Olbermann: 'Reagan's Dead and He Was a Lousy President'..Call This Moron.

On Wednesday's Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann responded to an Ohio Republican quoting Ronald Reagan by mocking Reagan as "dead," and calling him a "lousy President." After reading a quote from Warren, County, Ohio commissioner Mike Kilburn proclaiming his intention not to use any of the federal stimulus money on his county, as he quoted Reagan's famous line that "government is the problem," Olbermann shot back: "Uh, Commissioner Kilburn, Reagan's dead and he was a lousy President."

The MSNBC host also slammed moderate Democratic Senator Ben Nelson as the day's "Worst Person in the World" because the Nebraska Democrat dared to lump him and fellow liberal MSNBC host Rachel Maddow in with conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, as Nelson charged that both conservative and liberal talk show hosts spread misinformation to their audience.

Olbermann, who has a history of repeating incorrect or distorted information on his show, and who also once depicted an image of Rush Limbaugh as a target of gunfire, charged that Limbaugh "supports racism and encourages violence," and that FNC's Glenn Beck "makes up stuff," as the MSNBC host indignantly complained: "Thanks for the opportunity to tell you you don't know what the hell you're talking about. I am fed up with this equating of what we do here to circus performers like Limbaugh and the Fox crowd. We don't make up stuff like Beck does, we don't stalk people like O'Reilly does, we don't support racism and encourage violence like Limbaugh does, we don't recite talking points like Hannity does."

[This item, by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth, was posted Thursday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

Referring to his recent criticism -- from the left -- of President Obama for announcing his administration would not try to prosecute CIA interrogators who used waterboarding against terrorists, Olbermann claimed that his show does not really have a left-wing slant: "Rachel caught you out to lunch on the stimulus, and she called you on it, and I slammed a Democratic President last week. We believe first, Senator, in right and wrong over here, not right and left. Let me know when you start believing in something besides re-election."

From the April 22 "Worst Person in the World" segment:

KEITH OLBERMANN: But first, time for Countdown's number two story, "Worst Persons in the World." The bronze goes to Mike Kilburn, county commissioner of Warren County, Ohio. You remember Warren County? Part of the still unexplained terror threat lockdown on election night 2004. The commissioners there are rejecting $373,000 in stimulus money for three new buses and vans meant to get the county's rural residents to health care and educational opportunities. Kilburn said, "I'll let Warren County go broke before taking any of Obama's filthy money. I'm tired of paying for people who don't have. As Reagan said, government is not the answer, it's the problem." Uh, Commissioner Kilburn, Reagan's dead and he was a lousy President.

Dick Cheney: Obama’s Acting Like a Weak President

Former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed the Obama administration Monday night for what he described as a disturbing tendency to criticize America abroad and embrace avowed enemies like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez while not praising the nation’s success in the war against terrorism.

As an example, Cheney revealed that he had pressed for the release of documents that would show how the Bush administration’s allegedly harsh interrogation techniques had thwarted major terrorist attacks. Instead, President Barack Obama only ordered the release of memos detailing the controversial techniques, not the results.

Cheney made the statements in a two-part interview with Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity. The first part was broadcast Monday night; the second will be broadcast Tuesday night at 9 p.m.

“What I find disturbing is the extent to which he has gone to Europe, for example, and seemed to apologize profusely in Europe, and then to Mexico, and apologize there, and so forth,” Cheney told Hannity.

“And I think you have to be very careful. The world outside there, both our friends and our foes, will be quick to take advantage of a situation if they think they're dealing with a weak president or one who is not going to stand up and aggressively defend America's interests.”

“The United States provides most of the leadership in the world… I don’t think we have much to apologize for.”

Cheney also said that:

# the release of CIA memos detailing interrogation techniques was a “little bit disturbing” because the administration hadn’t released documents detailing how those techniques were successful in thwarting terrorism.

# the Bush administration’s policy of ignoring Chavez and other leftist leaders like Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua was more effective than embracing a dialogue with them. That only serves to validate their anti-democratic tendencies at home.

# Obama’s habit of traveling abroad – to Europe and Mexico – and apologizing “profusely” for American actions signal weakness to friends and foes alike.

# criticizing the previous administration is nothing new, and is to be expected from a new president. “We did it. I'm sure the Obama administration is not the first one ever to do that.”

Cheney told Hannity that he had “formally asked” for the declassification of documents he says would “lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country.”

# he had no substantive policy discussions with Vice President Joe Biden, who never asked Cheney for his insight on policy. They only met once after the election.

Cheney explained the Bush administration's interrogation methods in terms of the situation after 9/11. The Bush administration knew little about al-Qaida, and had to quickly get up to speed with much of New York City already in ruins.

“One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort,” the former vice president said. “And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified.”

“I formally asked that they be declassified now,” Cheney said. “I haven't announced this up until now, I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country.”

“And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions.”

The handshake between Obama and Chavez was not good because it only serves to undermine the cause of democratic oppositions in countries like Venezuela, where the Chavez regime has moved to crush dissent.

“You have millions of people all across South America who are watching how we respond,” Cheney said. “And if they see an American president sort of cozying up to somebody like Daniel Ortega or Chavez, I think it's not helpful. I think it sort of sets the wrong standard.”

“I've seen Hugo Chavez in operation before, and Daniel Ortega down in Nicaragua,” Cheney said. “These are people who operate in our hemisphere, but who don't believe in and aren't supportive of basic fundamental principles and policies that most of us in this hemisphere adhere to.”

