Tag Archives: words

Bozell Column: A Conservative Movie Initiative

The midterm elections this fall will feature young people born in 1992 – in other words, four years after Ronald Reagan left office. What do they know about this man? It’s quite likely that many of them have been told of Reagan’s firm resolve to win the Cold War. But it’s also likely they haven’t learned about the Reagan budget policies that led to a historic economic recovery. Instead, liberal revisionists are working overtime to assign to the Gipper’s tax cut policies the blame for deficits on his watch. Given the disastrous performance of Barack Obama, it’s time to give this man a serious look once again. Young Hollywood director and producer Ray Griggs has made a breezy and yet substantive documentary titled “I Want Your Money” that can educate young voters on the differences between Reaganomics and Obamanomics. Some might say that Griggs is trying to become the conservative Michael Moore, but that would be unfair, since Moore’s documentaries often depart from the classification of “nonfiction.” When Moore claims health care is better in Cuba than America, or that Iraq before the Iraq war was a placid kite-flying paradise under Saddam Hussein, serious filmmakers run from him. Griggs is talking about a real, gripping American disaster: our trillion-dollar deficits under Obama and the ever-increasing weight of the national debt. Conservatives in this film are appalled by the loose spending of George W. Bush and Congress over the last decade, and correctly so. But they know Obama is making those deficit years look like a nursery-school exercise in overspending. What’s emerging now is Tea Party anger, of conservatives who’ve been pushed too hard for too long. “I Want Your Money” is stuffed with weighty conservative experts – Steve Moore, Steve Forbes, Newt Gingrich, Ed Meese, Ken Blackwell, and more. But perhaps the most affecting visuals are the old clips of Ronald Reagan, speaking so clearly about the perils of liberal profligacy. There is Reagan at the convention in Dallas in 1984 joking “We could say they spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors…because the sailors are spending their own money.” It also has a “BS meter” which goes berserk when Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims that the Democrats will pass the Obama agenda, including ObamaCare, with “no new deficit spending.” The film not only discusses green-eyeshade budgeting, but the larger philosophical debate between capitalism and socialism. In an animated segment, the Reagan character lectures “Obama” about what kind of productivity you would get in a classroom if everyone was awarded the same grade, no matter how serious the effort: a dramatically reduced work effort from the productive people, while the lazy students would forever be lazy. It exposes a real contrast between presidents. As experts point out in the film, Ronald Reagan used clarity to teach you about the real world. Barack Obama uses eloquence to hide what he’s doing, because if his real agenda became clear, as it did with ObamaCare, it would be opposed by the majority. Griggs found a very nice film clip of the late Nobel Prize-winning capitalist economist Milton Friedman speaking to a dark-haired Phil Donahue in 1979. Donahue proclaimed that capitalism was all about greed. Why, Friedman wondered, was it that political self-interest was so much nobler than economic self-interest? A voter born in 1992 has probably never witnessed Milton Friedman’s television work, especially his “Free to Choose” documentary series (also in those paper-stuffed things called books). This kind of exposure could cause a rediscovery, just like this year’s new interest in Friedrich Hayek’s book “Road to Serfdom.” So how will this film get into theaters, since it’s not one of those left-wing documentaries? A national effort is being organized by Motive Entertainment, the company that promoted the grassroots campaigns for “The Passion of the Christ” and the first “Chronicles of Narnia” movie. In mid-September, they’ll begin organizing private screenings to celebrate Constitution Day on September 17. From there, organizers will prepare for an October 15 theatrical launch in more than 500 theaters from coast to coast. But this campaign to show box-office appeal won’t be successful without the same grass-roots energy that mobilized the Tea Party protests. The movie trailer on YouTube has more than two million page views. If everyone who watched the trailer would turn out for the whole movie, then theater owners would have no choice but to take notice. Perhaps, then, Americans will laugh when news anchors (like CNN’s Rick Sanchez) try to describe Obama’s campaign speeches as “Reaganesque.” We can’t even find a Republican who has fully earned that grand adjective, and it certainly doesn’t fit the socialist blather of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

See more here:
Bozell Column: A Conservative Movie Initiative

Why Scientist Don’t Fiery Hell After Death. (What Is Fire) ?

