SACRAMENTO, CA – (June 28, 2009) – A Tuesday hearing has been scheduled before the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions on Senate Bill 250, which would result in the forced sterilization of millions of dogs and cats in California, and lead to the abandonment and euthanasia of possibly hundreds of thousands of family pets that now have good homes.
SB 250, which shocked dog owners by passing the Senate by a 21-16 margin on June 2, comes at a time when California’s economy has been described as “economic Armageddon.” Immediate action by dog owners is required to stop this economic disaster zone from causing the death of many beloved companion animals.
There is a strong message in the California situation for residents of every other state that is considering animal rights legislation that would place further burdens on already beleaguered pet owners. What’s happening in California mirrors what is happening all across the country to a somewhat lesser degree.
In California, the official unemployment rate has soared to 11.5-percent, real unemployment is estimated at 20-percent, home foreclosures and business failures are the highest in the nation and approach Great Depression levels, state government is facing an immediate $24.3 billion budget deficit and is planning to pay its bills with IOU’s, and essential services are being decimated. Some communities already have been forced to eliminate fire protection, cut their police forces, shutter services and close schools. In addition, more than $15 billion in tax increases are being proposed, massive layoffs of state and municipal employees are planned, an energy tax alone would result in the loss of an estimated 10,000 jobs, prisoners would be dumped in the streets and most would no longer have probationary supervision, and elderly, disabled and blind people would lose $1.4 billion is state benefits, programs to help them remain in their homes, and protections that now allow them to save their homes from tax sales. The state’s future will be mortgaged by $10.3 billion in loans to keep government afloat and by the deterioration of infrastructure such as roads and bridges.
"Our wallet is empty, our bank is closed, and our credit is dried up," California Governor Arnold Schwarznegger said last week.
Yet the California Legislature is recklessly speeding toward passing SB 250, which will add immeasureably to those economic problems and create disaster for people and animals on many levels, in spite of a clear warning by the state Department of Finance.
Here is the conclusion of the Department of Finance: “This bill would result in a substantial increase to the General Fund…to reimburse local government shelters’ cost to care for impounded animals. Given the current economic climate, requiring the owners of dogs and cats to pay for sterilization procedures would result in more animals being abandoned or surrendered because of the owners' inability to finance the sterilization procedure and pay additional fines.”
That means millions more healthy and adoptable animals will be euthanized at animal shelters that are already swamped by dogs and cats that had to be abandoned by their owners due to home foreclosures and job losses. When people lose their homes, pets become homeless, too. When people lose their jobs, they cannot afford to sterilize animals or even take care of them in many cases. The inevitable result is a rapid increase in abandonment and euthanasia at animal shelters.
Such is the murderous intent of the animal rights movement, which seeks to gradually eliminate animals from American life. Its immediate goal is to force people to sterilize or euthanize as many dogs and cats as possible, and SB 250 was written for this reason. Our research has clearly documented that spay/neuter mandates in Los Angeles, other California communities and elsewhere have bankrupted animal control programs and led to large-scale pet abandonment and rapid rises in shelter euthanasia rates. Our research shows a 30-percent increase in shelter euthanasia and a 20-percent increase in admission rates since the Los Angeles ordinance was passed a year ago.
The statewide consequences are inevitable if SB 250 becomes law.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all California dog owners to take immediate action to stop SB 250, which will have tragic results for people and animals, and represents fiscal insanity by the Legislature in the current failing economy. Suggestions on how to take action will follow later in this report.
We understand that California dog owners are facing exhaustion after spending two years in a grueling fight to defeat AB 1634 last year. Because of this exhaustion and frustration, participation by dog owners in the fight against the current 2009 legislation has fallen off sharply. People are growing tired of constantly having to fight to save their animals and preserve their rights.
However, we must emphasize that withdrawing from this fight is not an option if we want to save the animals that we love. If we stop fighting, many of our dogs and can’s will pay the price with their lives. We cannot allow that to happen.
The Consequences Of SB 250
The Department of Finance report to the Legislature concluded that “the Department of Finance is opposed to this measure because it would increase costs for an existing state-mandated local program, potentially create a new state mandated local program, and result in General Fund costs that are not included in the 2009-10 Budget Act. Mandatory spay and neuter provisions have failed throughout California at the local government level.”
Here our some of the consequences that would follow passage of SB 250, and our analysis of their impacts on people and dogs because of issues that are listed in the Finance Department report and the legislation itself (Some amendments have been promised, but they fall far short of meeting the concerns of both dog owners and taxpayers. We will note the amendments that have been promised.):
- In almost all cases, it will be illegal to own a dog or cat in California that is not spayed or neutered. In this economy, even many people who want to comply with this law could not afford to do so. In many places, sterilization can cost hundreds of dollars, and low-cost programs are not accessible to most low-income Californians. If people try to hide their pets from the law, they face the eventual probability of high fines and the possibility that their pets will be confiscated (they cannot be retrieved from an animal shelter without being in compliance, which is de facto confiscation). Many pets will be abandoned or taken to shelters, where they will die.
- Only dogs that have an “intact permit” would be exempted from sterilization, and counties would not be required to provide these permits. Thus, in some counties, all dogs and cats would have to be sterilized at the medically unsafe age of six months. Since communities that now require intact permits often charge more than $100 per dog, most poor and low-income people could not afford them, as well as many economically stressed people in higher income brackets who are suffering from the severe recession. In addition, the per-dog permit costs would add up to an insurmountable burden for anyone who raises dogs.
- Current law imposes fines for people whose intact animals are reclaimed from animal shelters. This fine revenue is used to pay for essential shelter expenses. SB 250 would take away much of this revenue from animal shelters, thus reducing needed services while increasing expenses, according to the Finance Department report.
- If you or your intact dog are in violation of any state or local animal law or ordinance, including sales tax laws, you will be forced to sterilize your pets or allow the shelter to confiscate them. In addition, it will be illegal to sell or even give away an intact dog without an intact permit and other documentation (including microchipping), and people who can’t pay the costs of sterilization, fines or other costs will be forced to either abandon their pets or take them to shelters.
- Mandating a medical procedure like sterilization as a punishment for breaking a law violates the professional integrity and Code of Ethics of veterinarians. Medical decisions should be a joint decision between veterinarians and pet owners. SB 250 also would make many people afraid to take their dog to a veterinarian for treatment of illnesses, injuries and parasites, or to get needed rabies and other vaccinations, because they fear being discovered by animal control authorities for owning an intact dog without a permit.
- Establishes the legally dangerous definition of a “custodian” of a dog, instead of the status of “owner.” Here is the definition: “ ‘Custodian’ means any person who undertakes the personal care and control of a dog, or any person who intentionally provides care, security, or sustenance for a dog on the person's property for any period exceeding 30 days.” This definition would entrap professional trainers, handlers and board kennel operators, people who help lost or abandoned dogs, and people who help feral cats. Good Samaritans who help abandoned or lost dogs, or who help feral cats, would become legally liable for them after 30 days, and thus forced to sterilize or abandon them. This would cause many people to be afraid to help these animals, further increase shelter admissions and euthanasia rates, and cause many lost animals to die from starvation or exposure to the elements.