“Basically, the position we took in the Bush administration was to ignore it. I think that was the right thing to do.”

One of the biggest temptations for a new administration is to focus on being liked rather than respected, Cheney said.

“The United States provides most of the leadership in the world. We have for a long time. And I don't think we've got much to apologize for. You can have a debate about that. But the bottom line is that, you know, when you go to Europe and deal with our European friends and allies, some things they do very well, some things they don't.”

“Sometimes it's important that a president speak directly and forthrightly to our European friends. And you don't get there if you're so busy apologizing for past U.S. behavior.”

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Supreme Court Limits Warrantless Vehicle Searches

their

Supreme Court Limits Warrantless Vehicle Searches
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
By Staff, Associated Press

Washington (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police need a warrant to search the vehicle of someone they have arrested if the person is locked up in a patrol cruiser and poses no safety threat to officers.

The court's 5-4 decision puts new limits on the ability of police to search a vehicle immediately after the arrest of a suspect.

Justice John Paul Stevens said in the majority opinion that warrantless searches still may be conducted if a car's passenger compartment is within reach of a suspect who has been removed from the vehicle or there is reason to believe evidence of a crime will be found.

"When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee's vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant," Stevens said.

Justice Samuel Alito, in dissent, complained that the decision upsets police practice that has developed since the court first authorized warrantless searches immediately following an arrest.

"There are cases in which it is unclear whether an arrestee could retrieve a weapon or evidence," Alito said.

Even more confusing, he said, is asking police to determine whether the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. "What this rule permits in a variety of situations is entirely unclear," Alito said.

The decision backs an Arizona high court ruling in favor of Rodney Joseph Gant, who was handcuffed, seated in the back of a patrol car and under police supervision when Tucson, Ariz., police officers searched his car. They found cocaine and drug paraphernalia.

The trial court said the evidence could be used against Gant, but Arizona appeals courts overturned the convictions because the officers already had secured the scene and thus faced no threat to safety or concern about evidence being preserved.

The state and the Bush administration complained that ruling would impose a "dangerous and unworkable test" that would complicate the daily lives of law enforcement officers.

The justices divided in an unusual fashion. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, David Souter and Clarence Thomas joined the majority opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy were in dissent along with Alito.

Minuteman Founder to Challenge McCain for Senate Seat in 2010 GOP Primary

Tuesday, April 21, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer


(CNSNews.com) – Chris Simcox, founder of the pro-border enforcement group the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, will announce on Wednesday his plans to challenge Sen. John McCain in the Arizona Republican Senate primary in 2010.

Simcox, who spoke with CNSNews.com on Tuesday, said he has voted for McCain – the GOP presidential nominee in 2008 – in the past despite his many concerns about McCain’s politically moderate leanings.

“I had no choice” but to vote for McCain in the past, Simcox told CNSNews.com. “This is what this campaign is about, to give conservatives in the state an alternative to John McCain. … John McCain has been wrong about immigration. He has been wrong on border security, and he has attacked our First Amendment rights with campaign finance reform. He has acted like a big government bully.”

After losing the presidential race to Barack Obama last fall, McCain announced in December he would run for reelection to the Senate in 2010.

Among several issues McCain has faced criticism for from conservatives has been his sponsorship of legislation to establish a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens, allowing them to stay in the United States if they learn English and pay back taxes. Opponents of these measures, such as Simcox, call the proposals “amnesty.”

Illegal immigration has been a major issue in Arizona where the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps was founded in 2005 as a citizens group to help patrol the southern border in lieu of federal support.

Its mission statement reads: “It is the mission of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps to see the borders and coastal boundaries of the United States secured against the unlawful and unauthorized entry of all individuals, contraband, and foreign military. We will employ all means of civil protest, demonstration, and political lobbying to accomplish this goal.”

“There is one simple solution, and that is to deploy our troops to the border,” Simcox told CNSNews.com, but Simcox stressed that he did not want to be pigeon-holed as a single issue candidate.

As a former school teacher, he said he would be campaigning for education reform. Further, he said he supported doing away with obstacles to more energy resources.

Simcox noted that, as an incumbent and former presidential nominee, McCain has a clear fundraising advantage. Simcox also said that his campaign “is starting off with nothing.”

“I have a state base in Arizona, and I am nationally known, so that will help in fundraising,” Simcox said. “We have grassroots and foot soldiers and many, many people in the state.”

It is unusual for incumbent senators to be defeated in primaries. However, it has happened in recent years. Most notably in 2006, millionaire businessman Ned Lamont defeated Sen. Joe Lieberman in a Connecticut Democratic primary. However, Lieberman kept his seat by running as an independent.

The loser of the Arizona primary will not have that option, said Arizona Assistant Secretary of State Jim Drake.

“We have a law that says if you ran in the primary election and failed to be nominated, then you cannot file in the general,” Drake told CNSNews.com.

In another example, in 2002, U.S. Rep. John Sununu beat U.S. Sen. Bob Smith in a New Hampshire Republican primary. Then-U.S. Rep. Pat Tooney came close to beating Sen. Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Senate GOP primary in 2004, but lost. Toomey, no longer a member of Congress, is reportedly going to challenge Specter again this year.

Leah Geach, a spokeswoman for McCain’s Senate office, did not respond to inquiries for this story.

Obama Welcomes America-Bashing

Obama Welcomes America-Bashing
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
By L. Brent Bozell III

Of all the bizarre fictions that the media have spread about Barack Obama, the strangest is that’s he non-ideological. The supreme purveyor of this fantasy is Obama himself.

