Dem Party Loses Its Way At Convention

If you have not realized it yet, the Democratic Party has lost its mind.  It is so enthralled with doing what is politically expedient, they will deny G-d a place at the table, they will remove their support of Israel to designate its own capital and they will allow an illegal immigrant (aka law breaker) to speak at the nomination of their candidate.

They tried to erase the  first two problems with a proposal to change the platform to put G-d back in the platform and to support the idea of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. However, the vote on this change made a mockery of the "democratic" process. Under Democratic Convention rules it takes a 2/3 majority to pass a change to the platform.  Three votes were taken by acclamation and if anything they were split equally, far away from the requirement.  However, the Chairman of the convention, finally decided that after the third vote that there was enough support to say the changes were adopted. 

The damage had been done, it was clear the proponents did not have enough support to pass the changes but the rule of one man, made it so. So much for democracy.  We thought these guys and gals were all for democracy, guess we are wrong again.

Having a unrepentant law breaker speak at the Convention was a  travesty.  Since when do we honor someone with the great privilege of speaking, when their very presence is against the law? Today, under current law, anyone here illegally is an illegal alien and should be deported.  Why this glorious reward?

We believe is that the Democratic Party has lost its soul in an attempt to win votes. They will say anything, do anything to curry favor with fringe groups to they might win the election.  Winning is all that counts anymore! They have no morals, anything can be done for the vote.

They will sell out anyone, any group or any country if the votes are not there.  Or they will take any position, support any group where they might garner more votes, regardless of its moral or ethical implications'  So much for "doing what is in the best interests of the country."  We believe that  if Democratic Party thought they would get more votes, they would support mass murder of American citizens.

These are not pretty sights, seeing a major party lose its way. Hopefully, they will regain some of their moorings but we believe those chances are poor.

Conservative Tom

• E-Brief
• Facebook
• Twitter
• RSS
• LinkedIn

• About Us
• Resources
• Send Tips
• Donate
• RSS

• CNSNews.TV
• On the Spot
• On the Scene
• The Schein
• OTJ
• Golden Hookah

Home » News

Illegal Immigrant Speaks at Democratic National Convention

By Matt Cover

September 6, 2012

Subscribe to Matt Cover's posts

    

Benita Veliz, an illegal alien who spoke during prime time at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C. on Sept. 5, 2012. (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) – Illegal immigrant activist Benita Veliz was given a prime-time speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Charlotte, North Carolina on Wednesday night, where she championed President Barack Obama’s recent decision to stop enforcing certain aspects of immigration law.

Veliz, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, gave a short address to the convention audience, and then introduced Telemundo talk-show host Cristina Saralegui.

In her speech, Veliz claimed to be “from San Antonio, Texas,” saying that she was “like so many Americans.”

“My name is Benita Veliz and I’m from San Antonio, Texas. Like so many Americans, of all races and backgrounds, I was brought here as a child,” Veliz said. “I’ve been here ever since.”

However, her profile on the activist website dreamactivist.org reveals that she came to the United States from Mexico at age 8 on a tourist visa and that her family then illegally overstayed.

Beliz was profiled in a March 2009 editorial in the New York Times after she launched a public campaign to prevent her deportation after she was arrested in Texas, caught driving without a license. The Times editorial stated that Veliz had an ID card issued by the Mexican consulate.

Beliz has been an activist for the DREAM Act – a proposed law that would allow illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children to be granted legal status if they go to college or serve in the military – since college, where she wrote her honors thesis on the legislation, according to the Times.

“I know I have something to contribute to my economy and my country,” Veliz said on Wednesday, referring to America, not Mexico. “I feel just as American as any of my friends or neighbors.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which opposes illegal immigration, called Veliz’s appearance in Charlotte a “celebration of lawlessness.”

“In choosing to have someone who defiantly remains present in the United States in violation of federal law address the convention during prime time is nothing more than a celebration of lawlessness,” FAIR President Dan Stein said in a press release.

According to a press release from the illegal immigration activist group United We Dream (UWD), Veliz successfully fought deportation after UWD organized a petition drive to pressure the Department of Homeland Security. Despite avoiding deportation, Veliz remained an illegal immigrant.