BREAKING NEWS: Hell is not real. You are not going to burn after you die. If we go anywhere after death, we go there without our atoms, and when the religious crooks and liars try hard to keep the fear in you, it's like a test. Is your mind strong enough to see through it ? If someone tells you that you are going to burn in hell, then you demonstrate that you understand exactly what fire is, I guarantee that they will then tell you that the fire in hell is not like real fire. The flames need no fuel or oxygen, electrons or protons, but it burns the same way. In other words they're telling you that the fire in hell is like….MAGIC FIRE ! Religion only exist because all children believe in magic and all adults were once children. Learn and be free. It's your mind. Fight for it. added by: keithponder

ABC Nightline Anchor Agrees With Newsweek Columnist: Sarah Palin Owes Her Career to Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Twitter can be a very revealing place to learn about “objective” journalists. ABC Nightline anchor Terry Moran tweeted on Tuesday there was a “Great piece” by Newsweek columnist Dahlia Lithwick on the liberal site Slate.com suggesting that Sarah Palin owed her every success to the real Mama Grizzly, leftist Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who never found an abortion she wouldn’t defend. Palin was a fraud next to the real feminist. But Moran (and Lithwick) blamed their fellow liberals for not supporting a left-wing Palin figure:  In a thoughtful piece in the New York Times , Anna Holmes and Rebecca Traister argued that Democrats have given up on full-throated feminism, and in doing so have ceded the field to Palin and her clan of Grizzlies. Holmes and Traister point out the irony that it was progressives who launched Palin’s meteoric rise: “As a teen, she played basketball thanks to Title IX; as an adult, she enjoyed a professional life made possible by the involvement of her load-bearing husband Todd, entering Alaska’s governor’s mansion at 42 with four children in tow and giving birth to a fifth while there.” Democrats gave on on “full-throated feminism” as Obama plopped two hard-core female abortion advocates to the Supreme Court? That’s just odd. Lithwick didn’t include this paragraph in her article, which was the central thought of the Holmes/Traister piece:  Since the 2008 election, progressive leaders have done little to address the obvious national appetite for female leadership. And despite (or because of) their continuing obsession with Ms. Palin, they have done nothing to stop an anti-choice, pro-abstinence, socialist-bashing Tea Party enthusiast from becoming the 21st century symbol of American women in politics. ABC’s Terry Moran no doubt agrees with that sentiment, too. But Lithwick only built on the notion that Palin owes Justice Ginsburg in a major way:  To which I would just add that Palin and the Mama Grizzlies also owe a debt of thanks directly to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who almost single-handedly convinced the courts and legislatures to do away with gender classifications in matters ranging from a woman’s right to be executor of her son’s estate ( Reed v. Reed , 1970), to a female Air Force lieutenant’s right to secure housing allowances and medical benefits for her husband ( Frontiero v. Richardson , 1973), and the right of Oklahoma’s “thirsty boys” (her words) to buy beer at the Honk n’ Holler at the same age as young women ( Craig v. Boren , 1976). It was in Craig v. Boren that Ginsburg secured the court’s agreement that—in her words—the “familiar stereotype: the active boy, aggressive and assertive; the passive girl, docile and submissive” was “not fit to be written into law.” The seed for Sarah Palin was sown. And whether Palin wants women to be allowed to buy beer at 18, or 21, or not at all, the fact that the legal system doesn’t care whether you’re a woman or a man anymore changed her life. You can draw a straight line between Ginsburg’s fight against these seemingly harmless gender classifications that were rooted in seemingly harmless gender stereotypes and the Mama Grizzlies who roam our political landscape today. Those who like to believe they have picked themselves up by the bootstraps sometimes forget that they wouldn’t even have boots were it not for the women who came before. Listening to Palin, it’s almost impossible to believe that, as recently as 50 years ago, a woman at Harvard Law School could be asked by Dean Erwin Griswold to justify taking a spot that belonged to a man. In Ginsburg’s lifetime, a woman could be denied a clerkship with Felix Frankfurter just because she was a woman. Only a few decades ago, Ginsburg had to hide her second pregnancy for fear of losing tenure. I don’t have an easy answer to the question of whether real feminists are about prominent lipsticky displays of ” girl-power ,” but I do know that Ginsburg’s lifetime dedication to achieving quiet, dignified equality made such displays possible…. This is what Terry Moran calls the “hard work of real feminism,” but ignored the fringier parts of Ginsburg’s resume , like her advocacy in the 1970s for the sex-integration of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, and of prisons, and of Mother’s Day and Father’s Day. Or her belief in a constitutional right to prostitution. Or her recent declaration to The New York Times that Medicaid should have paid for abortions since “there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Lithwick concluded her ABC-endorsed “great piece” with a love pat:  Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn’t growl and doesn’t issue threats, and she rarely eats small forest dwellers. But she is still the mother of all grizzlies to me. [Ginsburg caricature by Kerry Waghorn]