During his trip to Tobago to meet with Latin American leaders, the president claimed “we can make progress when we're willing to break free from some of the stale debates and old ideologies.” That’s a pretty funny sentence when your foreign policy reeks of Jimmy Carter, fermented since 1977.

In a room stuffed with Marxist crackpots like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, Obama came not to lecture, but to charm. America’s just one country among many, and he was “inclined to listen and not just talk.”

There were no “junior partners” in the Americas, just partners. He came not to defend America, but to calmly hear it trashed, and win people over with his charisma. Obama believes in his charisma far more than he believes in America.

“I didn’t come here to debate the past,” Obama declared. “I came here to deal with the future.” He explicitly claimed his own biracial skin displayed a new openness on America’s part: “As has already been noted, and I think my presence here indicates, the United States has changed over time.”

Now there’s a powerful defense of your country, President Obama.

Obama’s so egotistical he thinks America has two historical eras, Before Obama and the Glorious Now.

After sitting through a 50-minute diatribe from that communist thug Daniel Ortega, who ranted that America had unleashed a century of expansionist aggression, Obama’s response wasn’t national, just personal: “I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.”

Apparently, that sorry act of aggression was John F. Kennedy’s failed Bay of Pigs attempt to rid Cuba of Fidel Castro.

Few corrected Obama’s mistake – that lost battle occurred a few months before the world was transformed by his birth. The president was asked later what he thought about Ortega's speech, and he said, "It was 50 minutes long. That's what I thought."

There’s another powerful way to defend your country, President Obama.

Obama was just as non-confrontational with that other thug Chavez, who pressed him with a copy of a book-length anti-American diatribe called “The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of Pillage of a Continent.”

Its author, Eduardo Galeano, typically described America under President Bush as a terrorist war machine in a 2006 Pacifica Radio interview: “This $2,600 million spent each day to kill other people, this machine of killing peoples, devouring the world resources, eating the world resources each day. So this is a terrorist structure indeed, and we are in danger, so President Bush is right, I think. We are suffering a terrorist menace.”

But when Chavez handed him Galeano’s thirty-year-old communist diatribe, Obama could only say "I think it was, it was a nice gesture to give me a book. I'm a reader." Being obsessed with himself, Obama also said he should have given Chavez his books. He added that Chavez’s harsh rhetoric didn’t mean they couldn’t engage in civil dialogue.

There’s only one thing wrong with that sentiment: it’s not civil dialogue for Chavez to demand that Obama read about how his country is bleeding the Americas to death.

Yet one more powerful – oh, never mind.

American reporters saw this as a glorious moment. Time’s Tim Padgett said the hate-America gift was appropriate, because Obama “proved at the Trinidad summit to be the first U.S. President to get it.” Obama “gets” the America-haters.

But how would he respond to the charge that Franklin Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbor Policy” or John Kennedy’s “Alliance for Progress” was just more imperialistic aggression? Is it simply inappropriate to defend American presidents, even when they’re Democrats? The “evil empire” narrative must always be listened to with respect – and without rebuttal?

Only Obama deserves respect, apparently. Padgett thought the Latin leftists should show respect by reading the president’s own masterful books in order to admire his “common-sense, post-ideological political philosophy.”

To glimpse at the warped worldview of our media elite, look no further than a news “analysis” by Steven Hurst of the Associated Press, who compared Obama favorably to ... Mikhail Gorbachev.

Apparently, like Gorbachev, Obama presides over a corrupt and crumbling empire: “During his short – by Soviet standards – tenure, he scrambled incessantly to shed the ideological entanglements that were leading the communist empire toward ruin. But Obama is outpacing even Gorbachev.”

The leftist media look at Obama and see themselves. There are no “ideological entanglements.” They’re just out to make the world a better place, insisting that America needs to shrink itself into a smaller, quieter, less “judgmental” partner, and do so while the Western hemisphere goes off a left-wing cliff.

Hugo Chavez Says Venezuelan Socialism Has Begun To Reach U.S. Under Obama

Tuesday, April 21, 2009
By Edwin Mora

(CNSNews.com) - Inspired by his meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama at the Americas Summit, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez declared on Sunday that Venezuelan socialism has begun to reach the United States under the Obama administration.

“I am coming back from Trinidad and Tobago, from the Americas Summit where, without a doubt, the position that Venezuela and its government has always defended, especially starting 10 years ago, of resistance, dignity, sovereignty and independence has obtained in Port of Spain, one of the biggest victories of our history,” Chavez said.

“It would seem that the changes that started in Venezuela in the last decade of the 20th century have begun to reach North America,” he added.

Chavez made the comments Sunday to a crowd gathered for the 199th Commemoration of the Independence Declaration of Venezuela.

“In one year we will be celebrating 200 years of ‘April 19,’ the day that ... initiated this revolution that is underway 200 years later at the forefront of the people of our America, at the forefront of change, at the forefront of a new world, at the forefront of a new century that will construct Bolivarian socialism,” said Chavez.

“Bolivarian socialism” is the term Chavez uses to refer to his 21st century Latin American form of socialism, which he claims originates from the revolution launched by Simon Bolivar, a Venezuelan and Latin American revolutionary leader of the 19th century.

“We have assumed the commitment to direct the Bolivarian Revolution towards socialism and to contribute to the socialist path, with a new socialism; a socialism of the 21st century which is based in solidarity, in fraternity, in love, in justice, in liberty and in equality,” Chavez said in a speech in mid-2006, according to the Venezuelan government’s official Web site.

