They will retire or simply quit.

Let's review how this came about.

In the horrific aftermath of 9-11 as we began to capture al-Qaida members, Justice Department lawyers studied the question of what and what not was permissible as to incarceration and interrogation. Rightfully or wrongfully, they decided on certain procedures they thought could be performed legally. They ran it by the White House and the CIA was so advised. Those interrogators assumed they were acting within the law and according to strict guidelines.

Let's also discuss their motives. They were not acting out of motives that drove the Hitlers, Saddam Husseins and Stalins of this world-merely a desire to eliminate political enemies and stay in power, nor were they simply trying to extract confessions from criminals; they were acting to stop more 9-11s and save thousands of innocent lives.

And what were those methods? Water boarding was apparently the worst, by which they gave the prisoner the sensation of drowning. Some prisoners were slapped. Some were told their families would be killed or raped in front of them. There were apparently a couple of mock executions and sleep deprivation was also utilized. Nobody was broken on the wheel, had his fingernails pulled out or anything that resulted in serious injury. (I understand one person was beaten and later died and that the interrogator was prosecuted, but I have no further details.)

Let me interject here to reiterrate, as I have before, that as a DEA agent (who interrogated hundreds of prisoners) I would never resort to these methods. They could never be justified in normal law enforcement procedure.

The point I am coming to is that the CIA interrogators must be assumed to be honorable and patriotic persons who were under the impression they were operating within legally established guidelines and at a time of national emergency when we had no idea when the next horrific attack was coming. And it appears that those harsh interrogation methods did, in fact, thwart attacks and save lives.

So why are we going forward? Is it real politik, a gesture toward the Muslim world? It can't be a gesture toward Al-Qaida. They don't care how we treat our prisoners, good, bad or indifferent. They are going to slaughter and behead our people when they capture them no matter what. More importantly, this can only serve to emasculate and demoralize an already demoralized CIA-at a time when we need a strong and aggressive CIA. Now we see the establishment of some multi-agency task force under the supervision of and located at the FBI and reporting to the White House that will oversee terrorist interrogations. Great. As if we haven't had enough inter-agency turf wars between the CIA and FBI.

CIA Director Leon Panetta is reportedly furious and engaged in a profanity-laced argument with a White House aide at a recent White House meeting regarding this issue. I hope so. Panetta has told his employees he will fight for them. I hope so. I think Panetta is an honrable man, so I expect him to keep his word and do the right thing even if he can't influence Obama and/or Holder. As a last resort, I think a very public resignation would be in order.

This is another issue that the American people need to speak up on-just as we have on taxes and health care. We need to stand up for the people who were tasked with protecting us. If we stand silently by and allow this administration to sacrifice our intelligence operatives without a loud protest, shame on us as a people.

Byrd “Bud” Billings Murders: Mark Turner – Circle of Auto Dealers

By Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

Along side the murders of Byrd and Melanie Billings in Pensacola, roils a web of deception that is close to unbelievable. All the answers are not yet known, but details are slowly becoming known – and some pertinent details may date back to December 2007. I will be following and posting on the murders, and the Pensacola auto and used-auto industry and try to make some sense out of it. For now, it may be just Pensacola, but in the future it could be Cincinnati, or Ft. Worth or…just pick a town anywhere. Is it possible greedy and corrupt prosecutors can ruin lives, steal and destroy documents, ignore evidence, and jail innocents? I’m on the trail to see if this is happening in the Pensacola area. If you need background, please visit some of the 26 posts now available about the Billings at Maggie’s Notebook. If you have comments or information, please leave them in the comment section or send an email. (maggiesnotebookatblogspotdotcom.)

Here are my first ideas in a possible tie to the Billings’ murders and the attempted “hit” on another Pensacola dealer, Mark Turner:

The murders of Byrd “Bud” Billings and his wife Melanie have tentacles reaching deep into Pensacola, Florida, surrounding communities and the massive web of the auto industry. Enter another name, Mark Turner, who was also in the auto industry, in the Pensacola area and knew Bud Billings.

Mark Turner knew Bud Billings, had done business with him in the auto industry, and the two may have one more thing in common: the Billings’ accused killer, Leonard Patrick Poff Gonzalez, Jr. Turner believes Gonzalez tried to kill him in 2007, and he believes it was intended to be a hit directed withing the auto industry. Here’s the story:

On December 16, 2007, Turner said someone tried to break into his Gulf Breeze home. His wife and children were home at the time. Mrs. Turner heard the garage door open and thought someone was in the garage. Mark, armed with a glass bottle, greeted the intruder at the door leading from his house into his garage. As Turner jerked the door open, the intruder was standing directly in front of him and his wife. He was startled and ran for his car – which was pointed out of the driveway, still running and had the driver’s door standing wide open. The truck was a blue Ford Explorer.