Redux --American Jobs Going To Chinese Firms

This is a re-run of a post last year.  It is worth  listening to again as we are now in the middle of the campaign! Here is the link:  http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/us-bridges-roads-built-chinese-firms-14594513?tab=9482930?ion=1206853&playlist=14594944

Conservative Tom

A Message That Should Be Shouted To The Heavens

    Mychal Massie has written the ultimate condemnation of the President and his wife.  We strongly recommend you read this very timely piece. Please forward it to all your liberal friends, they will hate you for it!!

Conservative Tom                 

 

 

 BEST SUMMATION OF BARACK AND MICHELLE EVER 

Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.

 

        The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."

        The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obama's. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.

        I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

        I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish.   His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?

        Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.

        I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.

        I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide."   No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.

        And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel. His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.

        I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.

        Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.

        It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.

        As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood...Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed."

Dems Jerusalem and G-d Farce

If you want to see what a second Obama term will look like, we need to look no further than the Democratic Convention.  In the following post, we see how Democrats feel about majorities and voting. It is not a pretty sight. Rules don't count, votes don't count and one man rule is the rule of the day.  Enjoy and let us know what you think of "our future" should Obamms get re-elected.

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/09/15032-video-democrat-party-chaos-as-chair-overrules-delegates-to-put-god-jerusalem-back-in-platform/

Conservative Tom

Jerusalem Abandonment

The following post is on the same lines as our previous one entitled "Democrats Hate Israel" which we posted a couple hours ago. The Democrats have decided that they want to be friends with the Palestinians and can let Israel rot. This is a sad day in the relationship between these two countries.

Thank you Barack, your love for the Palestinians has not taken over the entire Democratic Party.

Conservative Tom

Who Lost Jerusalem?

Unknown - The New York Sun,  September 4th, 2012

It is difficult to imagine a benign explanation for the decision of the Democratic Party to delete from its platform language supporting the recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel. “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel,” the Democratic platform declared four years ago. “The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.” This year the platform declares that President Obama and the Democratic Party “maintain an unshakable commitment to Israel's security.” It speaks of the president having boosted security assistance to Israel, but it doesn’t say anything about Jerusalem one way or another. The name of Jerusalem does not appear in the platform.

We first read about this in a brief bulletin of the Weekly Standard, and, while we haven’t done a double-blind study, our soundings suggest it has caught the national Jewish leadership flatfooted. It is going to be illuminating to see what explanation emerges. No less an authority than the Congress of the United States has established that, as a matter of law, the “Statement of the Policy of the United States” that “Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected” and that “Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of Israel.” It has also stated as a matter of law that the American embassy in Israel should be moved to Jerusalem.

The law was passed back in 1995. The State Department has fought tooth and nail to block not only the move of the Embassy to Jerusalem but any action that might signal recognition of Israel’s just claims. Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all invoked waivers to avoid implementing the law. All the more reason, though, to include Jerusalem language in the party platforms. The Republican Party did so, this year, saying: “We support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state with secure, defensible borders; and we envision two democratic states – Israel with Jerusalem as its capital and Palestine – living in peace and security.”

The GOP platform in 2008, incidentally, was even blunter than the platform this year. Said it: “We support Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel and moving the American embassy to that undivided capital of Israel.” So it is possible to say that both parties have softened their line a bit. But the Democratic platform this year is a complete abandonment of the Jerusalem question. It is a symptom of a party that wants to have it both ways — posturing as the stronger of the two parties in respect of the Jewish state even while retreating in its statement of the broad framework.

A spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee was quoted by the Wall Street Journal as trying to put the best face on the party’s abandonment of its Jerusalem plank, but Governor Romney was right as rain to issue a statement marking the retreat. “It is unfortunate that the entire Democratic Party has embraced President Obama’s shameful refusal to acknowledge that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital,” the Wall Street Journal quoted Mr. Romney as saying in a statement. Your editors have been covering what we call the “Battle of Jerusalem” for more than 20 years now, and if, in decades to come, Jerusalem is lost, this is going to be seen by historians as a significant moment. Let us hope it does not come to that.