Last Friday, during the Americas Summit, Obama greeted Chavez before the first plenary summit, the first time the two presidents had met.

“I want to be your friend,” Chavez said to Obama as both of them shook hands. After the encounter, Chavez told reporters, “It was a good moment.”

At the United Nations in September 2006, Chavez referred to then-President Bush as “the devil."

The Venezuelan president has also suggested that he would “use oil” to fight U.S. influence, which he often refers to as “the imperialist power.” Venezuela is one of the world’s major oil producers.

Prior to the Americas Summit, Chavez had even attacked the Obama administration.

In January, Chavez accused the not-yet-inaugurated president of "throwing the first stone," after Obama called Chavez a "disruptive force in the region."

Chavez responded by calling Obama "ignorant" and inviting him to look over the realities of Latin America.

At their meeting last week, Chavez gave Obama a copy of the book, “The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of Pillage of a Continent,” written by Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano. The book is about alleged U.S. and European exploitation of the region.

“I think it was a nice gesture to give me a book. I’m a reader,” Obama told reporters. Obama and Chavez spoke once again--in private--during the final day of the summit. Chavez told reporters that they talked about a new era in U.S.-Venezuela relations.

“I told Obama that we have decided to appoint a new ambassador (to the U.S.),” said Chavez.

President Obama, defending himself against criticism coming from those in the U.S. who disapprove of talks with Chavez, said, “Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably one six-hundredths of the United States. They own Citgo [oil refinery and retailer].

“It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having polite conversation with Mr. Chavez, we are endangering the strategic interest of the United States,” Obama told reporters.

“You would be would be hard pressed to paint a scenario in which the U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela,” he added.

Venezuelan opposition to the Chavez administration criticized President Obama on Sunday for warming up to Chavez before demonstrating concern about Venezuela’s democracy, apporrea.org, a Venezuelan news outlet reported.

“The president’s (Chavez) authoritarianism, which grows by the day, has to be discussed,” Milos Alcalay, former Venezuelan ambassador to the U.N., who resigned in 2004 due to differences with Chavez, told aporrea.org.

The U.S. needs to talk to “the opposition, church representatives and others, who are really concerned about the democracy in Venezuela,” added Alcalay.

According to the U.S. State Department and other official government sources, the Venezuelan government has been guilty of numerous human rights violations under Chavez's rule.

“Politicization of the judiciary and official harassment of the political opposition and the media characterized the human rights situation during the year,” said the State Department's Country Report on Human Rights in Venezuela for 2008 that was released last month.

The report credits the Chavez regime with unlawful killings, arbitrary arrests and detention, discrimination based on political grounds, widespread corruption at all levels of government, official intimidation and attacks on the independent media.

“According to HRW [Human Rights Watch], ‘Government officials have removed scores of detractors from the career civil service, purged dissidents employees from the national oil company, denied citizens access to social programs based on their political opinions, and denounced critics as subversives deserving of discriminatory treatment," says the State Department report.

A recent report by the Congressional Research Service also outlined human rights concerns in Chavez's Venezuela.

“Under the populist rule of President Hugo Chavez … Venezuela has undergone enormous political changes, with a new constitution and unicameral legislature, and a new name for the country, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,” states a Feb. 5, 2009 CRS report.

“U.S. officials and human rights organizations have expressed concerns about the deterioration of democratic institutions,” the report adds, “and threats to freedom of expression under President Chavez, who has survived several attempts to remove him from power.”

Last February, Venuzuelan voters approved a constitutional amendment that eliminates presidential term limits, thus allowing Chavez to run the country for an unlimited succession of 6-year terms as long as he can win a majority of the vote in a Venezuelan election.

Card Issuers Brace For Stern Warning

Obama to Press Executives to Adopt New Rules or Face Action by Congress

By Michael D. Shear and Nancy Trejos
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, April 21, 2009

President Obama will meet directly with credit card executives this week and plans to tell them to support strict measures that curb lending abuses or face the wrath of angry consumers and a determined Congress, according to banking industry officials.
This Story

*
Card Issuers Brace for Stern Warning
*
Congress Takes Aim at Credit Card Lending

The heads of the credit card divisions at 14 major banks are set to meet with the president and his top economic officials at the White House on Thursday, administration aides confirmed yesterday. They are bracing for a warning that the president will join the chorus of condemnation if they resist efforts to protect their credit card customers from unfair practices.

The high-profile meeting comes as members of Congress launch new efforts to crack down on credit card companies for such practices as arbitrarily raising interest rates on existing balances, charging late fees when enough time was not given between the billing and due dates, and charging interest on debt that was paid on time.
ad_icon

Lawmakers in the House plan to begin work tomorrow on a bill that would codify new Federal Reserve regulations aimed at curbing those practices. A separate bill in the Senate, sponsored by Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), would go even further, prohibiting companies from applying a variety of charges. The measure includes capping over-limit fees at one per billing period, allowing no interest charges on fees and no fees to make a payment. The legislation also would prevent companies from raising interest rates at any time for any reason and limit aggressive marketing by card issuers aimed at borrowers under 21.

Industry sources said the president will tell the executives on Thursday that he wants to go further than the House bill without specifically endorsing all of the provisions of Dodd's bill. Administration officials confirmed that the president will push for stronger rules in some areas than those proposed in the legislation but is "broadly supportive" of the bills working their way through Congress.