Turner chased the man to the truck and as the intruder ran, he was yelling “wrong house!” Turner hit the truck window with the bottle, but the bottle broke, not the truck window. The intruder got away. He said he got a good look at the man – for two or three minutes. He knew he would never forget the face.

Turner filed a police report but had no idea “who this clean cut white man was,” until Leonard Patrick Poff Gonzalez, Jr.’s photo flashed on the television in connection with the Billings murders.

That is the first part of this story. There is nothing to prove that Gonzalez is the same man that tried to break into Turner’s home, but Mr. and Mrs. Turner both believe it is definitely the same man, and he believes that Gonzalez was there to kill him.

Here’s more of the story:

Mark Turner is a former car wholesaler. He said Bud Billings was a “jolly fellow” and was “fun to run into in the business.” The two met at Pete Moore Chevrolet.

According to Turner, this is the hierarchy of their local auto conglomerate: there is Pete Moore, the owner; under Moore is Rick Hamilton, the General Manager. Hamilton works for Moore. Both Mark Turner and Bud Billings worked for Pete Moore, but worked through Rick Hamilton. According to Turner, Hamilton’s job is to make certain that Pete Moore makes money distributing cars.

Another player is Henry Cab Tice, known as Cab. Cab is currently under arrest for Grand Theft in a civil suit between Bud Billing and Cab Tice. Tice owned Billings money and the lawsuit was working its way through the courts when Billings died.

Tice worked for Billings. Turner assumes that Cab Tice “sold the cars in Mexico.” Billings evidently had not received money for the cars Tice sold – thus the lawsuit. There is more coming on the relationship between Billings and Tice.

Pete Moore’s “comptroller,” Roxanne,” told Pete that “Cabs cars have not been paid for.” Moore goes to Rick Hamilton, Rick Hamilton goes to Bud Billings because Billings “backs” or guarantees payment for the cars Tice gets from Moore.

Billings tells Hamilton that Cab sold the cars in Mexico but Billings has not been able to get the money out of Cab. Hamilton says he can’t wait any longer. He has to get the money to Pete Moore, so Hamilton gives Billings a loan and Billings pays Pete Moore to close the debt. This leaves Cab Tice owing Billings, and Billings owing Hamilton.

Mark Turner says there is a long history of similar transactions within the industry:

Through the years, anytime we got into a tight [situation] in paying Moore, we could get the money from Rick [Hamilton]. Rick [Hamilton] charged me 12% annually. There was no paperwork, our deal was a handshake.

Turner gives this example of how Billings might have run his business and how he might have interacted with Rick Hamilton:

If a car cost $10,000 and BB [Bud Billings] had 5 car lots with 50 cars on them each, then that would be $2.5 Million. So if a dealer wanted to borrow $100,000 from WorldCo/[Bud Billings' loan company] but Billings’ cash flow was down, he would just borrow it from Rick [Hamilton].

Turner addresses rumors that Billings owned money to Moore and Hamilton and may have been murdered for that reason, which some think might have been a contract murder…and maybe ordered by someone in the industry:

Now to the fact of the money in the safe. I was told $160,000 wouldn’t make a dent in what was owed to Rick and Moore at the time of the Billings Killings.

Billings became partners with the dealers or have them borrow from his finance companies/car lots. Cab would take them to Alabama to order duplicate titles and take the cars into Mexico.

Remember, clearly I am not telling you this is what happened with the business between BB, Cab, Rick and Moore. I am telling you that this is what I was told happened.

I am not saying who killed who. I am telling you that Bud Billings and I [Mark Turner] had a relationship with more than one of the same lenders. We were in the same business, distributing cars for a profit. There are $36 Million reasons why those involved would want me dead. I don’t know how many reasons those involved had against Bud Billings.

Summarizing Mark Turner’s position in this part of the story, Mr. Turner filed a lawsuit against Pete Moore for $36 million. Turner accuses Moore of stealing an internet car sales business which Turner developed. Turner says he is fighting for his life:

In the early 1980’s, my job was to dispose of unwanted franchise car dealer inventory, which means trade-ins and over-age cars.

In the late 1990’s, I developed a system using the internet, which grew to a multi-million dollar business by the following decade. This system was stolen from me by people I had a 20 year relationship with.

I sued them and when I refused their settlement offer, they had me arrested. When I refused to take a plea they had my wife arrested. I am now facing 90 years in prison.

I have picked up the rest of the story here, with video.