- Nothing in the legislation would exclude or protect out-of-state residents who are visiting California for shows, field trials, hunting, events, vacations or business. Thus, it would be dangerous for a nonresident to bring an intact dog into California for any reason. This would destroy an important part of California’s economy, as nonresidents with dogs spend billions of dollars a year in the state.
- A reduction in the number of privately owned pets will do further harm the economy, as billions of dollars are spent every year on pet food, supplies, medicines, veterinary care, pet care services, building materials, printing and advertising, and pet-related travel. The California economy cannot afford to lose this business and the jobs that depend on them, and government revenues will decline from the loss of taxes on these products and services.
- The current bill requires sterilization for any dog that is found to be “roaming at large,” which is not defined, or if the dog or its owner has violated any state law, municipal ordinance, or “other local government provision” regarding animal control or care. It excludes dogs while actually hunting, but does not exclude dogs that are being used for herding or performance or working events, dogs that are participating in field trials, farm and ranch dogs, dogs that get lost while hunting or at a field trial, or dogs that are being trained for hunting. There are promises of an amendment to require sterilization after the second offense for roaming at large, and also an exclusion for herding and working dogs, but sterilization still would be required after the first offense for all dogs for any other animal-related law or ordinance. This is far short of adequate protection for dogs or their owners.
- And dog owners will be denied basic state and California constitutional rights about fair and equal treatment under the law. Orders and hearings would be handled administratively, and not through the court. There would be no appeal. This violates constitutional protections of due process under the law, and severely impacts the legal concept of private property.
Please read this legislation at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/p....
I was listening to the 911 call that came from Micheals home at the time of his demise..he was on his bed and "his dr" was there with him..the caller goes on to state when asked if he saw what happened?? His response was the dr was the only one there when it happened and asked him what he saw..it was mumbled so it was inaudible..
My point is why was the dr there right when Micheal hit the floor? Was he giving him some medication that backfired?? they are waiting for a toxi report before they will confirm cause of death..
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.co...
Even the rich and famous can't seem to escape the recession, especially when their fame and fortune peaked long ago.
Michael Jackson, Ed McMahon, Victoria Gotti and Willie Aames are some of the stars reportedly struggling with financial problems.
Hit by tough times and lack of opportunities, stars including Stephen Baldwin, Michael Jackson, Ed McMahon and Annie Leibovitz have been hit by tough times. Some have had to put their multimillion dollar homes on the market, declare bankruptcy or seek foreclosure. Below, ABCNews.com takes a look at nine stars that have found themselves strapped for cash.
Stephen Baldwin
Stephen Baldwin, the star of films like "Bio-Dome" and "The Usual Suspects," may watch his Rockland County, N.Y., home go up for auction on June 24. The born-again Christian and brother of Alec Baldwin paid $515,000 for the home and 1.4-acre lot in 1997, according to the AP. The star has recently been appearing on reality shows such as "The Celebrity Apprentice," and "I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here!" where he baptized Spencer Pratt.
After unsuccessfully trying to sell the house in 2006, Baldwin and his wife Kennya have defaulted on over $824,000 in payments to their mortgage, according to the AP. But a representive for Baldwin tells People Magazine that "Stephen is presently going through a legal situation regarding his mortgage and that situation is still in process. No auction will be happening and all things related to this matter are being handled by his legal representation."
Jose Canseco
Jose Canseco struck out early in the mortgage crisis when the baseball slugger-turned-reality-star had to let go of his $2.5 million Encino, Calif., home in May 2008. Canseco decided to ditch the mansion, citing plummeting property values and a high mortgage, reported Forbes.com in 2008. "It didn't make financial sense for me to keep paying a mortgage on a home that was basically owned by someone else," Canseco told "Inside Edition" last year.
Victoria Gotti
Victoria Gotti, daughter of late mob boss John Gotti, apparently owes $650,000 to JP Morgan Chase Bank, which has sought to foreclose on her Old Westbury, N.Y., mansion since 2007. Lower court rulings have deemed foreclosure premature, according to People Magazine. However, an appeals court reversed that decision and the $4.2 million estate now appears to be at risk.
The house, which was used in the short-lived show that brought the Gottis into the limelight, "Growing Up Gotti," was part of a divorce package from her ex-husband, Carmine Agnello. "This should finally put to rest all the government lies and rumors that I have $200 million buried in my backyard," Gotti told the New York Post.
Willie Aames
Willie Aames, former star of 1970s and '80s hit shows "Eight is Enough" and "Charles in Charge," joined the ranks of recession-hit celebrities when he held a garage sale at his suburban Kansas City, Kan., home. Dozens of fans showed up score a piece of Aames' TV memorabilia along with antiques, artwork and mounted deer heads.
According to the website TMZ, Aames filed for bankruptcy last year, and his home is in foreclosure. The garage sale was his latest move to stay afloat.
Michael Jackson
He may still be the king of pop, but Michael Jackson doesn't have royal amounts of wealth to go with his title. Last year, he sold his famous Neverland ranch to the Sycamore Valley Ranch Comapny, LLC. But when 2,000 items from the estate were supposed to be auctioned in April, Jackson fought to win a last-minute settlement nixing the event.
Jackson may have a new payday set: a series of 50 concerts kicking off in London in July. Some 750,000 tickets sold out in four hours. Jackson reportedly stands to earn between $1 million and $2 million per show.
Jodie Sweetin
Former "Full House" star Jodie Sweetin is struggling to keep a house of her own. In November, the mom and former meth addict reportedly filed court papers detailing her crumbling marriage to Cody Herpin and the sad state of their financial affairs.
"Our house is in foreclosure, our water has been shut off twice. Currently, all of our other utilities are overdue," Sweetin said in papers filed Nov. 19 in an Orange County, Calif., People magazine reports. Sweetin may be able to pay some bills with the proceeds from her new tell-all. The New York Post reported that she will bare her past as a secret drug abuser in "UnSweetined," coming from Simon Spotlight Entertainment.
I didn't make it.. but it was so full of truth I just wanted to pass it on to the next generation..clik the pic for an enlightening moment..
kudos to your kid DS..dem babies is what makes the world go round..the rest of this stuff is just trivia in comparison and you and I both know it
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – Mon Jun 15, 5:24 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Barack Obama isn't used to hearing boos.
For all the young president's popularity, the response he got Monday from doctors at an American Medical Association meeting was a sign his road is only going to get rockier as he tries to sell his plan to overhaul the nation's health care system.
The boos erupted when Obama told the doctors in Chicago he wouldn't try to help them win their top legislative priority — limits on jury damages in medical malpractice cases.
But what could they expect? If Obama announced support for malpractice limits, that would set trial lawyers and unions — major supporters of Democratic candidates — on the attack. Not to mention consumer groups.
Every other group in the health care debate has a wish list and a top priority. Insurers don't want competition from the government. Employers don't want to be told they have to offer medical coverage to their workers. Hospitals want to stave off Medicare cuts. Drug companies want to charge what the market will bear.
Obama can't give all of them what they want. Instead, he's got to figure what's just enough to keep as many groups as possible on board — without alienating others. It's a fine line for him — and sometimes for them.
"It's a coalition issue," said Robert Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health, an expert on public opinion and the politics of health care. "No major group is able by itself to sink health reform. But if numbers of them come together for different reasons, it could really hurt the direction the president wants to go in."
The doctors were only Obama's first house call. He'll be making his case to the other groups — and to the nation at large — in an increasingly energetic campaign to get a bill passed by the end of his first year in office.