Obama has been calling for new regulation of credit card lending since the campaign trail. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner endorsed curbs on the credit card companies in remarks several weeks ago.

White House aides declined to discuss the specific agenda for Thursday's meeting. A senior White House official described it as an "outreach meeting" and said "any assumption that we would invite representatives in to simply stomp our feet and lecture about what they must do or else is simply inaccurate."

Press secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday that administration officials will make clear to the executives that Obama would like them to take action voluntarily but that he supports legislation to force restrictions on their lending practices if they refuse.

"The administration and, I think, the public in general would be happy if some of the practices that they and others find offensive are ended -- would be a good step in the right direction. That I don't doubt," Gibbs told reporters.

He added that the White House will not be shy about "pursuing a course through Congress that would provide fairness and transparency to this process."

White House officials are hoping to avoid a repeat of the situation that followed disclosure of the multimillion-dollar bonuses at insurance giant American International Group, when a public outcry led to congressional action that Obama felt went too far. In that case, Obama initially expressed his outrage about the bonuses, but later was forced to ratchet back his rhetoric to keep lawmakers from taking actions that might threaten the government's efforts to bail out the banks.

Gibbs made clear yesterday that Obama shares the public's frustration -- and even anger -- about credit cards. Asked whether the president is angry at the practices of credit card companies that have received government lifelines, Gibbs said the emotions are directed more broadly.

"Well, I don't think the anger just is for bailed-out companies," he said. "I mean, there are companies that aren't getting money from the federal government that are involved in practices where people see their credit card rate skyrocket unbeknownst to them or contained in paragraph 14 of some very small writing at the very end of a credit card contract."

Representatives of some credit card companies have been tight-lipped about what they expect at the meeting.

"We hope there to be a useful dialogue about the state of the economy, the ability of lenders to make loans in this challenging environment, and the potential negative impact that further policy initiatives may have on the provision of credit to consumers and small businesses," said Kenneth J. Clayton, senior vice president and general counsel of the American Bankers Association Card Policy Council.

Card issuers argue that the restrictions imposed by the Fed already will reduce the availability of credit, particularly to marginal customers, and will force them to hike interest rates. They say additional limits will only heighten both trends at a time when the government is trying to increase lending.

"We're decreasing the availability and increasing cost when we want to be moving in the opposite direction," said Scott Talbott of the Financial Services Roundtable.

But members of Congress hailed the White House's involvement.

"I welcome President Obama's support for our efforts to crack down on abusive and predatory credit card practices," Dodd said. "We will only fully recover from this economic crisis when we put an end to the abusive practices that continue to drive so many Americans deeper and deeper into debt."

Consumer advocates said the White House's support could add momentum to congressional efforts to crack down on the industry.

"Many families who have been hit by unjustified and financially destabilizing credit card interest rate increases recently are asking why their taxes are supporting these practices," said Travis Plunkett, legislative director of the Consumer Federation of America. "The White House could be decisive in prodding Congress to enact a proposal that curbs a wider array of abusive practices than the Federal Reserve rule and takes effect more quickly."

Staff writer Binyamin Appelbaum contributed to this report.

Civil Rights: 'Use 'em Or Lose 'em'

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

WND columnist Janet Porter is warning Americans if they want to keep their civil rights, they'd better be using them right now.

Porter in her newest column took on the issue of the recent "extremist" report from the Department of Homeland Security.

The federal agency's report is called "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

It already has generated a lawsuit by talk radio host Michael Savage and multiple calls for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to be removed.

According to the federal government, characteristics of members of the suspect group of people include those who:

* Oppose restrictions on firearms

* Oppose lax immigration

* Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs

* Oppose continuation of free trade agreements

* Oppose same-sex marriage

* Has paraonia of foreign regimes

* Fear Communist regimes

* Oppose one world government

* Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world

* Is upset with the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India

Porter wrote, "The only way we can keep our freedoms is if we'll use them – now."

"One thing's for sure – we aren't going to stand by while they profile good, law-abiding citizens as terrorists and take away constitutional freedoms," she wrote.

"Therefore, we, the law-abiding citizens of America, demand:

1. "The resignation or removal of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano for her partisan political profiling of veterans and conservatives and her abuse of power.

2. "An apology from President Barack Obama to ALL Americans for his administration's call for domestic spying.

3. "The immediate retraction of the "Rightwing Extremism" report for labeling law-abiding citizens as "terrorists" because of their political views."

"If you'd like to help sound the alarm before you're monitored as a potential terrorist, please help. Go to www.f2a.org and click the first blinking alert to fight "hate crimes" and click the link to www.NoPoliticalProfiling.com to help us place a newspaper ad and sign the petition to fight the new definition of "terrorist," she said.

"DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has labeled law-abiding citizens as 'right-wing extremists' and potential 'terrorists' … and has instructed state and local law enforcement to monitor, investigate and 'report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to DHS and the FBI,'" she wrote.

Under the DHS plan, she said, among those who would be listed as terrorists would be:

1. George Washington (military veteran and gun owner)
2. Mother Teresa (pro-life)
3. Ronald Reagan (pro-life and staunch advocate for less government), and
4. The pope (supports life and traditional marriage)

Pentagon official blames U.S. for al-Qaida attacks

Worked for George Soros, argued for government control of media:

Rosa Brooks

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


She believes al-Qaida was an "obscure group" turned into a massive threat due to U.S. policies.

She's referred to former President Bush as "our torturer in chief" and a "psychotic who need(s) treatment" while comparing Bush's arguments for waging a war on terrorism to Adolf Hitler's use of political propaganda.