Update 8-22-09:
“Cab” Tice reportedly told authorities that Patrick Gonzalez, Jr. was like a son to him, and then clarified that it was “like the wayward child that you always want to try to be a good influence on his life.” Patrick Gonzalez told authorities that Cab Tice asked him to “whack” Bud Billings. It gets more appalling every day.

Tice said that his Hispanic American Auto Sales business was failing and he borrowed $20,000 from an employee, who in returned borrowed money to give to Tice from the Mexican Mafia. Tice claims he was unaware the funds came from the Mafia source. Tice owned Bud Billings thousands of dollars, borrowed through Billings’ WorldCo Financial. It seems Tice wrote “worthless” checks to Billings totaling more than $10,000 to Billings.

When Hispanic American closed, Tice said the man inferred he had gotten the money from cousins in Atlanta in the Mexican restaurant business who were “members of the Mexican mafia.”

Tice said the man told him that the mafia members “won’t kill you, but they’ll kill your family and we’ve got to get them this money.”

Also, Tice said, the employee told Byrd Billings and Tice’s ex-wife that Tice was in debt to the Mexican mafia in an effort to get those people to reinforce to Tice that he needed to pay back the money.

“Bud said, you know, ‘I can’t believe you got in such a bind you borrowed money from the Mexican mafia and you know how dangerous these people are and you know what they’ll do,’ ” Tice said.

Tice said he still owes the “employee” $1500 and he has missed two payments this month. Byrd Billings’ civil lawsuit against Tice is still pending.

Related Reading:

Mark Turner Pete Moore Lawsuit: Bud Billings Pete Moore Connection

Sheriff Morgan, Patrick Gonzalez Contract Murders: Local Business Rivals Implicated?

Happy Birthday Gilad Shalit!

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Friday is Gilad Shalit's 23rd birthday. He should be spending it with friends and family, instead he is imprisoned by barbarians who flaunt the rule of International Law in Gaza.

It is time that Gilad is returned to Israel safe, unharmed and alive!

It is time that the International Red Cross fulfill their mandate given to them under the Geneva Conventions of War and demand that they get immediate access to him!

And I ask you to get involved. I ask you to sign the petition to the International Red Cross to do the job they are suppose to do. You can find the petition here.

If you Tweet, I ask you to Tweet for Gilad on this his 23rd Birthday!

From The Jewish Internet Defense Force:
The goal is simple: On the Wednesday before Gilad Shalit's birthday (Friday, August 28th), we hope to have thousands of Twitter users sign on and tweet Gilad Shalit's name (using the #GiladShalit hashtag) as often as possible, so that he becomes a top ten 'Trending topic on the popular networking site.
If you blog, please spread this message to others.

If enough people scream out, the Main Stream Media will have to take notice.

Free Gilad Shalit please!

View at YouTube.

Let us make this the last birthday Gilad spends in captivity!

Monday, August 24, 2009

Death Book Denied: End of Life Questions for Vets

By Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

Today on the news, the "Veteran Death Book" dominates. The Wall Street Journal put the information out there, with an article by Jim Towey. In the video below, you will hear a full discussion of the Death Book between Towey and Chris Wallace, and then Veterans Administration Secretary Tammy Duckworth and Wallace.

Tammy Duckworth - Veteran End of Life Questions

The controversy revolves around the book Your Life Your Choices. At one point it asks the question "What makes your life worth living?" You'll see the questions below but if you fit a certain category, you are referred to the Hemlock Society, with it's newly renamed moniker, Compassion and Choices. It is the only organization Veterans are referred to.

Along with the excellent discussion below, and Towey's WSJ article, Kimberly Morin of the Boston Conservative Independent Examiner has some of the best commentary I've seen today. Cutting to the chase before you watch the video, Morin downloaded 'Your Life, Your Choices' (the Veteran's Death Book) and here is a portion from from her article:
...there is a check list in the middle of the document that specifically asks questions about "What makes your life worth living?”. It is a checklist that doesn’t just include needing a feeding tube or being on permanent life support, the questions are absolutely, in my opinion, insane. These questions are being asked to all Veterans receiving treatment, including 20 year olds who have been severely wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan. I have listed all of the questions below so you can see for yourself:

a. I can no longer walk but get around in a wheelchair.
b. I can no longer get outside—I spend all day at home.
c. I can no longer contribute to my family's well being.
d. I am in severe pain most of the time.
e. I have severe discomfort most of the time (such as nausea, diarrhea, or shortness of breath).
f. I rely on a feeding tube to keep me alive.
g. I rely on a kidney dialysis machine to keep me alive.
h. I rely on a breathing machine to keep me alive.
i. I need someone to help take care of me all of time.
j. I can no longer control my bladder.
k. I can no longer control my bowels.
l. I live in a nursing home.
m. I can no longer think clearly-I am confused all the time.
n. I can no longer recognize family/friends
o. I can no longer talk and be understood by others.
p. My situation causes severe emotional burden for my family (such as feeling worried or stressed all the time).
q. I am a severe financial burden on my family.
r. I cannot seem to “shake the blues.”