Follow this link:
ABC Nightline Anchor Agrees With Newsweek Columnist: Sarah Palin Owes Her Career to Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Glenn Beck Condemns Obama’s Christianity, Calls for "Religious Revival"

Standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday, conservative talk show host Glenn Beck led what turned out to be a largely religious rally, calling on the assembled crowds to bring America back to God. The event took place on the forty-seventh anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s legendary “I Have A Dream” speech, leading to sharp criticisms of Beck for dishonoring Dr. King's memory, and the memory of that day. And indeed, as many have already pointed out, the racial dynamics of Beck's mostly-white rally and the much smaller but heavily African-American protest rally, led by Al Sharpton, seemed to provide a potent illustration of how far the country has yet to come. Religion has slipped its way into recent media discourses, mostly because of the Park51 Center controversy and the revelation that disturbing number of Americans believe Barack Obama to be a Muslim. But many of these discourses have centered on the othering of American Muslims, which is why I was surprised to see a new twist in Beck's discussion of Obama's religion. Beck's new line is that while Obama may not be a Muslim, he is certainly a bad Christian. Specifically, Beck charged that Obama adhered to “liberation theology,” a Catholic movement aligned with Marxism that originated in Latin America in the 1950's and '60s. This morning, debriefing the rally on Fox News, Beck half-heartedly retracted an accusation of racism hurled at Obama last summer, saying that he had a “big fat mouth sometimes” (he may tie Dr. Laura for best non-apology of the year), but added that he made the comment because he “didn't understand Obama's theology.” Obama, Beck said, subscribed to liberation theology, which he described as centered on “oppressor and victim.” This is not, Beck claimed, a theology which many Christians follow, because it is, in his words, the “direct opposite of what the gospel is talking about. It's Marxism disguised as religion.” Beck took this complex theological discussion a little further, saying that while Obama believed that “your salvation is directly tied to collective salvation,” while Beck (and all good Christians) believed that “Jesus came for personal salvation.” Beck said “people aren't recognizing [Obama's] version of Christianity.” Liberation theology is not a new subject for Beck, who devoted an entire episode last July to attacking the idea that Jesus was a victim. “Social justice,” Beck said, “isn't in the Bible…Jesus was a conqueror. Jesus conquered death.” Beck's deep misunderstanding of both liberation theology and much of Christianity itself are obvious in these remarks, and illustrate the extent to which Beck is willing to harness religious rhetoric for political aims. I don't know whether Obama subscribes to liberation theology, but if he does, it's in theory rather than in practice, because the movement itself has very little political influence today. His beliefs correspond to a basic tenet of Christianity: the obligation of the Christian to care for others. This is repeated throughout the New Testament, from Matthew 25:40 (“Just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me [Christ]”) to Paul's epistle to the Romans, where he writes, “We, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members one of another.” This doesn't seem to jive with Beck's assertion that because Christians believe that they are saved through God's grace, this translates into an exclusively personal vision of salvation. In an interview on Religious Dispatches, Union Theological Seminary president Serene Jones addressed Glenn Beck's bizarre formation of grace, saying, “Just as grace reminds us as individuals that there is nothing we can do to earn the love of God—that it is simply poured out upon us—so too it reminds us that at a political level, the minute we start constructing political structures that we think are unambiguously right, we are making our own politics into God. Nobody does that more than Glenn Beck.” Obama's interpretation of Christianity is not radical – and it is in fact Glenn Beck who is deeply out of sync with fundamental Christian ideals. When asked, on Fox News, how he would respond to critics of his wealth, Beck responded “the money doesn't matter.” It's hard to believe that Beck hasn't read the gospel of Matthew, where Christ says to a young man, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give the money to the poor” (Matt. 19:21), but from his comments, it seems that he's never bothered to read or wrestle with the scriptures that he seems so eager for Americans to embrace. Perhaps it would be best for Beck simply to listen to Martin Luther King, Jr., who wrote, “Any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them and the social conditions that cripple them is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial.” Is Beck's God the one that we want America to turn toward? And is Beck's Christianity one that Christ would recognize? added by: pinkpanther