Democrats Hate Israel

Why?  We do not understand. However, over the past three and a half years there has been the constant drum beat to "bring Israel into line."  The culmination is the Democratic Platform which were revealed yesterday. One notable missing plank in this year's edition is the endorsement of the capital of Israel being moved to Jerusalem.  You say what?    Yes, no longer does the Democratic Party believe that the holiest city in Judaism should be the capital of the reborn land of the Jews. 

This is not a mistake, it is deliberate. It is a slap into the face of one of the most dependable voting blocks the Democrats have.  Jews have voted for Democrats since Roosevelt (who was not really a great friend) and in recent contests the percentage has been around 70-80%. Obama's treatment of Netanyahu might have tempered those numbers this year, we doubt that it would have fallen much below 65%, if that far.

So why the rebuff?  Obama has not been a friend of Israel. He believes that this country is one of the reasons for the unsettled relations that the US has with the region and that things will not normalize until the Jews can be corralled into a space that they cannot cause problems (like defending their borders or retaliating to rockets fired from neighboring countries.) He feels that the ghettos were a good way to take care of the problem and wishes to create a similar situation on a tiny strip of land along the Mediterranean.  Thus when he says "return to pre-1967 borders" he is not kidding.

Additionally, even though he has surrounded himself with JINOS (Jews in name only), he has no love for them. He views the fight of the African American being held back by them.  History would refute that assumption, however, Obama is not into history unless it his own.

Lastly, he views Jews as part of the 1%. You do know that all Jews are wealthy, right? Well, somehow in his Prep School, college and law school education, that idea stuck. Hey, all the Jews he has surrounded himself with are rich, so by extension, they all must be! Obviously, not all Jews are well heeled, however, when it comes to scapegoats, Jews have always been a handy one.  This President is no different than other dictators, he needs a group to demonize and Israel and the children of Abraham are available!

On April 16, 2012, we wrote a post entitled "Democrats Join Obama Demanding Israel Concessions" in which we reported how 74 donkeys had lined up to insist that this tiny country essentially commit suicide by accepting untenable requirements  of the Palestinian Authority. Where is their support for the little guy?

All Jews should awaken to the risk they face should Obama get "the flexibility he will have after his last election."  What will he do? It is anyone's guess however, he has not shown himself not to be a friend of either Jews or Israel. No Jew should vote for him, he is not trustworthy. Your life or the life of Israel may be in your hands.

Conservative Tom

Government Benefits--THE Budget Problem

We have all heard the reasons government spending is out of control, that being, programs that are uncontrolled. When 47% of the people receive benefits from Uncle Sam, how long will it be before they demand even more? Who would vote against a President who increased the number on the dole by 15% in less than four years? Watch the video below and you come to understand the magnitude of the problems facing the US.

Some of the questions now facing us in the US are. Will we have the gumption to make the tough decisions to stop the runaway train before it is too late? Which government programs be terminated so as to get control of spending? What Congressman/woman or President will say, we need to stop spending? The answer is, none!  We will continue down this road until a crisis of capital causes us to look the financial balance sheet. By then it will be too late and the problems of Greece will look like a Sunday School picnic when compared to what will happen here when the US has its problems.

Conservative Tom

http://www.staged.com/video?v=Klmb

Valerie Jarrett--The Power Behind Obama

We do not know Valerie Jarrett and suspect that we will not be invited to the White House to meet her or the Obamas, however, it is important to understand who is running the country, we mean this President.  The view is not pretty and nor are the implications that she has lots of power and has done fairly poorly at this job and others in the past. 

This is a an interesting read.  What do you think?

Conservative Tom

Who is Valerie Jarrett with “unfettered influence” on Barack and Michelle Obama, according to the NY Times

Read More About: If Jarrett is wrong so frequently why does President Obama trust her above all others and continue to run every decision by her? Somehow throughout her career Jarrett has failed upward!