AMA insiders shouldn't have been surprised by Obama's upfront refusal to consider malpractice caps.
The group couldn't get that idea passed by a Republican Congress and president a few years ago. Some states have such curbs, but anyone who can count votes knows the chances for national limits are slim to none with Democrats in charge of Congress.
Instead, Obama left the door open to some kind of compromise on malpractice.
The president said he's willing to explore alternatives to taking doctors to court. In the past, he supported special programs in which hospitals and doctors are encouraged to admit mistakes, correct them and offer compensation. Studies have shown the approach can work, because doctors' refusal to acknowledge mistakes is one reason many families file suit.
Doctors have special reasons to be wary of the president's plans to overhaul the health care system.
Not long ago, doctors' decisions were rarely questioned. Now they are being blamed for a big part of the wasteful spending in the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system. Studies have shown that as much as 30 cents of the U.S. health care dollar may be going for tests and procedures that are of little or no value to patients.
The Obama administration has cited such findings as evidence that the system is broken. Since doctors are the ones responsible for ordering tests and procedures, health care costs cannot be brought under control unless they change their decision-making habits.
"Change is scary," said Dartmouth University's Dr. Elliott Fisher, a doctor turned costs researcher. "I think there is a fear of loss of autonomy, that someone is going to tell you what to do." Fisher collaborated on research that showed wild differences in health care spending around the country — and no signs of better health in the high-cost areas.
But Obama did not blame the doctors. Instead, he tried to woo them, much as he has done with recalcitrant foreign leaders.
"It's the equivalent of international diplomacy. He's got to make them feel like it's possible to have dialogue about what the future looks like," said Blendon. "I think he's starting out with the AMA, but before the summer's over he's going to reach out to a lot of the other groups."
Obama assured the doctors that his plan would provide them with objective information on what treatments work best, with new computerized tools to better manage their patient case loads, and with support for harried solo practitioners to form networks.
He promised that Washington would not dictate clinical decisions. And he asked the doctors to imagine a world in which nearly every patient has insurance coverage and they can devote their full attention to the practice of medicine.
"You did not enter this profession to be bean-counters and paper-pushers," Obama said. "You entered this profession to be healers — and that's what our health care system should let you be."
That line got him an ovation.
Clap, Clap, Clap,Clap, Clap, Clap,
Clap, Clap, Clap,Clap, Clap, Clap
Clap, Clap, Clap,Clap, Clap, Clap,
YES!!!!
Clap, Clap, Clap,Clap, Clap, Clap,
Clap, Clap, Clap,Clap, Clap, Clap
Clap, Clap, Clap,Clap, Clap, Clap,
LOS ANGELES, CA â€" It will be next to impossible to own a sexually intact registered dog or cat within the City of Los Angeles, if City Council approves a series of recommendations by the Spay/Neuter Advisory Committee. These recommendations have been sent to Los Angeles City Council and to Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa in final form, the American Sporting Dog Alliance has documented. Action on the recommendations could happen at any time.
It already is illegal in Los Angeles to possess a sexually intact dog that is registered with the Field Dog Stud Book (FDSB), and the committee's recommendations would cancel out current exemptions for approved show, field trial, performance and breeding dogs registered with the American Kennel Club (AKC), and also rare breed and smaller registries. The recommendations also may affect dogs registered with the United Kennel Club (UKC), and cats registered with the three top feline registries. Beginning this year, the ordinance has required all dogs and cats that did not qualify for an intact exemption to be spayed or neutered at the medically unsafe age of four months..
Now, however, it is clear that even these few exemptions are intended to be phased out, if recommendations from the committee are approved by the City Council. The committee's recommendations also contain a series of "Catch 22's" that would make it virtually impossible for the owner of an intact dog to maintain an exemption for competition, field trials and shows, even if the registry itself maintains its exemption, documents show.
The unfolding situation in Los Angeles gives dramatic and clear proof that the ultimate goal of all animal rights-inspired legislation is a step toward the elimination of animal ownership in America. Each law, ordinance and regulation is merely the first step toward a tightening of the noose in this incremental approach to making America a nation without dogs, cats and other domesticated animals. Each step is designed to lead to another, until no more animals are left.
For dog owners, it means that any compromise with animal rights activists is illogical, unwise and totally illusory. Dog owners who agree to negotiate, participate on task forces or committees that are stacked against them, compromise, cut deals, remain apathetic, or fail to fight hard for their rights in the political arena, are slitting their own throats. The only alternative is to fight back courageously against all animal rights legislation, and refuse to quit, surrender or compromise.
That lesson applies equally to all Americans who own dogs or cats, and has immediate meaning to Illinois, which has set up a task force to study new dog laws, and Maine and Santa Barbara, CA, which are now in the process of having the results rammed down their throats by task forces that were designed to have strong animal rights biases.
The Los Angeles Committee also provides a clear lesson to dog owners about how task forces and committees can be taken over by nonresident animal rights extremists, who now are incorporating these committees into their nationwide strategy. The American Sporting Dog Alliance first uncovered this strategy in the City of Dallas, TX, which passed a repressive spay/neuter mandate last year based on the recommendations of a committee with official status that pointedly excluded anyone who was not an animal rights activist.
The Los Angeles Committee includes at least one person who does not live in the city: noted animal rights extremist Judie Mancuso of Laguna Beach, CA. Mancuso was a major force behind last year's failed effort to enact statewide mandatory spay/neuter legislation, and is leading efforts for legislation this year. Mancuso also works on mandatory sterilization issues nationwide, and recently testified in Chicago, where she claimed that these ordinances do not affect the availability of purebred dogs. The Los Angeles proposals contradict and discredit Mancuso's statements in Chicago and elsewhere, and show clearly that her real goal is to eliminate purebred dogs.
Here are the Los Angeles Spay/Neuter Committee report's highlights pertaining to owning intact purebred dogs.
Almost all of America's dog and cat registries would be removed from the list of approved registries, because they do not have official policies to protect the health and soundness of dogs eligible for registration and used in breeding programs, as would be required by the new recommendations.
We see this requirement as a "Catch 22" that is impossible to fulfill, because the science of canine genetics is in its infancy and does not allow many conditions to be predicted accurately (and thus prevented), and the Los Angeles ordinance is essentially requiring registries to be liable (including financially liable) for the results of matings over which they have no real control. Private breeders of high quality dogs also would object to a distant registry taking control of their breeding decisions, if for no other reason than the fact that registry officials would have no first-hand knowledge of the dogs involved, their progeny or their ancestors.
Dogs registered by the American Kennel Club (AKC), which is the nation's largest registry, could not be kept sexually intact or bred in Los Angeles if these recommendations are adopted. This also would apply to dogs registered through the American Dog Breeders Association (American pit bull terriers), the Continental Kennel Club, the American Rare Breed Association, the Australian Shepherd Club of America and the Dog Registry of America, and possibly cats registered by the three major feline registries.
The status of UKC-registered dogs could not be determined from the report. The UKC already has an extensive list of breeding policies, but they are essentially recommendations to breeders and most are not mandatory. Nor is it known if the UKC would be willing to assume liability for the actions of breeders.
Field Dog Stud Book, which is America's oldest registry and the premiere registry for pointers and setters bred for hunting and field trials, is not included in the current list of approved registries and also could not possibly meet the requirements of the committee report. It is currently illegal to own a sexually intact FDSB-registered dog, or breed it, in the City of Los Angeles.