These questions are followed by the questions below:

“If you checked "worth living, but just barely" for more than one factor, would a combination of these factors make your life "not worth living?" If so, which factors?

If you checked "not worth living," does this mean that you would rather die than be kept alive?

If you checked "can't answer now," what information or people do you need to help you decide?”

What the hell kind of questions are these to be asking Veterans who have just risked their lives to keep America safe from terrorists? What kind of person would ask a 20 year old quadriplegic if they would rather die than be in a wheelchair or a burden to his/her family or if they have the blues? Of course they would have the blues in this case and of course no one wants to be in a wheelchair and of course no one wants to be a burden on their family but to suggest to a Veteran that these answers possibly mean they would ‘rather die than be kept alive’ is atrocious, outrageous, disgusting, immoral, unethical and one of the most un-American things I have ever read in my entire life.

Tammy Duckworth, Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs appears in the second half of the video. Duckworth, a severly injured Iraq war aviator, tells Wallace the book is not available to veterans. Wallace points out that it has been available until this week. She denies it. Wallace has a screen grab to prove it. Wallace reads the following to Duckworth as content currently on the VA website:
In the VHA directive of July 2nd, 2009, it says the following on page 8, "Primary care practitioners are responsible for giving patients pertinent educational materials, e.g. refer patients to the 'Your Life, Your Choices' module." I mean, it's just there in black and white on the VHA directive of July 2nd.
Secretary Duckworth continues to deny it. Transcript of Wallace-Towey-Duckworth discussion here or in the video below:

Veteran End of Life Questions

Throwing Tammy Duckworth Under the Bus

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Ghaddaffi's Son Says Britain Cut a Deal: Energy for Terrorist Megrahi

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

Saif al-Islam is the son of Muammar Ghaddafi, the leader of the Libyan people and head of the welcome wagon for convicted Libyan terrorist, known as the Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi.

Locker Bomber Release Deal?

Saif al-Islam is praising the Brits for making an energy deal that allowed 57-year old Megrahi to come home to Tripoli. Colonel Gaddafi is praising Queen Elizabeth. The UK is a tad upset.

Pan Am flight 103 exploded over the town of Lockerbie on December 21, 1988, killing 270 people, including 11 on the ground. Megrahi is reported to have lived in relative luxury for a few of his short 8 years in prison, while housed in the Barlinnie prison in Glasgow:
Megrahi was segregated in a high-security area dubbed "Gaddafi's Cafe", where there was said to be a "sitting room" and kitchen where Halal food was specially prepared.
His wife and children are said to have moved to the "outskirts of Glasgow so they could visit him.
Makes one wonder how they got back to Tripoli. We saw Meghrai in his Nike hat and jog suit walk the stairs to board Ghaddafi's personal airplane, but no family was in sight. The Lockerbie victims arrived home in caskets.

Saif is the second oldest of Ghaddafi's seven sons. He is fluent in English, German and French. This report says he has a PhD:
"in governance and international relations from the London School of Economics and is also said to be an architect with his own agency in Tripoli, having studied architecture in Vienna.
UK Business Secretary Lord Mandelson is in the spotlight. Sources say he met with Saif al-Islam one week before Megrahi was released. Mendelson says there was only a "fleeting conversation about the prisoner," but Ghaddafi upped the tension:
Mr Gaddafi told Libyan TV his case was raised during talks over oil and gas and reportedly claimed that the issue had been raised repeatedly by Britain's former prime minister Tony Blair.

"In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, (Megrahi) was always on the negotiating table," Mr Gaddafi told Libya's Al Mutawassit channel.

The U.S. was very quiet about Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber's release. There were no strong statements from the Oval Office until the deed was done and the celebrations began - the hugs, the hand kissing, the cheering crowds. President Obama was "disturbed." It would be unbearable to find that America cut a deal of any kind.

As Jihad Watch points out, this is one more reason for the urgent need for energy independence.

Marine Veteran at Rep. Baird's Townhall

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

David Hedrick is a Marine Vet who had an important lesson for Congressman Brian Baird (D-WA) at his recent Townhall gathering. This is the lesson for politicians of both parties. See video below.

Brian Baird

God bless David Hedrick for serving our country and explaining the commitment to the U.S. Constitution to those privileged to serve us in Congress, in this case, Brian Baird.