Kate Gosselin Dances in 2010 Emmys Opening Skit (PHOTOS, VIDEO)

OMG! Jimmy Fallon has unleashed the acting bug in non-dancer Kate Gosselin. added by: gmc1

A Civics Lesson for America the Ignorant

3 Terms that people throw around and don't know the meaning of: 1) Constitution – A very simple document that outlines the fundamentals of United States Doctrine. The Constitution’s main purpose is to protect the people from unlawful treatment by the Government. Simply stating that something is Unconstitutional is an easy accusation to make. To prove it usually leads to troubles with the user of the statement. There are only 26 Amendments to the original constitution so labeling so many things as Unconstitutional pretty much statistically makes most of the accusations false. For instance the freedom of speech only guarantees you freedom of persecution by the Government, and only the government. You can't say whatever you want to a private individual and not expect a backlash. You also can't make threats and false accusation. Those are superseded by the Justice System. 2) Socialism – Is a governmental system. Not economic. It has nothing to do with Free Trade or how a person can make money within their own country. Close to every modem nation in the world operates in a Socialist way today. Many people accuse the United States of becoming Socialist but they are either ignorant of the meaning or denying the last century. The United States is a Socialist country already. In fact the Public Education system is one of the largest and most successful Socialist programs in the history of civilization. Medicare is another example. Social Security is another one. Municipal road work. The Interstate System. The list goes on and on. Pretty much anything that the Government does for you with your tax dollars is Socialism. If you want to protest this stop drinking your town water. Stop driving on paved roads. Plow your own Interstate. Teach your own kids K-12. Socialism is meant so that you pay your Government in Taxes and they give you services in return. Nazis and Soviets weren't Socialist. They called themselves this for Propaganda because it's a “caring system”. They were in fact Totalitarian Fascist and Dictators. I'm not going to explain the meaning of the last two because if you can't understand that the US doesn't operate like that you can't understand the meaning's of these words. 3) Communism – This is purely an economic system. It has nothing to with the way the government governs the people. Communism is a flawed system in that it relies all on trust of the Government. In Communism the totaled income of the country is divided evenly amount the Citizens. There are no social classes, no tax brackets, and property is distributed among the people not bought and sold by individuals. It's great in theory but no Government seems to be able to handle the burden and trust needed to implement it. The Soviets butchered the system into punishing the people and reaping the benefits of the private sector's loss income. The United States will never be a Communist society. Financial regulations do not constitute communism. If pick pocketing wasn't a crime and the government suddenly enacted laws banning it would you cry Communism? No, the free trade system still exists you just have to change the way you make money. You can't steal it anymore. There are a plethora of other issues sparking across the nation today. But most are too stupid to even address. Hatred is strong in the nation today and it's disgusting. If we did have a Black Muslim Socialist President what exactly is wrong with that? Ask yourself that. Pull the words apart. Black = Skin Color Muslim = Branch of Judaism just like Christianity Socialist = Last 10 President fit in that realm President = Elected by the people. added by: PrivateBurke