She's worked on behalf of George Soros' philanthropic foundation.

Meet Rosa Brooks, the Obama administration's new adviser to Michelle Fluornoy, the undersecretary of defense for policy, a position described as one of the most influential in the Pentagon.

"I prefer to think of (my new position) as my personal government bailout," Brooks wrote in a departing piece at the Los Angeles Times, where she served as a regular columnist.

Brooks' new boss earlier this month briefed Congress on U.S. policy in Pakistan and Afghanistan, two countries for which she has enormous power concerning drafting future military doctrine.

"Brooks will wield an extraordinary degree of influence in helping shape U.S. policy. Her extreme views should therefore be closely scrutinized," wrote Nile Gardiner, a contributor to the London Telegraph's online blog.

Indeed, Brook's recent L.A. Times columns evidence views some may find concerning.

Get "Shut Up, America! How to fight the end of free speech"

In 2007, she labeled al-Qaida as "little more than an obscure group of extremist thugs, well financed and intermittently lethal but relatively limited in their global and regional political pull. On 9/11, they got lucky. … Thanks to U.S. policies, al-Qaida has become the vast global threat the administration imagined it to be in 2001."

Also that year, she called the surge in Iraq a "feckless plan" that is "too little too late" with "no realistic likelihood that it will lead to an enduring solution in Iraq." The surge was widely credited with helping to stabilize Iraq.

Brooks wrote Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney "should be treated like psychotics who need treatment. … Impeachment's not the solution to psychosis, no matter how flagrant."

She also penned a column about Bush entitled "Our torturer-in-chief" in which she inferred attacks against the U.S. were a result of torture policies.

"Today, the chickens are coming home to roost," she fumed, but "the word 'accountability' isn't in the White House dictionary."

In another column she referred to the regimes of Iran and North Korea as "foreign authoritarians," while calling the Bush administration a "homegrown" authoritarian regime.

In a column last month, Brooks claimed the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel arguments for prosecuting the war on terrorism were similar to tactics used by Hitler.

According to Brooks: "How did such dangerously bad legal memos ever get taken seriously in the first place? One answer is suggested by the so-called Big Lie theory of political propaganda, articulated most infamously by Adolf Hitler. Ordinary people 'more readily fall victim to the big lie than the small lie,' wrote Hitler."

Last week, FoxNews.com highlighted Brook's departing column in which she argued for more "direct government support for public media" and government licensing of the news.

Wrote Brooks: "Years of foolish policies have left us with a choice: We can bail out journalism, using tax dollars and granting licenses in ways that encourage robust and independent reporting and commentary, or we can watch, wringing our hands, as more and more top journalists are laid off."

In response, L. Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, countered, "The day that the government gets involved in the news media you see the end of the democratic process, because an independent news media is absolutely essential to the success of a democracy."

Brooks is also a law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, where she serves as director of Georgetown Law School's Human Rights Center. She previously served as special counsel to the president at Soros' Open Society Institute. She has consulted for Human Rights Watch and served as a board member of Amnesty International USA.

ABC Defends Obama's 'New World View,'

In the midst of conservative criticism that President Barack Obama, at the summit in Trinidad over the weekend joked around with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and was uncritical of a 50-minute anti-American screed from Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, ABC decided to defend Obama's foreign policy mettle -- with his only failure coming where he has followed Bush's policy. Martha Raddatz began by trying to undermine the pictures of a jovial Obama with Chavez: "Today, cell phone video images emerged of a stern and serious President Obama during a brief encounter with Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. The image counters the cordial hand shake with Chavez who once called Mr. Obama an 'ignoramus' and George Bush 'a devil.'"

She noted that "it should not be a surprise that President Obama is reaching out to friend and foe after promising a stark change," before she recited, interspersed with Obama soundbites, how in a mere 90 days "he has reached out to the Iranian people...Muslims worldwide...And the Russians." She asked: "And where has all this gotten him?" Her one expert, former Chicago Sun-Times and New York Daily News executive James Hoge, who now runs Foreign Policy magazine, hailed Obama's approach: "I think he's doing it very sequentially, so that he's got a better chance of getting deals with people, getting some of the things we want to have done, done."

Referring to Cuba, Raddatz then touted how "already there has been one concrete change," though only in rhetoric, as she relayed how Obama's policy change has "prompted Cuban President Raul Castro to excitedly declare he would now talk about 'everything, everything, everything,'" She balanced that with a failure, where Obama has continued Bush's approach: "But President Obama has gotten nothing, nothing, nothing from his efforts with North Korea and his reaction to the recent missile launch echoes the Bush administration, stern words and a UN Security Council condemnation that have done little good."

Of course, Obama has also gotten nothing, nothing, nothing from Cuba nor anything from any of the European nations he asked to help with troops in Afghanistan. And after his outreach to Iran, that regime has imprisoned an Iranian-American journalist.

[This item, by the MRC's Brent Baker, was posted Monday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

The story on the Monday, April 20 World News on ABC:

CHARLES GIBSON: The President has taken a number of steps in recent days to overhaul America's foreign policy. He said as a candidate he'd talk to America's enemies, a stark departure from the policy of his predecessor. And this weekend that new attitude was on display during a summit in Latin America. Martha Raddatz tonight on the new Obama foreign policy.