Watch as Conservatives cheer, but many, many Liberals remain seated. What is it that they did not get from David's message. How ignorant can a voter be?

For an explanation of Brian Baird's "brown shirt" comment, see below the video.

David Hedrick, Marine Vet at Brian Baird Townhall (Video)

Via The Astute Bloggers Via The Lonely Conservative

From Clark County Conservative by Lew Waters, August 6, 2009:

Articles in multiple news sources today quote Baird’s expression of fear as he states, “extremists would have the chance to shout and make YouTube videos.”

In that regard, Baird then said, “What we’re seeing right now is close to Brown Shirt tactics. I mean that very seriously.”

Brown shirts, I’m sure you recall were a paramilitary organization of Germany’s Nazi Party that played a key role in Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s.

Instead of addressing constituents real and honest concerns over the proposed healthcare reform, he labels us Nazi’s, then ducks and hides.

Did we elect him for this? No!

In announcing a “secret schedule” for a telephone conference in lieu of a Town hall, should you be fortunate enough to be invited and actually be by your phone if called, Baird said, “There is this national movement in blogs and on the Internet to go to town hall meetings solely to attack people. One colleague of mine recently was hung in effigy at a town hall meeting. Others needed police escorts.”

Seems I recall no concerns over protesters who disrupted Town halls of Republicans around the country and liberals even applauded an Iraqi throwing a shoe at President Bush at a news conference there.

Brian, if it didn’t cross your mind, voters can hang you in effigy any time. We don’t need a town hall for that. That is what effigy is, an expression of opposition without causing any harm to the individual.

Then again, wasn’t hanging Sarah Palin in effigy during last years campaign an “expression of free speech?”

Transcript of video coming later today.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Where Did The Anti-War Movement Go?

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse

Cindy Sheehan

"Enough already"- Charles Gibson

If you haven't heard much about the anti-war movement in the past seven months, there is a good reason. No, it's not because President Obama ended our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan; he hasn't. It's because Barack Obama-not George Bush is our president. The media is not reporting the activities of the war protesters though they are still out there.

Since coming into office, President Obama has beefed up our effort in Afghanistan. American troops still remain in Iraq. As a result, folks like Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink have soured on Obama. They are still out there, but they are not getting the press coverage they received when Bush was in the White House.

Next week, while President Obama is vacationing in Martha's Vineyard, Cindy Sheehan plans to go and protest, same as she did in Crawford, Texas when Bush was president. This time, she won't have the battery of news reporters and photographers covering her every move and recording her every wacky comment. Why is that?

Charles Gibson, anchor of the ABC Evening News, gave it all away this week while being interviewed by colleague, Don Wade, in Chicago. In response to a question about Sheehan from his chuckling news pal, Gibson, while dutifully sounding sympathetic to the mother who lost her son, pretty much dismissed Sheehan's continuing campaign and ended by saying, "enough already". Here is the full text:

"It's such a sad story. Martha Raddatz [of ABC News] wrote a terrific book about one battle that took place in Iraq, and it was the battle in which Cindy's son was killed. And you look at somebody like that and you think here's somebody who's just trying to find some meaning in her son's death. And you have to be sympathetic to her. Anybody who has given a son to this country has made an enormous sacrifice, and you have to be sympathetic. But enough already."

-Charles Gibson in WLS interview with Don Wade, August 18, 2009.

Now contrast that statement with what Gibson had to say on August 9, 2005, when he had an on-air interview with Sheehan as she was camped outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, TX.:

“Cindy Sheehan is her name,” Gibson began. “She says she's not moving until the President meets with her, and I had a chance to speak with her a few minutes ago. Cindy Sheehan, bottom line, what do you hope to accomplish with all this?”

During the ensuing days, Gibson and ABC continued to give coverage to Sheehan. On August 17, 2005, when Sheehan finally departed Crawford, Gibson reported, “We're going to turn next to the standoff that is playing out near President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Cindy Sheehan, you know, the mother who lost a son in Iraq, is now on the move, but she's still standing her ground. ABC's Geoff Morrell is in Crawford with the details…” On August 18, Gibson stated on ABC News, “All across the country last night, people held candlelight vigils in support of Cindy Sheehan…”

So now that Obama is president, Cindy Sheehan is a wacko. When Bush was president, she was a compelling voice. Do you see the hypocrisy? (For the record, I also consider Sheehan a wacko, but I have always considered her a wacko, who has not only attacked President Bush, but her own country as well.) What has happened to push Sheehan off the news pages in the last several months even though American troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan? The difference is that Bush is no longer president. Obama is now the president; that's what happened.