ABC’s Claiborne Presses MLK Niece to ‘Understand, At Least, How Some’ See Beck Rally as ‘Affront’ to Civil Rights Movement

On Saturday’s Good Morning America on ABC, during an interview with Dr. Alveda King – a niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. known for her pro-life activism – substitute host Ron Claiborne challenged her to defend her participation in conservative talker Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally in two out of the three questions he posed to her. The ABC host asked if she was “comfortable aligning yourself” with Beck – considered “inflammatory and divisive” by “many people.” After failing to get Dr. King to criticize the conservative talker, Claiborne seemed to appeal to her to “understand at least” why some agree with Democratic Congressman John Lewis’s assessment of the Beck rally as an “affront” to the Civil Rights Movement. Claiborne’s second and third questions: Many people call Glenn Beck’s political views and style inflammatory and divisive. Are you comfortable, are you comfortable aligning yourself with someone who once called President Obama a racist? Well, Congressman John Lewis, who, of course, stood beside your uncle 47 years ago and marched many times for civil rights, has said that Beck’s rally is an affront to what the Civil Rights Movement stood for. When you hear that kind of talk, can you understand, at least, how some people could interpret it that way? The interview with Dr. King came right after a report filed by correspondent Claire Shipman which, similarly to her report from Friday’s GMA , assigned such labels at “right-wing” and “controversial” to Beck, while the Reverend Al Sharpton’s own controversial history was not mentioned, nor was his liberal ideology. Below are complete transcripts of Shipman’s report and Claiborne’s interview with Dr. King from the Saturday, August 28, Good Morning America on ABC, with critical portions in bold : RON CLAIBORNE, IN OPENING TEASER : And rally uproar: Glenn Beck holds his controversial rally on the Washington Mall this morning. And there will be counterprotests by those who say he’s trying to hijack the legacy of Martin Luther King. … BIANNA GOLODRYGA: Turning to Washington, D.C., now, Glenn Beck says tens of thousands of people are going to join him at the Lincoln Memorial in just a few hours for his “Restoring Honor” rally. It’s already stirring up emotion and controversy on this anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Claire Shipman is in Washington, D.C., with more. Good morning, Claire. CLAIRE SHIPMAN: Good morning, Bianna. You know, the crowd here is already enormous, and a lot of the people have been here for hours. Some of them camped out overnight so they could get closer to the heart of Glenn Beck’s message today. But, as you mentioned, the debate over who should control, honor, mark this anniversary has been intense. The buses have been pulling out for days, from all over the country. Tea Party activists and Glenn Beck supporters are on their way to Washington, well aware that the day has multiple meanings. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: There’s a lot of us that have a dream now. And the dream is that government gets off our backs. SHIPMAN: Forty-seven years ago today, same place, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Martin Luther King delivered the words still buried in our psyche. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST: I have a dream. SHIPMAN: But this year is Glenn Beck’s rally for America’s honor, and it will feature Sarah Palin. And it’s meant to support American troops. CLIP OF AD: It’s time to restore America. GLENN BECK, FNC HOST: I believe in divine providence. SHIPMAN: The right-wing radio show host insists the timing was an oversight, but he seized on the King legacy as compatible with his message. BECK: We reclaim the Civil Rights Movement. REVEREND AL SHARPTON, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST: Sharpton, keeping it real. SHIPMAN: The Reverend Al Sharpton, among others, worries that their day and King’s legacy has been hijacked. SHARPTON, TO PODIUM: They’re having an anti-government march on a day that King came to appeal to government. You can’t have it both ways. SHIPMAN: He