MARTHA RADDATZ: Today, cell phone video images emerged of a stern and serious President Obama during a brief encounter with Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. The image counters the cordial hand shake with Chavez who once called Mr. Obama an "ignoramus" and George Bush "a devil."
SENATOR JOHN ENSIGN (R-NV), ON CNN ON SUNDAY: You have to be careful who you're seen joking around with and I think it was irresponsible of the President to be seen kind of laughing, joking with Hugo Chavez.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: It's unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands, or by having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez, that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States.
RADDATZ: It should not be a surprise that President Obama is reaching out to friend and foe after promising a stark change. In just the first 90 days, he has reached out to the Iranian people-
OBAMA, IN WEB VIDEO: You and all of your neighbors in the wider world can live in the greater security and greater peace.
RADDATZ: Muslims worldwide.
OBAMA, INAUGURAL ADDRESS: To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward.
RADDATZ, OVER VIDEO OF SECRETARY CLINTON LAUGHING WITH RUSSIA'S FOREIGN MINISTER: And the Russians. And where has all this gotten him?
JAMES HOGE, EDITOR OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS MAGAZINE: I think he's doing it very sequentially, so that he's got a better chance of getting deals with people, getting some of the things we want to have done, done.
RADDATZ: Already there has been one concrete change, Cuba. Lifting a half century of restrictions on Cuban-Americans, a move that prompted Cuban President Raul Castro to excitedly declare he would now talk about "everything, everything, everything" with President Obama. But President Obama has gotten nothing, nothing, nothing from his efforts with North Korea and his reaction to the recent missile launch echoes the Bush administration, stern words and a UN Security Council condemnation that have done little good. And that is the problem with foreign policy, sometimes no matter how far you reach out, there's no one on the other end to take your hand.

(From 1984 to 1991 Hoge served as Publisher and President of the New York Daily News, following a long career -- 1958-1984 -- as a Washington correspondent, the Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of the Chicago Sun-Times. His bio: www.cfr.org )

New Google Browser Raises Privacy Concerns

By Personal Liberty News Desk • Nov 5th, 2008 •

Personal Liberty News, Privacy

Can Google respect people's privacy?The group Consumer Watchdog is calling on the Justice Department and state attorneys general to protect consumer privacy amid concerns about Google’s new Chrome browser.

It has raised a red flag about the danger of Google selling information about people’s web usage to third parties, saying that the company has "a financial interest in knowing ever more about who we are" online.

Chrome’s features include easier access to bookmarked pages, desktop shortcuts to web applications, and warnings if surfers are about to access an unsafe website. Chrome also includes an "Incognito" mode that allows surfers to prevent pages from showing up in their browsing history.

However, Consumer Watchdog urges Google to "ensure that Incognito mode has the full meaning the word implies when users opt for it." The group wants Google to protect consumer privacy with a single, instant Incognito button that remains in default mode and keeps information from outside servers.

"If Google won’t solve its own privacy problems, the company must be prepared for regulators to put the brakes on its unprecedented growth," said Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court.

The UGLY TRUTH

THE UGLY TRUTH

If you haven't watched this video, please do so before continuing, as my comments will make references to the statements made in it.

As a history buff, I take exception to Ms. Garofalo stating that we have no concept of history, or the reasons behind the Boston Tea Party. It was more than just a demonstration of dissent or disgust over "taxation without representation" (even though that is currently the case with this Congress), but apparently she read a different history book than the rest of us. And to state that this entire movement is based on "hating a black man in the White House" is ludicrous at best. To further state that we will believe anything but the truth, and when confronted with the "truth" we become confused and angry and highly volatile" is purely rubbish. It is THEY who will not accept the truth, this movement is one of non-violent demonstration intended to send a message to the current administration and Congress that we are tired of big government interfering with our lives, spending two and three times what is collected in revenues annually, stripping away the rights of our states, and us, as guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and flagging us as subversives, extremists, or domestic terrorists simply because we have the courage to stand up and say enough is enough!!

Why was it permissible for people like Ayers and Dorn and their associates, the Black Panthers, etc., to practice violent means in a desire to change the status quo, but we are targeted for practicing our rights of protest peacefully? Would she go so far as to call our Founding Fathers "rednecks", racists, bigots, or "white supremacists" for their stance against an oppressive government, and the actions they took? And because our "limbic brain" (more commonly called the limbic system, a system of functionally related neural structures in the brain that are involved in emotional behavior) is larger than normal? What absolute nonsense!! While it is true that the limbic system is slightly larger in women than in men, hence they tend to be a bit more emotional, to say that the several hundred thousand people (not "literally tens of people" as she stated) who attended the TEA parties are "afflicted" somehow shows her complete misunderstanding of brain function. She is an actress (though that is questionable after seeing her performances), an "activist", and wannabe reporter (having been rejected twice in her applications to FOX). She is NOT a doctor, a psychiatrist, a physiotherapist, or any other medical professional, so her making any factual, let alone believable, comment about what the makeup of anyone's brain is can only be laughable at best, and is an affront to all thinking people anywhere.

Excuse me? "Teabagging rednecks"? From wikipedia, "Teabagging" is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person, often in a repeated in-and-out motion as in irrumatio. The practice vaguely resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea." Is she then saying that all rednecks are gay, or that they practice dominance over other men or women? I'm sure that would come as a real surprise to the fellas I know, and their ladies as well (most of which would knock anyone flat on their butts for even suggesting such a thing)!! And all this time I thought rednecks were against open homosexuality, or laws that give anyone special favors over the rest of us!! Now, I personally don't care if someone is gay, I just don't want it rubbed in my face like a lot of other minority issues. If there's a job to be done, and they can get it done, so what if they're gay, black, Hispanic, disabled or made of green cheese and turn orange in the sunlight? As long as they follow the laws, including coming into our country legally, and don't make a big stink about stuff that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, who cares? So who are they to equate our frustration with all of Washingtoon (no, that's not a typo, as our nation's capital is more like Looney Tunes everyday) with being gay? Or, for that matter, "rightwing extremism", or racism, bigotry or "white supremacy"?