The obvious reason that the media has ignored the anti-war forces for the past seven months is simply because they do not want to call negative attention to the current president-completely opposite to their agenda when Bush was president.

It's called hypocrisy. There is absolutely no other possible explanation.

J Street Deception

by Ben with commentary by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

The following article is by our friend, Ben. You have probably read his work before, and you know he has a long history of studying Islam. He backs up his work by quoting the words considered "holy" by Muslims.

"J Street" claims it "represents Americans."

J Street At Obama's Table

J Street's stated goal is to put an end to Arab-Israeli conflicts, and to accomplish that goal, they support President Obama's plan for Israel to, among other things, surrender land serving as a barrier to Palestinian and Hamas aggressions.
J Street is the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement. We seek to change the direction of American policy in the Middle East and to broaden the public and policy debate in the U.S. about the Middle East. We support strong American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli conflicts peacefully and diplomatically...
The photograph above, bears the same title I have above. A caption to this photo reads:
I just left an extraordinary meeting with President Barack Obama, which he called to meet with the leadership of the American Jewish community. ~ Jeremy Ben-Ami
As you read Ben's article, keep this quote in mind because, this was the first time Obama met with Jewish leaders - some 7 months after taking office, and when the invitation was finally issued, it did not include the largest and oldest pro-Israel group, the Zionists Organization of America (ZOA). The J Street lobby has said:
Surrogates and right-wing political operatives in our community stopped at nothing in their efforts to sway Jewish voters against Obama."
Obviously, conservative "operatives" failed because 77 percent of the Jewish vote went to Barack Obama.

Ben writes for Freedom Ain't Free & Take Our Country Back. Here is his important message:

J Street posted a petition at Care2 petitionsite, seeking support for President Obama’s Anti-Israel foreign policy. Their supporting text is reproduced below, in block quote format and Ariel type face, interspersed with my comments.

The status quo in the Middle East is unsustainable – for Israel, for the Palestinians, and for the United States. Yet some in Congress are trying to undermine President Obama’s balanced approach to solving the region’s problems.

The status quo is constant, low level warfare periodically interrupted by extremely intense warfare, punctuated by constant threats. President Obama’s approach is not balanced, it leans to the Islamic side, letting the aggressors do as they please while constantly carping at Israel and making unreasonable demands for suicidal actions and policies.

Defenders of the unworkable status quo are whispering to the White House and Congress that supporting the President’s thoughtful and balanced approach to the Middle East could hurt them politically.

Supporting President Obama’s demand that Israel surrender will eventually contribute to the loss of their sinecures because a growing number of voters are becoming informed of the Islamic agenda which is being promoted by left wingers including President Obama.

Jewish-Americans, as well as Americans more broadly, must stand up to support President Obama’s sensible pro-Israel policy in the Middle East.

Now is the time to be Americans, to reject identity politics and the inevitable Balkanization to which it leads. Our national interest is exactly the same as that of Israel: complete, total and permanent defeat of Islamic aggression wheresoever dispersed over the face of the earth.

They’re saying that President Obama should only press the Palestinians or Arab States. Of course, Palestinians and Arab states should do more for peace – but so should Israel, specifically by heeding his Administration’s call to stop building settlements.

Only the aggressor can make peace without exterminating the aggressor. Israel can only make peace by removing Islam from all territory within rocket range. Islam can make peace by permanently abandoning Jihad. If Israel is to walk the path to peace, it must terminate in the Muslim Cemetery. Settlements are not an obstacle to peace. “Occupation” of “disputed territories” is not an obstacle to peace. Islamic doctrine is the obstacle to peace.

J Street, a new Jewish-led pro-Israel, pro-peace lobby, supports President Obama’s balanced and strong American leadership to achieve a two-state solution, because that’s the only way to secure Israel’s future as a Jewish, democratic homeland and to create a homeland for the Palestinian people. A two-state solution is also a vital American interest.

The only possible solution is a one state solution: Israel alone in the Levant. While there is an Islamic state within rocket range, there will be no peace. Arab pride as well as Islamic doctrine make peace absolutely impossible.

Your representatives in Congress need to hear from the majority of Jewish Americans and Americans generally who support Israel and the President’s balanced approach, including his call for a complete freeze on Israeli settlements.

Congress must hear from Americans who understand Islamic doctrine & practice and recognize the fatal fact that Islam is inimical to peace in all places, at all times.

“Jewish Americans”, “Muslim Americans”, “African Americans”, Mexican Americans” etc. need to decide if they are Americans or not. There is no place in our nation for Balkanization. United we stand, divided we fall. If you are not American, then go home, where you belong.