is planning a countermarch today. Beck himself seems intent on making it a day of toned-down rhetoric, suggesting to one reporter that he made a mistake when he made this controversial statement last year: BECK: This President has a deep-seeded hatred for white people or the white culture. SHIPMAN: He insists he intends to honor the memory of Dr. King. As one King follower put it, if all sides can channel Dr. King today, it will keep this commemoration at least in the spirit of the original. And so far, it does seem that everybody here this morning wants to honor that legacy, Ron. RON CLAIBORNE: All right. Thank you very much, Claire Shipman reporting from Washington. And joining me now, from just outside the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., is Dr. Alveda King. She is the, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,’s niece. She’ll be speaking at the Glenn Beck rally that is starting later today. Welcome to the show. DR. ALVEDA KING, NIECE OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.: Well, thank you. Good morning. CLAIBORNE: Okay, good morning to you. Dr. King, why are you attending this rally, the Glenn Beck rally there in D.C. today? KING: I am attending this rally to help reclaim America. You know, when Glenn said he’s reclaiming the civil rights movement, I don’t need to be reclaimed. I am the civil rights movement. And so I’m joining Glenn to talk about faith, hope, charity, honor. Those are things that America needs to reclaim. Our children need to remember how to love each other, how to honor each other, their parents, God and their neighbors. So I agree with Glenn on all those principles. And for me, it’s principle over politics. And that’s why I’m here. My uncle talked about love. My uncle talked about faith, hope and charity. My uncle talked about honor. And I’m expecting to honor my uncle today. My daddy, Reverend A.D. King, my grandaddy, Martin Luther King, Sr., we’re a family of faith, hope and love. And that’s why I’m here today. CLAIBORNE: And Dr. Martin Luther King, as you said, also talked about bringing people together, healing racial divisions. Many people call Glenn Beck’s political views and style inflammatory and divisive. Are you comfortable, are you comfortable aligning yourself with someone who once called President Obama a racist? KING: Well, I’ve never called President Obama a racist. I love President Obama. I pray for him all the time. God loves President Obama. God loves Glenn. God loves you. And God loves me. And that’s the message I’m here for. And for me, it’s principle over politics. I talk to Glenn about that all the time. When Glenn says that there’s one human race, I agree with him. So we’re not here to divide. I’m about unity. And really, that’s why I’m here. And I want to honor my uncle today. CLAIBORNE: Well, Congressman John Lewis, who, of course, stood beside your uncle 47 years ago and marched many times for civil rights, has said that Beck’s rally is an affront to what the Civil Rights Movement stood for. When you hear that kind of talk, can you understand, at least, how some people could interpret it that way? KING: You know, my daddy, A. D. King, was on the Edmund Pettus Bridge with John Lewis. I marched and went to jail. I believe Congressman Lewis remembers that. My home in Birmingham, Alabama, was bombed. And so, I really remember that history. But right in the middle of that history, I remember my family talking about faith, hope, love. And we’ve got to honor each other. So I’m calling on the Congressman, Reverend Sharpton, I talked to him about that last night. I’m calling for everybody to remember that my uncle talked about bringing everybody together, not dividing. I tell Glenn that all the time. And we’re talking about the one human race that needs to be loved and honored. And we’re loving our neighbors as we love ourselves. CLAIBORNE: Okay. KING: That’s really what Glenn and I talk about. CLAIBORNE: Thank you very much, Alveda King, for joining us this morning. You’ll be at that rally, the Glenn Beck rally, later today. Bianna? GOLODRYDA: A lot of different voices there. CLAIBORNE: A lot of controversy. GOLODRYGA: Controversy. CLAIBORNE: Dueling rallies taking place there. GOLODRYGA: In the nation’s capital.