To obtain a breeding permit, the report recommends requiring that a dog must be temperament tested, have Orthopedic Foundation of America certification for hip dysplasia, meet other unspecified "health requirements, " and have earned or be earning a title in competition through an approved registry (of which there would be none). We regard all of these as cynical "Catch 22s."
Temperament testing would be done by the animal control agency, which lacks the expertise to evaluate dogs of most breeds and could not do a fair evaluation in the chaotic environment of an animal control facility. Thus, many good dogs would be set up to fail.
OFA hip certification cannot be obtained until a dog is two years old and the Los Angeles ordinance requires dogs to be spayed at age four months (long before they would be bred, entered in serious competition or could be certified by OFA), and animal control personnel do not have the knowledge or experience to evaluate genetic health problems or the ways to reduce or eliminate them.
The report also recommends that all dogs be entered into a show or competition at least annually to qualify for an exemption (the current requirement is one show every two years). However, this fails to account for the reality that many dogs are kept for evaluation for a year or two before they are entered in competition or sent to a professional trainer, an injury or illness can hold a dog out of competition for lengthy periods, and many outstanding champions are retired from competition early to use for breeding in order to pass on their outstanding genetics to future generations. These dogs would have to be sterilized, under the recommendation.
The current ordinance exempts a dog that is being trained for competition, or as a guide, service or military dog. However, the committee report recommends eliminating this exemption if the dog's trainer is not an officially licensed business in the City of Los Angeles, as well as stating that dog trainers should meet certain unspecified "qualifications" to be licensed.
The dog world is not local. Many serious breeders are themselves highly competent and qualified trainers, and many send their dogs to trainers who are located in other parts of the state or nation. These trainers could not qualify for a Los Angeles business license for the simple reason that they do not live in the city (and possibly not even in the state), and the breeders could not qualify for a business license because they are hobbyists who are not in the business of training dogs for the public.
Moreover, no one in the animal control department is even remotely qualified to pass judgment on the ability or qualifications of a professional trainer.
It is doubtful if any professional trainers of field trial or hunting dogs live within the city, as there would not be enough suitable grounds nearby, and regulations and taxation would be prohibitive in an urban environment.
Requirements to maintain a sexually intact dog also would be tightened generally, including mandating spay/neuter for a second offense of leash laws or a second impoundment by animal control, shortening time limits for compliance, denying permits to dog owners to whom even one warning had been issued, and raising prices of intact and breeding permits (current permits cost $100 per animal per year, and allow the holder only one litter per year per each female animal for which a permit has been obtained).
The Los Angeles Committee report to City Council is contained in a 91-page (pdf file) report that can be viewed at http://www.laanimal services. com/spayneuterla w/committee/ march09_rep. pdf . See pdf pages 68-through-74. Look for Recommendation Twelve. This report was located and researched by ASDA advisor and researcher Margo Milde of Glenview, IL.
The current ordinance can be viewed at http://www.clkrep. lacity.org/ onlinedocs/ 2007/07-1212_ ord_179615. pdf .
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges all Los Angeles dog owners to oppose this report to City Council.
We also ask dog owners everywhere in America to learn from what is happening in Los Angeles and spurn the idea of task forces, negotiations with animal rights activists, or agreeing to compromises.
Failing to fight back courageously is the first step in participating in the destruction of the dogs that you love, and your own freedom and basic rights as an American.
We also challenge the purebred dog and cat registries themselves, but especially the American Kennel Club (AKC), the largest purebred dog registry in the United States, to vigorously oppose the Los Angeles committee's recommendations. We also urge these registries to make adverse legislation involving any facet of dog and cat ownership and breeding their utmost priority. We especially ask the AKC to clearly communicate to its affiliated and member clubs the dangers of seeking purebred or show exemptions in any proposed legislation involving dog ownership or breeding, since, as these Los Angeles committee's recommendations illustrate, such legal exemptions are only a sham, to be all too easily removed by the Animal Rights zealots who seek the extinction of all purebred breeds of dogs.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org .. Our email is asda@csonline. net .
By VIJAY JOSHI, Associated Press Writer Vijay Joshi, Associated Press Writer – Sun Jun 14, 2:02 pm ET
SEOUL, South Korea – South Korea's president ordered his top security officials Sunday to deal "resolutely and squarely" with new North Korean warnings of a nuclear war on the eve of his U.S. visit. In Washington, Vice President Joe Biden said "God only knows" what North Korea wants from the latest showdown.
President Lee Myung-bak travels to Washington on Monday for talks with President Barack Obama that are expected to focus on the North's rogue nuclear and missile programs.
The trip comes after North Korea's Foreign Ministry threatened war with any country that stops its ships on the high seas under new sanctions approved by the U.N. Security Council in response to its May 25 nuclear test.
It also vowed Saturday to "weaponize" all its plutonium and acknowledged a long-suspected uranium enrichment program for the first time. Both plutonium and uranium are key ingredients of atomic bombs.
A commentary published Saturday in the North's state-run Tongil Sinbo weekly claimed the U.S. was deploying a vast number of nuclear weapons in South Korea and Japan.
North Korea "is completely within the range of U.S. nuclear attack and the Korean peninsula is becoming an area where the chances of a nuclear war are the highest in the world," it said.
Kim Yong-kyu, a spokesman at the U.S. military command in Seoul, denied the allegation, saying the U.S. no longer has nuclear bombs in South Korea. U.S. tactical nuclear weapons were removed from South Korea in 1991 as part of arms reductions following the Cold War.
President Lee summoned his top security ministers Sunday and ordered them to "resolutely and squarely cope" with the North's threats, his office said. The Unification Ministry, responsible for ties with the North, issued a statement demanding that it stop inflaming tension and resume talks with the South.
"North Korea should give up its nuclear program ... and stop any kind of military threat," it said. "We urge North Korea to respond in a sincere dialogue to improve South-North Korean relations."
The new U.N. sanctions approved Friday are aimed at depriving the North of the financing used to build its nuclear program. They also authorize searches of North Korean ships suspected of transporting illicit ballistic missile and nuclear materials.
Biden told NBC's "Meet the Press" that it's crucial that the U.S. and other nations "make sure those sanctions stick."
North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, reportedly had a stroke 10 months ago and analysts believe there may be a plan in place to name his inexperienced 26-year-old son, Kim Jong Un, as the future leader.
"God only knows what he wants," Biden said of Kim. "There's all kinds of discussions. Whether this is about succession, wanting his son to succeed him. Whether or not he's looking for respect. Whether or not he really wants a nuclear capability to threaten the region. ... We can't guess his motives.
"We just have to deal with the reality that a North Korea that is either proliferating weapons and or missiles, or a North Korea that is using those weapons ... is a serious danger and threat to the world, and particularly East Asia," the vice president said.
Lee Sang-hyun, an analyst at the Sejong Institute, a South Korean security think tank, said he believes the North will continue to conduct nuclear tests until it masters the technology to mount nuclear warheads on missiles and will give credit for it to Kim Jong Un.
"Kim Jong Un's status is still unstable. Kim Jong Il appears to be trying to give the son a powerful means to strengthen his succession," Lee said. "Kim Jong Un could also get the credit for nuclear weapons development."