Share This Post

 0

Never mind the Democratic Party hack, rag, New York Times.
Here is a more reliable opinion
Who is Valerie Jarrett?
From the Daily Caller
Published: 05/22/2012
By Edward Klein
Author, The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House
Trying to figure out Valerie Jarrett’s mysterious hold on Barack and Michelle Obama is a favorite guessing game in the parlors and dining rooms of Washington. No other White House official in history has enjoyed such a unique relationship with both a president and a first lady, and yet the mainstream media have ignored Jarrett’s enormous influence over the shape and direction of the Obama administration.
Jarrett’s official title — senior adviser and assistant to the president for intergovernmental affairs and public engagement — doesn’t begin to do justice to her unrivaled status in the White House. She is Ground Zero in the Obama operation — the first couple’s first friend and consigliere, the last person to leave the Oval Office after meetings, and the only White House official who dines with the first family in their private quarters at night.
“Valerie is the quintessential insider,” one of her longtime friends told me during an interview for my book,
The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House. “She functions as the eyes, ears, and nose of the president and first lady. She tells them who’s saying what about who, who’s loyal and who’s not. She advises them about who they should see when they visit a city or a foreign country. She determines who gets invited to the White House and who is left out in the cold.”
In the White House pecking order, Jarrett has more clout than the president’s chief of staff. During the savage internecine warfare between Jarrett and Obama’s first two chiefs of staff — Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley — Obama sided most of the time with Jarrett, a classic limousine liberal who believes that Obama was elected president in order to engineer social change. Ultimately, Jarrett emasculated Emanuel and Daley and forced them from their jobs.
She has also been responsible for much of the incompetence and amateurism that have been the hallmarks of Obama’s time in office. Indeed, Jarrett has been on the wrong side of practically every consequential issue to come across the president’s desk. Some examples of her bonehead advice:
● Though both Emanuel and political strategist David Axelrod warned Obama time and again that he didn’t have the votes to ram a comprehensive healthcare bill through Congress, Jarrett was among those who persuaded the president to ignore their advice and go for broke. The result: the hugely expensive, unworkable, unpopular, and probably unconstitutional program known as Obamacare.
● Emanuel tangled with Jarrett over her effort to put the prestige of the presidency behind Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. Emanuel believed that Jarrett was working on behalf of her old boss, Mayor Daley, and his political cronies, who stood to benefit from the billions of dollars that would be spent on the Olympics. That idea seemed to be lost on the president, who went to Copenhagen to make an impassioned plea for the Olympics, and came back home with egg on his face.
● Jarrett gave her stamp of approval for the $535 million taxpayer-funded loan guarantee to Solyndra, the California solar company that went belly up. Jarrett had close ties to the George Kaiser Family Foundation, which controlled 35.7 percent of Solyndra. The foundation had made a sizable donation to the University of Chicago Medical Center, where Jarrett once served as chairwoman and where one of Obama’s best friends, Eric Whitaker, is currently executive vice president.
● When Jarrett pushed Obama’s proposal to require church-run hospitals and universities to give their employees free contraception, chief of staff Bill Daley secretly arranged an Oval Office meeting between the president and New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, the head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops, who argued that the policy violated the principle of religious freedom. When Jarrett learned about Daley’s end-run, she went to the president and vented her anger. After that, Daley realized his days were numbered and resigned.
● Like Obama, Jarrett has a fundamental lack of respect for businessmen. In a typical blunder that sent shudders through the business community, she dismissed Tom Donohue, the highly regarded CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as irrelevant, saying that she preferred to deal with “real” industry executives.
● Jarrett’s lack of judgment in domestic affairs has been matched by her inexperience in international and military affairs. She urged the president not to send in a Navy SEAL team to get Osama bin Laden — the one time that we know of when Obama failed to take Jarrett’s advice.
If Jarrett is wrong so often, why does President Obama trust her above all others and continue to run every decision by her?
In part, her influence stems from the fact that Jarrett is the president’s trusted watchdog. She protects the vainglorious and thin-skinned Obama from critics and complainers who might deflate his ego. No one gets past Jarrett and sees the president if they have a grievance, or a chip on their shoulder, or even an incompatible point of view. That goes for such high-profile supporters as Oprah Winfrey and Caroline Kennedy, who have been largely frozen out of the White House because Jarrett believes they would use the opportunity of a meeting with Obama to push their own competing agenda.
Despite her impeccable social credentials, Jarrett’s record before she went to Washington was spotty at best. After Mayor Daley made her commissioner of planning, she became embroiled in a massive screw-up in the city’s public housing revitalization plan, which cost Chicago millions of dollars in overruns. Daley fired her without explanation.
After she left city hall, Jarrett became CEO of Habitat Executive Services, where she earned $300,000 in salary and $550,000 in deferred compensation. She managed a federally subsidized housing complex that was seized by the government after inspectors found crime-infested slum conditions and widespread blight.
Throughout her career, Jarrett has failed upward. Today she is at the pinnacle of power as Michelle Obama’s closest confidant and Barack Obama’s political soul mate. Though she is the White House official responsible for “public engagement,” she has conspicuously failed to engage. I heard this complaint about Jarrett from practically everyone I interviewed — Republicans and Democrats, African Americans and Jews.
They all blamed Jarrett for keeping the president isolated even from those whose good opinion he needed the most.
Despite her lack of international experience and background in economics and fiscal policy, she is in many ways the de facto president. Against the advice of more seasoned advisers, Jarrett steers the president toward decisions that make our economy less robust and our nation less safe.
“I was at a dinner where Valerie sat at our table for ten minutes, and I wasn’t particularly impressed,” a major Obama donor told me. “She didn’t say anything interesting. I expected her to be smarter. She ain’t no Karl Rove. Karl Rove would eat her for breakfast.”
Edward Klein, author of The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House, is a New York Times bestselling author of numerous books including The Truth About Hillary. He is the former foreign editor of Newsweek, former editor in chief of The New York Times Magazine, and a contributing editor of Vanity Fair