President Obama’s demand for termination of settlements, stopping all growth & development, removing check points and other security measures while sending money to the enemy and training & arming their militias is the peak of suicidal damnfoolery; it is imbalanced on the wrong side, and it must come to a halt!

I shall now proceed to show you exactly why America and Israel can never obtain peace by any other means than making Islam extinct.

  • 8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.
  • 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Muslims are commanded by their demon to fight atheists and pagans until all resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped. Muslims are commanded to fight Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians until they are subjugated and extorted. Muslims who do not join or rigorously support the Jihad go to Hell. Muslims who go to war go to Paradise.

Because the bigots reading this are in denial, swearing that the cited ayat are mis-interpreted, mis-translated, mis-understood or anachronistic, I present confirmation from the hadith: codified Islamic oral tradition.

  • Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985:
    Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

The Muslims must hunt down and kill the last Jew before they can obtain admission to the celestial bordello. But, of course, that is anachronistic, not applicable in modern times. Of course, there is a vacant space between your ears.

  • Sunan Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2526

    Narrated Anas ibn Malik:

    The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, “There is no god but Allah” and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist). The tyranny of any tyrant and the justice of any just (ruler) will not invalidate it. One must have faith in Divine decree.

Jihad is the original religion of Muslims; abandoning it in favor of productive pursuits will subject them to a curse which will not be lifted until they return to Jihad.

  • Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:

    Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

    I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.

Please copy the url of this blog post, go to, enter your Zip Code and click the Federal Officials link. Paste the url of this blog post into your email.

End article.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

The True Story About the Townhall Rosa Parks Matrons: Rosa Parks Sign Grabber

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

James Winfrey is the Rosa Parks arrested sign grabber. Maxine Johnson had the Rosa Parks sign. Mr. Winfrey, wearing a blue t-shirt with the word "volunteer" on the back, took a sign from the seat in front of the woman, Maxine Johnson, who is said to be a serial St. Louis Liberal activist. The forum took place at Jefferson College in Lebanon, MO and the College has a policy of "no signs." See the best video available of Maxine Johnson below.

Maxine Johnson

If the video is playing automatically, I apologize. I do not know how to turn it off until ready for viewing. In the video, you'll see three woman parade down the aisle with a sign picturing Rosa Parks plastered against their mid-sections. The meeting is already underway - McCaskill is already talking. The woman walk as though they are bridesmaids making their way to the alter. The crowd begins yelling "no signs, no signs." McCaskill must stop her presentation.

Mr. Winfrey is standing just across the aisle from the woman with the sign, in his "Volunteer." He crosses the aisle, grabs the paper, crumples it and throws it on the ground as he walks back to where he was standing.

The woman comes after him and others come after them both. Mr. Winfrey is arrested and she is escorted from the room.

The controversy was on.

CNN did their usual crack reporting and got it all wrong.

In an interview with CNN's Kirin Chetry, Maxine Johnson said this:
...the security guard said have your purse checked. We had the posters opened in front of our bodies and they were to pass at two other security officers. They checked our purses, and they saw the posters open wide on our bodies and they told us going into the gymnasium. You walk down the middle aisle and sit down on the floor, and then all of a sudden the crowd start saying hey put up your signs, put up your posters, put up your signs.

And I was just curious because I knew it was a Rosa Parks sign, the highway we just got off of was called Rosa Parks, and I couldn't understand the connection between the Rosa Parks sign and the hearing. It was no relation. And finally, I just told the senator yes, ma'am, senator, we will comply and I sat down in my seat, rolled the sign up, and a reporter asked to take a picture and the gentleman to my right in the bleachers suddenly leaped from the bleachers, ran to me.
Sometimes, when you want to believe you are in the middle of fracas, your mind works quickly, as did Ms. Johnson's daughter:
And it happened so quickly my daughter said he twist my arm, pushed me on to her, snatched the sign out of my hand and as he walked away I realized that he crumbling up my sign. And before I knew it, I leaped out of my seat to go retrieve my sign. And I snatched it from him and said don't you take my sign. And before I knew it, I had four or five officers on me and one on him.
The video clearly shows that Winfrey didn't touch her, let alone twist her arm or push her anywhere. When it is played back in slow motion, you can can see Winfrey's left hand on the chair in front of Johnson and he grabs the sign on the seat of that chair with his right hand. Once you see the video, it's clear that it was probably one of the two women with her that abused her arm.

Later in the conversation, Johnson said she was able to go to the emergency room to get her arm checked out (presumable the one that Winfrey "twisted,"). She was very proud of the fact that she has good health care and she wants it for everyone, and that's why she was at this forum. Chetry didn't have the guts to ask Johnson why she believes ObamaCare will provide insurance equal to what she has today.