North Korea is already believed to have enough plutonium for at least half a dozen atomic bombs.
North Korea says its nuclear program is a deterrent against the U.S., which it accuses of plotting to invade and topple its regime. Washington, which has 28,500 troops in South Korea, has repeatedly denied having any such plans.
Posted: June 03, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
© 2009 -
The younger generation probably doesn't realize that the word socialism means and connotes a system that is profoundly un-American. Socialism has virtually disappeared from our national lexicon since the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) collapsed because of Ronald Reagan's policies and the National Socialist (Nazi) Party was destroyed by the United States in World War II.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines socialism as a system of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned by a centralized government that plans and controls the economy. Both Webster and Random House identify socialism as a "Marxist theory."
Socialism requires a totalitarian system that gives the ruling gang the power to distribute the fruits of other people's labor to its political pals.
That is what is happening to the United States as President Obama proceeds with his goal of "remaking America."
Although the pro-Obama media have been propping up non-Republicans to lecture us about which topics Republicans are permitted to discuss, we are reminded of the old story about the candidate who challenged his opponent: "Let's have a clean campaign; if you don't tell any lies about me, I won't tell the truth about you."
Obama acolytes and their media sycophants have been telling lies about Republicans (starting with Gitmo and the CIA), so it's time for Republicans to tell the truth about Obama's dangerous and malicious Marxist policies to spread the wealth of taxpayers to non-taxpayers.
The Republican National Committee (RNC), which for years had been a stuffy establishment appendage, started to tell the truth on May 20 when it passed a resolution nailing the Obama administration for "proposing, passing and implementing socialist programs through federal legislation" and pushing our country "towards European-style socialism and government control." Nine "Whereases" spell out the political indictment in detail.
The RNC charges the Democratic Party with passing "trillions of dollars in new government spending, all with strings attached in order to control nearly every aspect of American life," "plans to nationalize the banking, financial and health care industries," "massive government bailouts for the mortgage and auto industries" and "paying states to increase their welfare caseloads" by reducing work requirements and increasing handouts.
Another "Whereas" accuses the Democratic Party of "direct income redistribution" by taking taxes from one group of people and giving "direct cash transfers to another group of people who pay no federal income taxes." The RNC accurately accuses the Democratic Party of taking us in a "European direction," a path the American people have no desire to travel.
The RNC, which is the governing body of the Republican Party, has helpfully spelled out the differences between the two political parties. The "clear and obvious purpose" of the Democratic majority in Congress is to implement "socialist programs through federal legislation" and to restructure American society "along socialist ideals."
Do the Republicans have an alternate vision of America's future? You bet they do. The Republicans recognize that free markets and free men, hard work and free enterprise, are the bedrock of American success and the only way to restore prosperity.
Unable to defend the march toward socialism, Treasury Secretary Geithner just told the Washington Post that the RNC resolution is "ridiculous."
Obama's takeover of the American auto industry is so breathtaking in scope and power that it proves all the RNC's accusations about socialism. The takeover was followed by orders to close 789 local Chrysler dealers, notices to 1,100 General Motors franchises that they will be shut down by next year and estimates that total dealer shutdowns will rise to 3,000. Some of these local dealerships have been family-owned for generations. The Chrysler and GM dealership closings are estimated to eliminate 187,000 jobs, which is more than the number of people who work for the two automakers. Now we can see the icing on the cake for the politicians who use economic dictatorship to punish those who resist socialist planners. Nearly every one of the closed local dealerships had donated to Republican candidates, almost none was an Obama contributor, and some dealerships owned by Democrats are not getting the ax.
These closings come after Obama's extraordinary cash and stock favoritism to one of his principal campaign supporters, the United Auto Workers union. The car czar, Steve Rattner, was a top Democratic fundraiser (surprise, surprise!).
Obama seems to be captivated by the un-American notion of running the country through Russian-style czars empowered to issue czarist-style ukases. He has already named about 20 czars (more than the Russians had over four centuries), and his latest is a cyber czar.
This year's deficit will be $1.841 trillion – $89 billion more than previously estimated. It's so difficult to explain to the American people the gigantic dimensions of what Obama is doing that we are suffering from what has been labeled "insensitivity to scope."
We hope the RNC resolution will clarify Obama's goals and actions.
On June 3, ASPCA Humane Law Enforcement Agents arrested Cheyenne Cherry, a 17-year-old resident of the Bronx, for allegedly killing a two-month-old kitten by burning her to death in an oven. In addition to cruelty to animals, Cherry was charged with multiple counts of burglary, arson and criminal mischief. Under New York State law, Cherry is considered an adult and faces more than 10 years in prison if convicted of all charges.
Cherry admits that she broke into the home of an ex-roommate on May 6 with the intent to "play a joke and mess up her apartment." Cherry and an accomplice allegedly threw bleach on the walls of the apartment, slashed furniture and stole various items. Before leaving, the pair put the victim's kitten, Tiger Lily, into the hot oven.
When police arrived at the Bronx apartment to investigate smoke complaints, Tiger Lily was found dead. Her remains were taken to ASPCA Bergh Memorial Animal Hospital, where veterinarians had to perform a necropsy to determine the sex of the badly burned kitten.
According to Joseph Pentangelo, Assistant Director of ASPCA Humane Law Enforcement, Cherry's explanation for placing the kitten in the oven was simply: "I hate cats."
http://www.aspca.org/news/n...
Posted by Steve Elliott on June 10, 2009 at 3:30pm
Obama’s magical “saved” jobs
This is the same BALD-FACED LIE Obama has been telling since last November -- when his plan to “create” jobs was carefully morphed into a plan to “save or create” jobs. That small change has given Obama the ability to claim that his programs are working even when they are failing.
No matter how bad the economy gets, or how high unemployment rises, Obama and his team can simply CLAIM that their massive stimulus spending still “saved” jobs. But it is a bald-faced lie! And we have the proof.
Unemployment is WORSE that Obama even projected!
 In January, Obama announced his big-spending “stimulus” would “save or create at least 3 million jobs by the end of 2010.” Obama justified this by saying his spending PLAN would cause unemployment to be lower than what economists were projecting, meaning 3-4 million jobs would be saved or created. The Obama team even published a graph to justify the spending plan. The difference between the higher line (no stimulus) and the the lower line (yes stimulus) is the "saved or created" jobs. (You can download the original Obama report here (.pdf).)
Just one problem. The opposite has happened… unemployment has soared to 9.4 percent in May and hundreds of thousands more jobs have been lost than had been originally projected even without the stimulus. The blog innocent bystanders very clearly pointed this out by charting the actual unemployment rate on Obama's own graph.
Yet Obama still claims to have “saved” 150,000 jobs. In fact, using Obama’s own warped logic, there is a better case to be made that Obama has DESTROYED hundreds of thousands of jobs since the economy is WORSE than what was expected.
Buzz Starting in opposition to the "saved jobs" lie
For months, Obama got a free pass from the liberal media on the "saved jobs" lie. But this week, some bloggers and a few news outlets started to call him on it. John Ward of the Washington Times had this to say. This from the Wall Street Journal calls out the "phony jos claim." According to the Journal, Democratic Senator Max Baucus even called Geithner on the lie:
"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," said the Montana Democrat. "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."
Help Expose Obama’s Lie!