Continue reading here:
ABC’s Claiborne Presses MLK Niece to ‘Understand, At Least, How Some’ See Beck Rally as ‘Affront’ to Civil Rights Movement

CertainTeed introduces Sustainable Insulation TM NOT

I was surprised to see a full page ad on the back of Wood Design and Building for Sustainable Insulation TM that looked suspiciously like fibre glass batts. I wondered, a) how do you trademark the words “sustainable insulation” and b) under any definition, how do you call glass fibre insulation sustainable?… Read the full story on TreeHugger

More:
CertainTeed introduces Sustainable Insulation TM NOT

To Al Gore: I’m planning a march in DC

Today marks the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr's, “I Have A Dream Speech.” But that isn't really what concerns those gathering in Washington Dc today. What concerns them is that they are for the most part angry white people looking to even the score for what they see as being stuck with a black president. That is my view based on my observations and their own words as the crux of this so called rally put together by Fox and their poster child for dramatics, Glenn Beck. If you have any sort of knowledge of him, you will know that he is clearly an entertainer out to make money from his antics. And yet, Conservatives (and I use that word loosely because today's Conservatives are nothing like the real Conservatives of old) in droves flock to hear him toting their rifles and tea bag laden straw hats in an attempt to regain something they never had in the first place: honor. A group of people who supported stolen elections, illegal wars, wiretapping, torture, and the slow and steady degradation of the very constitution they claim to hold so very dear to their hearts… all while secretly fuming at those who they think have gotten all the breaks over them since the Civil Rights Act was passed. So they will show up in DC today to use our military (you know, the military they support so much as they watch them being sent to a war for oil while yelling Drill Baby Drill) with the secret corporate backing they got to spread their subtle message at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial where MLK jr. stood all those years ago to truly speak of justice, peace, and equality. Imagine that then we got him, now we get Sarah Palin daring to stand on those steps after just supporting the N word being shouted on Dr. Laura's radio rant trying to make us believe she has a connection at all to the Civil Rights Movement. We truly have gone through the looking glass. Now, I find their rally to be stomach turning and a clear slap in the face to the many Americans who suffered the inhumanities that come with standing up for what you believe in. And yet, this is America, a country where even one who makes your blood boil and your stomach turn has the right to spout their hatred and false concern, which is what makes it such a great country. So I got to thinking; if Glenn Beck and his brigade of Grisly Mamas with a Grudge can invade Washington DC with their foolery, why can't I as a citizen get a permit and march up the stairs of the Lincoln Memorial to talk about something that truly is urgent: the continued sustainability of our planet and our species. That is truly the stuff of what a moral movement is about. And actually, he is no more important than I or any other citizen. This is America, right? So it's all settled. I am going to apply for a permit for a climate march up Pennsylvania Avenue to the stairs of the Lincoln Memorial to announce the start of the Climate Changers Movement. And the time will be spent actually disseminating information to inform and educate people about the dangers of climate change noting the real science that backs it up and not what you hear from weathermen on Sean Hannity's decrepid TV show, and what we and our Congress must do to provide a future for our children and ourselves. And I'm sure these same Conservatives would show up to that one, right? I mean after all, it is about social equality, peace, and supporting our military, because clean energy gets us off the oil that kills them in the Middle Eastern sands. Right?… uh huh. Al Gore mentioned just a couple of weeks ago that this is the movement we need, and I agree wholeheartedly. However, it seems that people are either afraid to really move on this or aren't being heard, and we don't have time to lose. So then we will have to fight fire with fire. We then need to get permit after permit after permit and continue to march, and speak, and show, and warn, and repeat, repeat, repeat the message just like they do. And I”m serious about this and am ready to take it on. So Mr. Gore if you read this, I'm here! I will write more after I know more about the planning for this, because as a citizen of this country and of the world and seeing where it is heading I can no longer abide the airwaves being taken over by inconsiderate, hypocritical, apathetic, selfish people whose only concern is their own lives over the whole. And that is all we have been getting 24/7 on our airwaves and on the Internet. It is time to change the station and for the serious people to be heard. We must move this country forward to seeing what every other country sees: that the climate crisis is a clear and present danger and threat to our health, our safety, our democracy, and our very lives and has no political, social, economic, or sexual preference. The environment is what makes our lives liveable and without it, those who stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial today who have also trashed the fact that humans actually have an impact on their planet will see their words come back to them in ways they couldn't have imagined. So they need to be educated and what better way to do so than by exercising my right as well to freedom of speech, assembly, and expression, and for a cause that I would be willing to sacrifice for. It sure will beat the caricature dramatics we have seen of late that have distracted from these very important issues we must discuss to secure a clean safe future for our children. added by: JanforGore