There are many minorities who don't like who we have as a POTUS, including many blacks, because of his socialist tendencies, so to continue stating that we all hate the fact the "a black guy is in the White House" misses the point entirely. And to state openly that those minorities, which must include women, suffer from "Stockholm syndrome" (psychological response sometimes seen in abducted hostages, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger or risk in which they have been placed) only goes to prove that she also fails to understand the malady or psychological reflexes caused by it, or how it is implemented. Again, without proper medical training, she can only be considered to be talking out of the wrong end of her anatomy. Who is it that held these minority individuals hostage, or abused them? Who forced them to participate in the protests? Did they not attend out of a desire to exercise their freedom of speech, their right to gather, to seek redress from their government?

And Olberman's comment, "...they weren't near the cameras, which was bad strategy on the part of the people who were staging this at FOX." Pleeeeaaasssse!! FOX didn't stage anything, FOX attended to cover the protests, with Hannity even broadcasting his show from one site. The very fact that the rest of the MSM tried to ignore the fact that these protests were even being held shows their cowardice and lack of journalistic integrity, as well as their agendas. And if the minorities wanted to be near the cameras, they would have moved to a position in front of the cameras! That's what free people do, go where they want to go, something that Olberman, Garofolo, and the rest of the ultra-left-wingers will never understand or accept!! "FOX news loves to foment this anti-intellectualism, because that's their bread and butter. if you have a cerebral electorate, FOX News goes down the toilet, you know, very, very fast." (Does she mean like her career?) "That's why Roger Railes and Rupert Murdoch founded this venture, is to dis-inform (Did she mean misinform? Hmmm, lack of cerebral ability there?) and coarsen and dumb down a certain segment of the electorate." "...as I said, the Republican-the conservative movement has now crystallized into the white power movement." Talk about bigotry and racism! If you are a conservative, or a Republican, you are now a member of the white power movement? I'm sure that will surprise ALL of the conservative, Republican, Christian, free thinking minorities everywhere around this land, just as it surprises the majority of those Caucasians and mixed race (myself included) who fit that same mold!!

Back to the reference about us not knowing our history, or what the Boston Tea Party was all about. Over the last few months, Congress has passed spending legislation and bailed out the banks against the wishes of the majority of people in this country, that according to any number of different polls taken. If that isn't taxation without representation, I don't know what is, because they certainly weren't representing those who elected them and didn't want that legislation passed! The rest of the comments made by these two inane, self-proclaimed experts are so revolting that I won't continue to state my objections to their very way of thinking, for to do so might actually legitimize their ideology to those who follow and support that belief. Rather, I will address the title I have chosen for this post, "The Ugly Truth". That truth is that is you disagree with their ideology, or with the direction the current POTUS (PINO) and Congress are leading this nation, you will be branded a bigot, racist, anti-intellectual, white supremacist (or Uncle Tom or Oreo if you are black, and a dozen other similar references if you are of any other race), anti-government, subversive, domestic terrorist, Klansman, or any number of other derogatory and inflammatory slurs. And what is it that will bring down their wrath? If you believe in your First Amendment, Second Amendment, or Tenth Amendment rights (For that matter, if you believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights). If you oppose another amnesty, or believe that "illegal" immigration is just that, illegal. If you are against abortion, gay marriage, higher taxes, more Federal government control, Federal interference in private industry, reaching out to enemies like Castro, Chavez, Ahmenijhad, Hezbollah, Hamas, or changing our monetary system. If you are for capitalism and against socialism, support Israel, question the "Patriot Acts", or the "GIVE Act", the "Serve America Act", "TARP", or any of the hundreds of cost-ineffective, overburdening legislation that gets passed every year by those elected to represent us. If you want a "Fair Tax", any reasonable version of a consumption tax, or would like to see a balanced budget amendment. You don't have to believe in all of them, just one is enough to get you labeled as a "right-wing extremist". But if you happen to believe in more than one, you can expect to be targeted if the government finds out over the next few months. Even if you're a Democrat, or a member of any party who openly speaks out against the same things you believe in.

How do we combat it? Stay focused. Keep to the message. Help schedule a TEA Party in your community for July 4th, or work with the organizers of those being held nearby. Encourage others to attend. Get and stay informed. Maintain a constant attitude of respect, even in the face of name callers or agitators. Be respectful at all times when attending any event intended to further our desires toward setting this nation back on the right course. Create signage that is direct and to the point, but not any more derogatory than necessary. Let's try to have two million people participate in the next TEA Party, and five million in the one after that!! But whatever you do,

WAKE UP, AMERICA!!!

WE'RE BEING SOLD DOWN THE RIVER!!!

WE CANNOT ALLOW PEOPLE LIKE THE TWO IN THIS VIDEO TO GET THEIR WAY IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO BE FREE!!!



P.S. Remember how those in Congress actually voted on all the spending bills, and those bills intended to usurp our freedoms. We know they will be chanting that they didn't support them come time for the primaries next year. We need to vote them out in favor of those who will support our ideals. It's time to take our government back and return it to a system "of the people, by the people, and for the people"!!!