This one lie about “saved jobs” justifies every socialist, big-government, liberal spending scheme this Administration devises! If we allow Obama to get away with this lie, he will claim political success and doom America to another decade of statism! We simply cannot allow Obama to get away with this bald-faced lie about “saving” jobs.
Please call President Obama and your members of Congress and tell them that Obama must stop using the deceptive “saved jobs” language.
White House
+ + Talking Points
1. President Obama must immediately stop his untruthful claims of “saved jobs” as a measure of his Administration’s success.
2. “Saved jobs” is a meaningless economic term designed to give political cover for failed policies.
3. Obama must be judged like all other Presidents on job “creation” during his Administration -- not bogus “saved jobs” that allow Obama to claim success no matter what happens in the economy.
4. The fact is, job losses have only accelerated above projections since President Obama dramatically increased government spending.
5. We must break this pattern of endless government spending. I urge you to “Stop The Spending.”
President Obama
--Switchboard: 202-456-1414
--Comment Line: 202-456-1111
Congress Switchboard: 202-224-3121
By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE and MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writers Brett J. Blackledge And Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press Writers – 41 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama assured the nation his recovery plan was on track Monday, scrambling to calm Americans unnerved by unemployment rates still persistently rising nearly four months after he signed the biggest economic stimulus in history.
Obama admitted his own dissatisfaction with the progress but said his administration would ramp up stimulus spending in the coming months. The White House acknowledged it has spent only $44 billion, or 5 percent, of the $787 billion stimulus, but that total has always been expected to rise sharply this summer.
"Now we're in a position to really accelerate," Obama said.
He also repeated an earlier promise to create or save 600,000 jobs by the end of the summer.
Neither the acceleration nor the jobs goal are new. Both represent a White House repackaging of promises and projects to blunt criticism that the effects haven't been worth the historic price tag. And the job estimate is so murky, it can never be verified.
The economy has shed 1.6 million jobs since the stimulus measure was signed in February, far overshadowing White House announcements estimating the effort has saved 150,000 jobs. Public opinion of Obama's handling of the economy has declined along with the jobs data.
For the first time, the administration admitted the economic forecasts it used to sell the stimulus were overly optimistic.
"At the time, our forecast seemed reasonable," Vice President Joe Biden's top economic adviser, Jared Bernstein, said Monday, explaining that the White House underestimated the scope of the recession. "Now, looking back, it was clearly too optimistic."
By now, according to earlier White House economic models, the nation's unemployment rate should be on the decline. The forecasts used to drum up support for the plan projected today's unemployment would be about 8 percent. Instead, it sits at 9.4 percent, the highest in more than 25 years.
Some analysts believe the White House is still not being realistic, that Obama will be lucky if any real job creation from his recovery effort is seen by the end of the year, let alone the employment explosion he predicts.
"I think these estimates are overly optimistic," said Arpitha Bykere, a senior analyst with RGE Monitor.
Obama spoke Monday about "modest progress" in the economy, citing fewer jobs lost last month than expected. He said he hopes to build on that in the months ahead with stimulus programs.
"We've done more than ever, faster than ever, more responsibly than ever, to get the gears of the economy moving again," he said.
But he acknowledged, "I'm not satisfied. We've got more work to do."
Americans apparently agree. Obama's disapproval rating on the economy has risen from 30 percent in February to 42 percent, according to a Gallup poll completed May 31. Sensing weakness on a signature issue of Obama's presidency, congressional Republicans are renewing their criticisms that the stimulus plan has not shown results, only mounting debt.
"This is President Obama's economy, and his administration must provide results and specifics rather than vague descriptions of success that seem to change by the week," House Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia said. "The administration looks dramatically out of touch as they highlight the creation of temporary summer employment in the face of job losses unseen in decades, record unemployment and massive deficits."
By any measure, spending $44 billion in less than four months — and with unprecedented openness — is an uncharacteristic feat in Washington. But the expectations have been even higher.
Several economists said Monday the economy is unlikely to see much boost from the stimulus before next year.
"It takes time to organize projects, to get the bids in, the funds out and the work started," said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight.
Obama answered his critics Monday by announcing a list of stimulus projects, including many already previously outlined, saying the work will have a huge affect on the economy this summer.
There is money for expanded health services in local clinics; improvements in national parks and medical centers for veterans; money for police and school jobs; and more than 1,800 public works projects.
Without naming names, Obama shot back at skeptics during the Cabinet meeting.
"Now, I know that there's some who, despite all evidence to the contrary, still don't believe in the necessity and promise of this recovery act."
"And I would suggest to them that they talk to the companies who, because of this plan, scrapped the idea of laying off employees and, in fact, decided to hire employees. Tell that to the Americans who received that unexpected call saying, 'Come back to work.'"
__
By NATALIA PARRA, Associated Press Writer Natalia Parra, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 17 mins ago
ACAPULCO, Mexico – Mexican soldiers fought a two-hour battle with heavily armed men holed up at a house in an Acapulco hotel zone, killing 15 of the gunmen as Mexican tourist cowered in their rooms nearby.
One soldier was killed and the wounded included three soldiers and three bystanders. Several Mexican tourists were evacuated from small hotels in a faded neighborhood once frequented by Hollywood stars.
When soldiers arrived at the house on a tip, the gunmen opened fire and hurled some 50 grenades, according to an Army colonel, who wore a ski mask to protect his identity as he led reporters on a tour of the scene Sunday. He spoke on condition of anonymity for security reasons.
Several gunmen tried to flee, but crashed their car into a military Hummer that was blocking the gate. At one point, more armed men with grenades arrived by car to reinforce the gunmen in the house, but they died in the shooting, the colonel said.
Soldiers found four Guerrero state police officers handcuffed inside the garage of the house, the colonel said. The officers, who were still bound and sitting the floor when reporters arrived, said they'd been held captive by the gunmen, the colonel said.
Soldiers did not know the police were inside when the shootout began late Friday night, and the colonel said their claims would be investigated.
"We found them like this, handcuffed, and they say they were kidnapped. So if they were kidnapped, as they say, then we rescued them," he said.
Residents cowered inside their homes and at several low-cost hotels during the battle. When the shooting subsided, several frightened people were evacuated by ambulance, including 15 Mexican tourists from a small hotel, a family of four from another hotel, a pregnant woman with her mother from their home, and an elderly man.
Two men and a woman were caught in the gunfire and wounded, paramedics said.
The gunbattle raged just blocks from a residence owned decades ago by the late "Tarzan" actor Johnny Weissmuller, and about 100 meters (yards) from Hotel Los Flamingos, owned in the 1950s by John Wayne. The hotel is still popular with older American tourists.
It was unclear whether the gunmen belonged to one of drug cartels that have been fighting for turf in Guerrero state, home to Acapulco and the resort town of Zihuatanejo, the colonel said.
The Beltran Leyva cartel, in particular, has a strong presence in Acapulco. Last month, soldiers arrested a suspected cartel lieutenant as he stepped off a private plane in the northern city of Monterrey on his way back from Acapulco, where he said he met with Arturo Beltran Leyva at a baptism party held by the most-wanted cartel leader.
Soldiers confiscated 47 guns, grenades and ammunition at the large, gated house, which stood out among its more modest neighbors. Several cars were also seized from the property, including a Mercedes Benz.