Gates Foundation invests in Monsanto/ Both will profit at expense of small-scale African farmers

Farmers and civil society organizations around the world are outraged by the recent discovery of further connections between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and agribusiness titan Monsanto. Last week, a financial website published the Gates Foundation’s investment portfolio, including 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated worth of $23.1 million purchased in the second quarter of 2010 (see the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission). This marks a substantial increase from its previous holdings, valued at just over $360,000 (see the Foundation’s 2008 990 Form). “The Foundation’s direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels,” said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering. “First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation’s heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests.” Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto’s genetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free sachets of seeds. “When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is not very promising,” said Mayet. Monsanto’s aggressive patenting practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue—and bankrupt—farmers for “patent infringement.” News of the Foundation’s recent Monsanto investment has confirmed the misgivings of many farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates in Africa, among them the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, who commented, “We have long suspected that the founders of AGRA—the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—had a long and more intimate affair with Monsanto.” Indeed, according to Travis English, researcher with AGRA Watch, “The Foundation’s ownership of Monsanto stock is emblematic of a deeper, more long-standing involvement with the corporation, particularly in Africa.” In 2008, AGRA Watch, a project of the Seattle-based organization Community Alliance for Global Justice, uncovered many linkages between the Foundation’s grantees and Monsanto. For example, some grantees (in particular about 70% of grantees in Kenya) of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)—considered by the Foundation to be its “African face”—work directly with Monsanto on agricultural development projects. Other prominent links include high-level Foundation staff members who were once senior officials for Monsanto, such as Rob Horsch, formerly Monsanto Vice President of International Development Partnerships and current Senior Program Officer of the Gates Agricultural Development Program. Transnational corporations like Monsanto have been key collaborators with the Foundation and AGRA’s grantees in promoting the spread of industrial agriculture on the continent. This model of production relies on expensive inputs such as chemical fertilizers, genetically modified seeds, and herbicides. Though this package represents enticing market development opportunities for the private sector, many civil society organizations contend it will lead to further displacement of farmers from the land, an actual increase in hunger, and migration to already swollen cities unable to provide employment opportunities. In the words of a representative from the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, “AGRA is poison for our farming systems and livelihoods. Under the philanthropic banner of greening agriculture, AGRA will eventually eat away what little is left of sustainable small-scale farming in Africa.” A 2008 report initiated by the World Bank and the UN, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), promotes alternative solutions to the problems of hunger and poverty that emphasize their social and economic roots. The IAASTD concluded that small-scale agroecological farming is more suitable for the third world than the industrial agricultural model favored by Gates and Monsanto. In a summary of the key findings of IAASTD, the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) emphasizes the report’s warning that “continued reliance on simplistic technological fixes—including transgenic crops—will not reduce persistent hunger and poverty and could exacerbate environmental problems and worsen social inequity.” Furthermore, PANNA explains, “The Assessment’s 21 key findings suggest that small-scale agroecological farming may offer one of the best means to feed the hungry while protecting the planet.” The Gates Foundation has been challenged in the past for its questionable investments; in 2007, the L.A. Times exposed the Foundation for investing in its own grantees and for its “holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices.” The Times chastised the Foundation for what it called “blind-eye investing,” with at least 41% of its assets invested in “companies that countered the foundation’s charitable goals or socially-concerned philosophy.” cont. added by: JanforGore