Jason Biggs Still Has His Job Thanks To The Press

Had Jason Biggs made a comment about Michelle Obama as he did with Mrs. Romney and Mrs. Ryan, his job at Nickelodeon would have been gone before he finished his tweet. However, now that he has gone after them, we hear no comments, no condemnation, no acrimony. The silence is deafening!

This is the same one sided reporting that the press has been doing for years. And for one, it makes me ill and scares us to our bones.

The responsibility of the press is to report the news and only the news. The ethics of the news media is that they have to have more than one source to insure that they are accurate.  When was the last time we had that standard enforced?  We have "sources close to the Administration who wish to remain anonymous" quoted or "sources close to the campaign disagree with the assessment."  Ask the reporter who those sources are and they will tell you that they are being protected.  Heck, we could make up sources, claim they come from close to the story and no one would require us to prove who they are.

Another issue is that the reporting now is so slanted that anyone reading a political news story can tell where the reporter's stand might be. No more do they couch their views, they write them inside the story. There is no effort made to convey a balanced and even-handed story, it is all the reporters view.  We are used to get the views of the paper on the editorial page, now we get them on page 1.

A final issue that we find with the media is that a blindness to condemn negative items like the Romney-Ryan women story by Jason Biggs where Representative Aker's statement gets front page bold face type. Another example is Vice President Biden's comment to a black group that Romney would put them back in chains which was an obvious reference to slavery for which he received little condemnation. On the other hand, Romney makes an off-hand joke about his birth certificate and he is branded a "birther" and a racist by the very same press.

The freedom of press comes with a requisite responsibility. That being the responsibility to report the facts, and the facts alone, regardless of whose ox is being gored.  Tell  the truth, the whole truth and NOTHING but the truth. Today, most press organizations cannot not say they do that. It is opinion, slanting the truth or spinning the truth to fit the view of the reporter.

 The press should be aware, their right is not unlimited. Continue to abuse the right and they will lose it. Those of us who might be on their side when that time comes will not be there. The time is coming and we are closer than we think.

A couple weeks ago, it was announced by the White House that any reporter who is assigned to the President, must submit his/her copy to the White House prior to that report can be used.  If Obama and his henchmen can get the press to go along with this restriction, how far away are we from all press coming under the same restrictions.  What do we have then? Pravda?

The press must wake up quickly or their time as free men and women and their abilities to practice their careers will be ending very soon.  

This new awakening should start with Jason Biggs and Vice President Biden. Their comments are out of bounds and repugnant and should be condemned loudly as such. 

Unfortunately, we feel nothing will change and one day we will wake up to an America that has changed dramatically and all those who report and who vote for people like Obama will ask, "how did this happen?"   By then, it will be too late.

Conservative Tom