President Felipe Calderon has deployed more than 45,000 soldiers across Mexico to battle drug violence. More than 10,800 people have died since the offensive began in December 2006.
Pelosi’s ratings down, while Cheney’s improved from record low
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Dick Cheney have little in common politically, but they receive almost identical image ratings from the American public. According to a May 29-31 Gallup Poll, 37% of Americans have a favorable view of Cheney and 34% have a favorable view of Pelosi. Both Cheney and Pelosi are viewed unfavorably by at least half of Americans.
The similarity between Cheney's and Pelosi's ratings is notable given that the two have emerged as the leading voices on either side of this year's debate over whether the government's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" against terrorist suspects constitutes torture.
Cheney came out of his brief vice presidential retirement in March to publicly defend the Bush administration's support of CIA interrogation policies, and on May 21 went head-to-head with President Barack Obama on the issue in separate national security speeches. Pelosi has condemned "waterboarding" and earlier this year supported a call to investigate Bush administration officials who authorized it; however, she recently fell into a public battle with the CIA over whether she was previously briefed on the agency's use of the coercive technique.
Trends
Pelosi's current image rating is more negative than positive by a 16 percentage point margin: 34% favorable and 50% unfavorable. Six months ago about equal percentages held favorable and unfavorable views of her.
While still negative, Cheney's image today (with 37% viewing him favorably and 54% unfavorably) is improved compared with his ratings in March of this year. At that time, only 30% viewed him favorably and 63% unfavorably, his worst ratings on balance since he was nominated as George W. Bush's vice presidential candidate in July 2000 (although his ratings were nearly as bad when previously measured in 2007).
Cheney's improved ratings are mainly due to the views of independents: the percentage viewing him favorably rose from 21% in March to 37% today. There was also a slight increase in his favorable rating from Republicans, from 64% to 70%.
Pelosi's decline since last fall is seen equally in her ratings from Republicans and independents, with little change in the views of Democrats. The percentage of Republicans viewing her favorably fell 12 points, from 21% to 9%; the same drop in favorability was seen among independents, from 37% to 25%. Sixty-two percent of Democrats now view her favorably, down just slightly from 66% in November.
A Polarizing Pair
As a result of the changes, both Cheney and Pelosi are now positioned as highly polarizing figures on the political landscape; both are viewed favorably by the large majority of their own party members, and unfavorably by most members of the opposing party.
To the extent either one influences voters' views about the two major political parties, particularly looking ahead to the 2010 midterm elections, Cheney may be less problematic for his party than Pelosi might be for hers. He currently has a slight edge in intra-party popularity: 70% of Republicans view him favorably compared with 62% of Democrats viewing Pelosi favorably. Also, more independents view Cheney favorably than view Pelosi favorably: 37% vs. 25%.
Bottom Line
After President Obama, Pelosi and Cheney are arguably the next most prominent political figures active in the two major parties today. Both have attracted significant news coverage in the mainstream press this year, most recently for their positions on the government's interrogation policies for suspected terrorists.
That coverage appears to have helped Cheney -- at least modestly -- in the image department. Given Americans' concern about closing Guantanamo Bay, his improved ratings since March are arguably related to his ongoing outspokenness on waterboarding, tying it in with U.S. national security.
Pelosi has had a major, high profile role in the legislative agenda of Congress all year, most notably with passage of Obama's economic stimulus package in January; however the recent controversy over her possible knowledge of waterboarding -- and her claim that the CIA misled Congress about briefing her -- may have more to do with her depressed favorable ratings, which are down eight points since November.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,015 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 29-31, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Posted: June 02, 2009
8:43 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
One 'top-rated' listing features more than 550 'looks promising' votes on the Obama eligibility issue
|
With more than 200 individual threads and thousands of comments on the eligibility issue alone, moderators of the White House website on "open government dialogue" have been working tirelessly to edit the dialogue about Barack Obama's elusive "long-form" birth certificate.
Many of the top-rated threads are from citizens calling on Obama to release his birth certificate. The postings in the "top rated" category have received the most "looks promising" votes from users. New threads on the topic of Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president are appearing by the minute.
It has been observed the "Making Data More Accessible" section for several hours as more suggestions appeared and at least 60 were subsequently deleted on the first page alone – all requests for the president to submit proof of citizenship.
One deleted post echoed many others in asking President Obama to "Prove that you are a U.S. citizen and valid president."
The post asks why Obama doesn't simply release his "real birth certificate and end all of this controversy."
"Are you a fraud?" it asks. "Is your election to the highest office in the land the largest scam ever pulled on the American people? Are you really not eligible for office? End the speculation and prove who you are."
Another removed thread titled, "Where is the Obama legal documentation to prove who he actually is?" asked the president to provide the following documents: original, vault copy birth certificate, records of attorney fees, marriage and divorce records for Obama's parents, passport, adoption records, school records and various other documents.
One displeased user who had his post deleted wrote, "I posted a comment about the lack of transparency in President Obama's administration and history, and down it came in minutes. So much for a open dialogue or, for that matter, freedom of speech."
Another man suggested U.S. citizens consider a class-action lawsuit against President Obama until he surrenders his documents. His post stated, in part:
Dear President, If only you would show us your long form birth certificate that shows location (hospital) of birth as well as attending physician info.
Be it duly noted that We the People of this constitutional republic do hereby note many of the abuses of power that you and your administration's representatives are currently engaged in.
We the People do hereby certify that we are considering all legal options available to restrict your audacity to run roughshod over the Constitution, abuse of power and office, as well as spending too much friggin' money when we are, as a nation, broke. …
His post was subsequently deleted.
"Who would have thought that even contemplating such action would be required against a sitting president and administration? A class-action approach may be the only viable way to force reporting in the mainstream press," he told WND.
Meanwhile, a thread titled "Contact the media to get it out in the open that the 'birthers' are a racist terrorist organization practicing electronic espionage" remained in place for much of the day while messages from the so-called "birthers" were removed. It has now been flagged. A link for providing news tips to CNN accompanied the message.
However, at least 200 threads urging Obama to prove his eligibility still remain.
The website dialogue is hosted by the National Academy of Public Administration. Its website says it operates a moderation policy "to ensure that your comments are appropriate and not harmful to others." Comments on the Open Government website may be deleted if they include the following:
- Threats or incitements to violence
- Information posted in violation of law, including libel, condoning or encouraging illegal activity, revealing classified information, or comments which might affect the outcome of ongoing legal proceedings
"Moreover, while we invite open participation and diverse viewpoints to be shared, the main goal of this dialogue is to answer the overarching question: How can we strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative?" the National Academy of Public Administration website states. "Moderators therefore reserve the right to remove posts which are not 'on topic' or do not address some aspect of that question. Our desire is to remove as few posts as possible while ensuring that a focused, constructive discussion takes place."
The "brainstorming" phase of public engagement in policymaking is coming to a close at midnight tonight as the suggestions are compiled for a "discussion" phase.
But despite the resounding popularity of the subject of Obama's eligibility, it is still undetermined whether the topic will be included in the next phase.
"Our goal is to use the ideas from this first phase of the process as well as other input to inform deeper discussion on the Open Government blog in the Discussion phase," a message posted on the White House website states. "While the voting on the brainstorming submissions will be instructive, it will not determine which topics are discussed in the second phase. Rather, the Discussion is designed to dig in on harder topics that require greater exploration or refinement."
The website will keep the "brainstorming" portion active and open to public participation through June 19, but new posts may not feed into further discussion.
On Sunday night only 30 percent of respondents in one of the 200 forums demanded the president release the document. But that number exploded to nearly 80 percent the following day after WND alerted the public to the White House resource.
The entire transparency portion of the website has been overrun with citizens demanding presentation of the long-form birth certificate. Every one of more than 200 threads features dozens – and even hundreds – of people in agreement that Obama should release the document.
Meanwhile, the visibility of the Obama birth certificate issue has also been raised by a new national billboard campaign initiated by Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND. Launched just over a week ago, the campaign has raised about $65,000 and begun erecting billboards that ask the question, "Where's the birth certificate?"
That campaign followed one launched months earlier to collect names on an electronic petition demanding accountability and transparency on the issue. So far, that petition has gathered nearly 400,000 names.
In his questioning of White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, WND White House correspondent Les Kinsolving specifically made reference to the WND petition.
"Are you looking for the president's birth certificate?" he asked incredulously. "Lester, this question in many ways continues to astound me. The state of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the president's birth. I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people – (laughter) – that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the state of Hawaii of the president's birth there, but it's on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download. I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we'll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy."
It was the first time any member of the press corps has publicly asked a member of the administration a question directly related to Obama's constitutional eligibility for office as a "natural born citizen."
Politico has video of the exchange,
Farah announced the billboard campaign to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard, "long-form" birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.
The "Certification of Live Birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information like the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," but no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Both the petition and the billboard campaign are part of what Farah calls an independent "truth and transparency campaign."
Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs bends over laughing at a question over Obama's eligibility |
The first sign to be posted under the week-old campaign, a digital, electronic one, is up and online on Highway 165 in Ball, La. – the result of a donation by the owner. In addition, based on the heavy volume of financial donations in the first two days of the campaign, WND was able to commit to leasing two more standard billboards – one in Los Angeles and the other in Pennsylvania. It will take several weeks to get those billboards up because of the vinyl printing and shipping involved. Yesterday, WND agreed to lease another electronic billboard in Orange County, Calif.
While the campaign is off to a robust start, many viewers have asked why Obama's name is not included in the billboard. Farah said the matter was carefully considered.
"There are several reasons we chose the message: 'Where's the birth certificate?'" he explained. "There is only one birth certificate controversy in this country today – despite the near-total absence of this issue from coverage in the non-WND media. This is a grass-roots issue that resonates around the country, as our own online petition with nearly 400,000 signers suggests. In addition, I like the simplicity of the message. I like the fact that the message will cause some people to ask themselves or others about the meaning of the message. It will stir curiosity. It will create a buzz. I'm assuming when these billboards are springing up all over the country, it might even make some in the news media curious. And there's one more factor that persuaded me this was the way to go.
Birth certificate question being raised in Ball, La. |
"Come 2012, campaign laws will pose restrictions on political advertising mentioning the names of presidential candidates. This one clearly doesn't. I would like to see the federal government make the case that this is somehow a political ad," he said.
Farah said the campaign was born of frustration with timid elected officials in Washington, corrupt judges around the country and a news media that show a stunning lack of curiosity about the most basic facts of Obama's background – especially how it relates to constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land.
"As Obama transforms this country from self-governing constitutional republic to one governed by a central ruling elite, the simple fact remains that no controlling legal authority has established that he is indeed a 'natural born citizen' as the Constitution requires," Farah said. "Obama's promises of transparency have become a bad joke as he continues to hide simple, innocuous documents like his birth certificate and his student records."
The idea behind the billboard campaign is to make sure Obama cannot avoid this question any longer. He must be asked to produce it at every turn, Farah says. Billboard space is currently being hunted in Houston, Dallas, Sacramento, San Francisco, Seattle and other metro areas.
"Is it unusual for a news agency to launch such a campaign?" asks Farah. "Yes it is. But we live in very unusual times. The founding fathers built special protections into the First Amendment for the free press. The reason they did that is because they understood a vibrant 'Fourth Estate' was necessary as an independent watchdog on government. It is in that tradition that WND assumes this role – since nobody else in the press will do it."
"I wish such a campaign were not absolutely necessary," said Farah. "I wish there were checks and balances in our political and electoral systems to ensure that constitutional eligibility of presidential candidates was established before politicians could assume the highest office in the land. I wish my colleagues in the news media believed the Constitution really means what it says and pressed this issue as hard as we have. I wish radio talk-show hosts were bold enough to ask this question. But wishing is not enough. It's time to raise the visibility of this issue vital to the rule of law in America.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009 8:24 PM
By: David A. Patten
Iowa GOP Congressman Steve King is calling for simultaneous FBI and congressional investigations into what he calls a "spiderweb" of shadowy financial and business relationships linked to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
"With ACORN, it's pervasive," King tells Newsmax, referring to criminal allegations and malfeasance leveled at ACORN's low-income, voter-registration operation. "It's everywhere. It's 12 or 14 states where there are investigations going on for voter registration [fraud].
"ACORN has admitted to … around 400,000 fraudulent voter-registration forms being introduced. They claim they don't hire people on commission, but they do hire people on commission," King tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview.
King says ACORN has over 270 corporate affiliates and business units that have received more than $53 million in federal tax dollars. Recent stimulus legislation, he tells Newsmax, could give the organization access up to $8.5 billion.
According to a recent Fox News report, over 250 nonprofit groups list ACORN's New Orleans headquarters as their address. One of those groups is Citizens Services Inc., which received $800,000 from the Obama administration in return for a get-out-the-vote program during last year's campaign.
Although King charges that ACORN is "in the business of electing Democrats," he says its impact transcends politics. He tells Newsmax the organization has intimidated bank executives into making risky mortgage loans to people who shouldn't have received them, adding that is "a contributing factor, I believe, to this financial meltdown that we have."
King, who has represented Iowa's fifth congressional district since 2002, describes ACORN as "an organization that erodes the integrity of the election process," adding: "I believe it has completely the face of a criminal enterprise, and it should be thoroughly investigated by Congress and the Department of Justice. And it should happen simultaneously."
Although King says ACORN is responsible for "hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms," the type of investigation he wants would go far beyond current state and FBI investigations for alleged voter fraud. Rather, it would look into the interlocking financial connections between ACORN and its affiliate organizations.
To date, there have been four post-election prosecutions by state authorities involving ACORN. All focus on voter fraud rather than finances.
"We need to do a lot more. We cannot let them bring down our election process," King says.
In the exclusive interview, King also addressed the controversy surrounding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's allegations that the CIA lied in stating she had been briefed on "enhanced interrogation" methods, such as water-boarding.
He says Pelosi's security clearance should be withdrawn until her assertions can either be verified or disproven.
King says the controversy stirred up by Pelosi's assertion "puts our national security at risk," because the CIA and 14 other U.S. security agencies no longer can have the "level of trust" they need to liaison effectively with the Speaker of the House. King blames this on Pelosi's "wild allegations."
He also points out that the speaker follows only the vice-president in the order of succession, should anything happen to the president.
See Video: Rep. Steve King discusses his probe into ACORN - Click Here Now
Diversty beat out Susan Boyle?? Any opinons as to why? for some reason it wont allow me to post Susans video so heres the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
|