You'll see the difference in her story and the video below. Chetry asks Johnson why she said there was a "racial element" to the incident:
Well, they looked at me and said can't you read? Can't you read? As we looked around the room, there were several people in the room that had other signs. There was a person that had a sign that says "Nigger, Obama." Obama's like Hitler. And you know, my point is, there were signs that were not allowed, why did the officers allow this in the room? And then we complied and there were other people with signs, they were not black.

There was about 3,000 people, about 30 African Americans and then I asked another and I said, what was the problem it was Rosa Parks, a historical figure. Why was it such a threat? A woman says it wasn't Rosa Parks. You were the threat, you are a black woman. (INAUDIBLE) the people who took our report, they say, ma'am, we cannot guarantee your protection. You must leave this town. We cannot protect you. You don't know these people. They're nasty. It was clearly racial.
There was some more conversation from Johnson, something like: "McCaskill, she's not black. She doesn't know the struggle that black[s] have to... (and the rest was inaudible).

I did find a video (not posted here) of three others in the crowd holding yellow "Don't tread on me" flags. The flags were held by each corner. They looked to be the size of a piece of notebook paper. I think one man was telling a police officer that the flag said the same thing the logo on his shirt said. There are numerous wide shots of the crowd and there are no sign of signs anywhere else in the audience, let alone signs with the "N-word."

In the video, you'll hear Johnson saying "there were no Blacks or African Americans in the crowd. You see at least about 8 Blacks in the video.

McCaskill apologizes for "two people" getting involved who should not have. A question for McCaskill: could Mr. Winfrey been charged with seeing to it that no signs were visible - after all he was a volunteer, apparently for Jefferson College because McCaskill said he was not on their team.

This video is from ConservativeTVOnline. I plan to go back often. Please take a few minutes to watch this video - stick with it to the end because there is plenty of misinformation that this video debunks. This real reporting - the kind that CNN doesn't have a clue about.

James Winfrey - Maxine Johnson

A note: The above photo of Ms. Johnson was allegedly taken at a Spring protest. Ms. Johnson's home is embroiled in an eminent domain battle. If what I have read is correct, her home is slated to be taken from her to make room for a "planned redevelopment project. If this is the case, I wish her the best because I am completely opposed to homes and businesses being snatched for any reason except for a national highway - and even then...

Obama Enlists Religious Left to Win Support for Healthcare Reform

by Barbara Sowell

Yesterday’s teleconference with President Obama, "40 Minutes for Health Reform," was organized by a network of religiously progressive faith-based organizations that support Obama’s plan to change our nation’s health-care system.

The 40 minute teleconference was the launch pad for a 40-day push to guilt-trip religiously naive Americans into accepting a public option for health care reform. It is no accident that proponents of Obamacare chose the symbolism of the number 40.

Jesus was tempted by the Devil after fasting for 40- days and nights in the desert. Appealing to pride, Satan challenged Christ to prove that He is the Son of God by jumping off the temple so that all can see the angels catch Him.

The Lord is tempted when He is in a weakened state, after fasting for over a month. Christ's fasting for 40 days and nights is also akin to the fasting of Moses (Ex. 34:28). God had promised that one would come after Moses who was like Moses (Deut 18:18). It may not be too much of a stretch to see this as pointing to the prophecy. In any case, we can expect that Satan will try His tricks when we are physically weak.

Jesus's scriptural response to Satan is a quote from Deuteronomy 6:16, "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test."

The nation is in a weakened state. We are tired of well over 40 days and nights of fruitless health care-reform debate. Obama hasn’t fared well as all polls show that the majority of Americans don’t want a public option. Now Obama is going on the offensive. He is again reaching out to the very churches that got him elected. Can the religiously left turn the tide?

Here’s their simple strategy:

According to the Orlando Sentinel, “Obama, who joined the last few minutes of the teleconference, used religious references such as "I am my brother's keeper" and said that misinformation being spread about reform had "a lot of folks bearing false witness." . . .

The implication is clear. If you think you are your brother’s keeper and you don’t want to bear false witness, then you will jump into the arms of awaiting health-care reform angels.

But, is Obama’s public option going to save our brother or eventually destroy him? Is it bearing false witness to point out that under a public option, health care rationing is a distinct possibility, and that the Democrats have failed to put wording in the current house bill that will insure that we won’t eventually pull the plug on someone’s Grandma???

Many of the 30+ organizations that participated in the teleconference are members of Obama’s White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which President Obama established by executive order on February 5, 2009. The above link provides a partial list of members.

The following churches sponsored the “40 Minutes For Health Reform” teleconference: