It seems the entire conservative blogosphere is having a feeding frenzy over a misunderstanding of a single word "alliance" and no one has checked their facts or listened to the truth. This has become a classic example of how a false rumor starts and spreads. It should also be noted that the most valuable asset conservatives have is their credibility, and spreading false rumors is the best way to lose that credibility. Take the case being falsely made against Delta Air Lines.

These are the facts in this case.

DELTA DOES NOT FLY TO SAUDI ARABIA AND DOES NOT CODESHARE WITH ANY AIRLINE THAT DOES

A closer look at the false rumor about Delta Air Lines and Saudi Arabia.

    It appears that false rumors, no matter how vicious, are virtually impossible to stop once they start. Last week a Washington attorney named Jeffrey Lovitky who works for the American Center for Law and Justice and Rabbi Abraham Cooper from the Simon Wiesenthal Center set off a firestorm among the conservative blogs after they made some startling, but baseless, claims that Delta Air Lines had entered into a partnership with Saudi Arabian Airlines and that all Delta flights flying to cities in Saudi Arabia would begin to deny passage to Jews. On June 22, the highly regarded conservative web site WorldNet Daily ran this story:

            Delta adopts Saudi 'no-Jew' fly policy
            By Bob Unruh

            Delta Air Lines' plan to add Saudi Arabian Airlines to its SkyTeam Alliance of partnering companies would require the American carrier to ban Jews and holders of Israeli passports from boarding flights from New York or Washington bound for Jeddah, prompting outraged accusations of illegal religious discrimination.

            The issue, which has caught the attention of the American Center for Law and Justice already, was raised when Washington attorney Jeffrey Lovitky was perusing airline procedures for travel.

            "As we learn more about the issue and facts, we are determined to ensure that American citizens do not face discrimination by airlines like Delta that are passenger code-sharing with Saudi Arabian Airlines," said Colby M. May, director and senior counsel of the ACLJ.

    This was followed on Friday when Rabbi Abraham Cooper, who heads the Simon Wiesenthal Center, posted an Opinion on the Fox News web site purporting to be an open letter to Delta CEO Richard Anderson under the headline:

            Is Delta Airlines Letting Itself Be Hijacked By Religious Bigots?

            Pardon me for communicating with you this way, but you fobbed off inquiries by others to your Customer Care e-mail department. Since I represent 400,000 constituent families of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, I thought it would be more appropriate to communicate this way and let the rest of the American people in on an outrageous situation.

            What would happen if a leading U.S. carrier voluntarily allows itself to be hijacked by bigots in order to open a new market? For example, what if it entered into an agreement with a foreign airline that would see to it that no blacks or Catholics or gays boarded code-shared flights destined to reach the partner’s home nation?

            I think you know the answer.

            Yet, that is what Delta Airlines appears to have done when your company announced plans to add Saudi Arabian Airlines to your SkyTeam Alliance. You see, under their rules, they require that Delta ban Jews and holders of Israeli passports from boarding flights from New York or Washington bound for Jeddah.

    The rumor about the alliance between Delta Air Lines and Saudi Arabian Airlines originated with a press release that announced that the official airline of the fundamentalist Islamic government of Saudi Arabia was joining the 14 member airlines Skyteam alliance based in Amsterdam. What no one seemed to realize was the alliance between these companies was merely an Interline agreement which allows passengers to book tickets on multiple carriers, similar to the standard interline agreements American Airlines, US Airways and Alaska Airlines have with Saudi Arabian Airlines. Delta even issued a clarifying press statement to stop the rumors. No one took notice of the statement or the part that said that Delta Air Lines does NOT FLY to any city in Saudi Arabia and DOES NOT codeshare with any other airline that does. (A codeshare is when one airline buys a block of seats on another airline and places its flight designator, or "code," onto a flight operated by a different airline. The arrangement allows airlines to sell tickets on each other's flights.)

             “Delta Air Lines does not discriminate nor do we condone discrimination against any of our customers in regards to age, race, nationality, religion, or gender,” Delta said in a statement Friday. “Delta does not operate service to Saudi Arabia and does not codeshare with any airline on flights to that country. Delta does not intend to codeshare or share reciprocal benefits, such as frequent flier benefits, with Saudi Arabian Airlines, which we have confirmed with SkyTeam, an Amsterdam-based 14-member global airline alliance.

            “Delta’s only agreement with Saudi Arabian Airlines is a standard industry interline agreement, which allows passengers to book tickets on multiple carriers, similar to the standard interline agreements American Airlines, US Airways and Alaska Airlines have with Saudi Arabian Airlines,” the statement said. “All of the three global airline alliances – Star, which includes United Airlines; oneworld, which includes American Airlines, and SkyTeam, which includes Delta – have members that fly to Saudi Arabia and are subject to that country’s rules governing entry.”

    Then the web site Atlas Shrugs, run by the ever-vigilant anti-Islamist pro-Israel author Pamela Geller, jumped into the controversy by publishing a story story on Friday, June 24th, that consisted of some screen captures from Delta's web site that advised travelers about the strict Islamic religious laws in Saudi Arabia suggesting that Delta condoned these laws. These travelers advisories are posted on other airline web sites and originate from the web site of the U.S. State Dept.

            “Delta Sharia Airlines”

            “While Delta Airlines obfuscates and dances around the truth (they have really perfected the art of taqiyya), their website tells the story. Go to the Delta Airlines website and look at the information listed there. Delta doesn’t just work with Saudi Airlines; they post their info on the Delta website.

            Not only are Jews not welcome, but women are told to cover their arms and to wear heavy clothing, among other sharia compliant rules. Further, Muslim women are restricted from travel without a husband or immediate member of the family.”

    Then yet another web site called Jihad Watch posted two stories about Delta Air Lines with even greater inflammatory headlines.

    "Delta Airlines adds Saudi airline to partner companies, will uphold "No Jew" policy on flights to kingdom”

    "Delta scrambles for damage control in wake of taking on Saudi airline's "No Jew" policy"

    and quoted a comment by Rabbi Jason Miller in the liberal blog The Huffington Post that had a most inflammatory title: ""Delta Adopts Saudi Arabian Airlines' No Jew Policy,"".

    Pamela Gellers's compatriot Robert Spencer runs the anti-Islamic web site called Jihad Watch. I have the utmost regard for both of these people due to the extensive coverage they provide to the spread of Islamic terrorism in America and the world. But it pains me to have to admit that while they permit opinions that disagree with them on their web sites, neither has seen fit to admit they fell for the false rumor against Delta Air Lines.

    Over the weekend I posted several comments to the Jihad Watch blog along with supporting facts about the false rumor and one reader went to the trouble to write an email to Delta for a clarification. The reader posted Delta's reply:

            Delta does not plan to codeshare or share Frequent Flier benefits with Saudi Arabian Airlines. Delta’s only agreement with Saudi Arabian Airlines is a standard industry interline agreement, which allows passengers to book tickets on multiple carriers, similar to the standard interline agreements that all U.S. legacy carriers have with Saudi Arabian Airlines. All of the three global airline alliances – Star, which includes United Airlines; oneworld, which includes American Airlines, and SkyTeam, which includes Delta – have members that fly to Saudi Arabia and are subject to that country’s rules governing entry.

            It is important to note that visa requirements to enter any country are dictated by that nation’s government, not the airlines, and they apply to anyone entering the country regardless of whether it’s by plane, bus or train. We, like all international airlines, are required to comply with all applicable laws governing entry into every country we serve.

    I even went to Delta's web site and downloaded a map of their routes to the Middle East and found that none of their flights go to Saudi Arabia. In fact, Saudi Arabia isn't even mentioned. Delta has only one flight to any Muslim country and that is Dubai. Anyone can easily confirm that Delta doesn't fly to Saudi Arabia by calling their reservations office at 1-800-221-1212 and ask them. Apparently, non of these bloggers bothered to do so.

    Finally, one major news outlet, The Associated Press, reported a story that clarified the issue. The story was carried by Yahoo News, Canada.

            Delta doesn't fly to Saudi Arabia, but the Internet does; some upset over Saudi visa policies
            The Canadian PressBy Joshua Freed, The Associated Press | The Canadian Press – Fri, 24 Jun, 2011

            Delta Air Lines found itself with a public-relations headache after the online world lit up with talk that the airline wouldn't fly Jews to Saudi Arabia.

            That's not true. Saudi Arabia decides who gets in the country and who doesn't, not the airlines. Delta doesn't even fly there. Still, by Friday, a U.S. senator wanted an investigation, Delta was professing its tolerance, and some Twitter users called for went so far as to mention a boycott.

            “Saudi Arabia decides who gets in the country and who doesn't, not the airlines. Delta doesn't even fly there. Because Saudi Arabian Airlines is becoming a member of SkyTeam, Delta was singled out in reports that ran Thursday and were passed around social media. U.S. carriers already partner with other airlines that fly to Saudi Arabia, including Air France and the German airline Lufthansa.”

    Now it seems that many conservative bloggers, many of whom I have respected, have succumbed to the same dilemma liberals have, they cannot admit when they made a mistake.

    You should all be suspicious about the source of rumors and what may be behind them and what hidden agenda the perpetrators have. Delta is a mostly non-union company and has had numerous efforts by organized labor fail to get the workers to join them. Unions are mostly pro-Democrat and it would be well to their advantage to kill two birds with one stone if they could get a bunch of conservative bloggers to make fools of themselves spreading a false rumor. And what better way to serve Democrat's purpose than to destroy the credibility of the conservative bloggers with the 2012 elections looming in the near future.

    Think about it.

    I discovered that after I posted lengthy arguments about the primary fact in this controversy: i.e. Delta Air Lines does not fly to Saudi Arabia and does not codeshare with any airline that does, that some are now taking the view that this is all a hypothetical situation. “Oh, yeah, if they're not doing it now then they probably will do it in the future.”

     That is not the way Jihad Watch started to write about it. The first posting by Jihad Watch carried the title: "Delta Airlines adds Saudi airline to partner companies, will uphold "No Jew" policy on flights to kingdom and quoted a comment by Rabbi Jason Miller in the liberal blog Huffington Post that had a most inflammatory title: ""Delta Adopts Saudi Arabian Airlines' No Jew Policy,"".

     That completely false story set off a firestorm of protests blaming an innocent American company for something they did not do. Dozens of raging posts then maligned Delta for giving travelers some useful advise about visiting Saudi Arabia, even though they did not provide service to that despicable country.

     Now it seems that many conservative bloggers, many of whom I have respected, have succumbed to the same dilemma liberals have, they cannot admit when they made a mistake.

     Well, today, the controversy still rages on but a few sparks of light have begun to appear. Some web site/news agencies have begun to report the fact that Delta has been seriously maligned by false accusations. Delta's web site now has this update on the story:

Media coverage says criticism was unfair
June 25, 2011

Major media outlets across the United States are publishing stories that say the Internet and mainstream coverage about Saudi Arabia travel policies included unfair criticism of airlines.

   1. "‘Delta has been unfairly singled out,’ says travel expert Henry Harteveldt, a Jewish American and a vice president of Forrester Research. ‘We may find a lot of Saudi Arabia's policies unpleasant and not agree with them, but any airline flying into any country is obliged to act by the rules of that country,’" USA Today reported.

Joe Brancatelli, a business travel columnist for Portfolio.com, said in the same story that “criticism of Delta's SkyTeam relationship with Saudi Arabian Airlines may have been blown out of proportion, and Delta may have been the victim of misinformation.”

The headline to Scott McCartney’s blog in The Wall Street Journal said “Blame Saudi Arabia, Not Delta.”

“There have been so many stories running around websites accusing Delta Air Lines of banning Jews from flights to Saudi Arabia that it’s worth clarifying. … ” McCartney said in his “Middle Seat” column. “It would be the same on Lufthansa or British Airways or Air France flights to Riyadh, or for that matter on their U.S. code-sharing partners – United, US Airways or American. Without a visa, American won’t board you for a flight to London if your ticket connects you to Saudi Arabia. In terms of airline policy, there’s nothing new.”

A story by The Associated Press offered a similar explanation.

“Saudi Arabia decides who gets in the country and who doesn't, not the airlines. Delta doesn't even fly there. Because Saudi Arabian Airlines is becoming a member of SkyTeam, Delta was singled out in reports that ran Thursday and were passed around social media. U.S. carriers already partner with other airlines that fly to Saudi Arabia, including Air France and the German airline Lufthansa.”

A spokesman for the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington, says Americans of all religions, including Jewish Americans, will be issued visas for entry into Saudi Arabia. Until 1994, visas were denied to Americans holding passports with a stamp showing a visit to Israel, but that practice has ended more than 15 years ago.

Delta provided media outlets with a statement Friday.

“Delta Air Lines does not discriminate nor do we condone discrimination against any of our customers in regards to age, race, nationality, religion, or gender,” Delta said in the statement.“Delta does not operate service to Saudi Arabia and does not codeshare with any airline on flights to that country. Delta does not intend to codeshare or share reciprocal benefits, such as frequent flier benefits, with Saudi Arabian Airlines, which we have confirmed with SkyTeam, an Amsterdam-based 14-member global airline alliance.”

Delta’s only agreement with Saudi Arabian Airlines is a standard industry interline agreement, which allows passengers to book tickets on multiple carriers, similar to the standard interline agreements American Airlines, US Airways and Alaska Airlines have with Saudi Arabian Airlines, the statement said. “All of the three global airline alliances – Star, which includes United Airlines; oneworld, which includes American Airlines, and SkyTeam, which includes Delta – have members that fly to Saudi Arabia and are subject to that country’s rules governing entry.”

     And I even found a Jewish news web site that published the true facts. Vos Iz Neias, The voice of the Orthodox Jewish Community wrote this:

New York - Misinformation Over Delta, Saudi Arabia Airline Alliance Continues

New York - Delta Air Lines found itself with a public-relations headache after the online world lit up with talk that the airline wouldn’t fly Jews to Saudi Arabia.

That’s not true. Saudi Arabia decides who gets in the country and who doesn’t, not the airlines. Delta doesn’t even fly there. Still, by Friday, a U.S. senator wanted an investigation, Delta was professing its tolerance, and some Twitter users called for went so far as to mention a boycott.

To explain:

Saudi Arabian Airlines is joining the SkyTeam Alliance, which includes Delta. So, it’s possible that, starting next year, a traveler could buy an airline ticket that starts with a flight on Delta and ends with a flight on Saudi Arabian Airlines into Saudi Arabia.

Delta, like all airlines, asks travelers before they leave whether they have a visa to enter the country they’re flying to. Yes? Welcome aboard. No? Sorry, you’re not going anywhere.

Saudi Arabia, like all countries that require a visa for entry, decides who gets one. Airlines don’t know why a visa was denied, only that the traveler doesn’t have one.

The U.S. State Department says some Americans have reported being refused a Saudi visa because their passport reflected travel to Israel or that they were born in Israel. Also, Saudi Arabia’s visa application asks the traveler’s religion, causing some to suspect that putting down “Jewish” or for that matter “atheist” will hurt their chances of getting a visa. Saudi Arabia, like several countries, does not recognize Israel.

Because Saudi Arabian Airlines is becoming a member of SkyTeam, Delta was singled out in reports that ran Thursday and were passed around social media. U.S. carriers already partner with other airlines that fly to Saudi Arabia, including Air France and the German airline Lufthansa.

On Friday, Republican Sen. Mark Kirk said he wrote to the Federal Aviation Administration to ask for an investigation into whether Delta “violated U.S. law or regulation and to ensure no U.S. citizen is denied their right to fly solely on the basis of their religion.”

Delta said on Friday that it does not discriminate, and pointed out that it doesn’t fly to Saudi Arabia or codeshare with any airline that does. It said it does not plan to codeshare with Saudi Arabian Airlines. (A codeshare is when an airline places its flight designator, or “code,” onto a flight operated by a different airline. The arrangement allows airlines to sell tickets on each other’s flights.) Delta does have what’s called an “interline agreement” with Saudi Arabian Airlines, which allows tickets to be sold that include multiple airlines for multiple legs of the trip.

Saudi Arabia also bars travelers from bringing in “pornographic materials or publications that violate the social norms of decency.” The U.S. State Department tells travelers that Saudi officials ban “any item that is held to be contrary to the tenets of Islam, such as pork products and pornography. Imported and domestic audiovisual media and reading matter are censored.”

It also said that Christmas decorations, fashion magazines, and videos considered suggestive by Saudi officials may be confiscated and the owner subject to penalties and fines.

While airlines check for passports and visas, they don’t ask travelers about items that might be prohibited by the destination country.

Earlier this month Delta faced a public outcry after two soldiers complained in a video posted on YouTube that their unit returning from Afghanistan was charged $200 each to check a fourth bag. Delta ended up changing its baggage policy to allow four bags for free for troops in coach.

     So now all there is left is for all of these bloggers to admit that they made a mistake, fell for a false rumor started on a liberal web site and, gosh, maybe even offer an apology for falsely maligning a good American company.

Yesterday, the web site Gateway Pundit ran a story about a British owned company that makes the popular brand of Rum called Captain Morgan and how this company received $2.7 Billion dollars from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). I know another side of this story that wasn’t reported and that is the purpose of this commentary. The underlying principle of smart business has always been to make a profit using other people’s money so no one can blame the owners of Captain Morgan, Diageo Plc for going along with the idea. The second principle of smart business is to utilize the cheapest labor available to produce your products so when government conspires to provide business with a cheap labor pool and uses that as an incentive to attract business the incidental fallout is felt in many areas.

Gateway Pundit begins by quoting a story from a 2009 report in the investment newspaper Bloomberg about how the Federal government succeeded in convincing Diageo Plc to relocate its Captain Morgan distillery from the US territory of Puerto Rico to another US territory on the island of St. Croiz in the Virgin Islands. Not only did our Congress approve of paying for the move but gave them a new facility and billions of dollars of tax incentives.

Bailout of U.S. Banks Gives British Rum a $2.7 Billion Benefit

By Ryan J. Donmoyer - June 26, 2009 00:01 EDT

June 26 (Bloomberg) -- In June 2008, U.S. Virgin Islands Governor John deJongh Jr. agreed to give London-based Diageo Plc billions of dollars in tax incentives to move its production of Captain Morgan rum from one U.S. island -- Puerto Rico -- to another, namely St. Croix.

DeJongh says he had no idea his deal would help make the world’s largest liquor distiller the most unlikely beneficiary of the emergency Troubled Asset Relief Program approved by Congress just four months later.

Today, as two 56-foot-high (17-meter-high) tanks for holding fermenting molasses will soon rise from the ground on the Caribbean island of St. Croix, the extent to which dozens of nonbank companies benefited from last October’s emergency financial rescue plan is just beginning to come to light.

Then Gateway Pundit went further into the subject and quoted another story that appeared in The LA Times also in 2009 and while both stories contain a wealth of detail on the financial arrangement there is one critical point that was overlooked. That point is that all of the officials that made the arrangements and approvals worked for the US government and the hidden benefit to the willing recipient of our generosity was a larger pool of low income workers.

Captain Morgan may set sail for tax benefits

The rum brand's parent firm, Diageo, would receive advantages worth $2.7 billion under a deal to move production to the Virgin Islands from Puerto Rico.
September 02, 2009|Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten

WASHINGTON — Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

With little fanfare, a deal is moving forward to provide billions in tax dollars and tax breaks to an unlikely beneficiary -- the giant British liquor producer that makes Captain Morgan rum.

Under the agreement, Diageo in London will receive tax credits and other benefits worth $2.7 billion over 30 years, including the $165-million cost of building a state-of-the-art distillery on the island of St. Croix in the Virgin Islands, a U.S. territory.

Virgin Islands officials say the arrangement complies with the letter and spirit of tax law and will help the islands' sagging economy.

Captain Morgan is now produced in the U.S. commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and critics say the Virgin Islands' subsidy for the new distillery, along with the other benefits, is so generous that it practically guarantees a profit on every gallon of rum produced there by Diageo, the biggest distilled spirits maker in the world.

"The U.S. taxpayer is basically being asked to line the pockets of the world's largest liquor producer," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog organization.

When considering the demographics of all of the locations involved it seems that a convincing argument could have been made that would not have involved shelling out $2.7 Billion dollars of US funds that we eventually had to borrow from China in the first place. The previous distillery and bottling plant on Puerto Rico operated by Captain Morgan rum was likely experiencing higher operating costs due to the rising per capita income of $19,600. Puerto Rico, an island of 3,515 sq mi, with a population of 3,725,789 was running out of cheap labor. So why would a British company locate a major facility on US territory instead of on one of the other British island territories nearby? Again, the demographics tell the story. The British Virgin Islands, 59 square miles, has a population 27,000. The economy of the British Virgin Islands is one of the most prosperous in the Caribbean. According to the CIA World Factbook, in 2004 the Territory had the 12th highest GDP per capita in the world at $38,500. And, then there is Bermuda, 20.6 square miles, population 67,837. But according to the CIA World Factbook, Bermuda has the 4th highest per capita income in the world of $69,900, so neither of these places would be profitable to locate a plant that depended on low income labor.
 
I have personally visited the island of St. Thomas in the US Virgin Islands on two occasions. The capital city of Charlotte Amalie, is a Duty Free port and a popular destination for cruise ships. High quality goods manufactured in foreign countries can be purchased there for substantial discounts because there is no import duty fees imposed by U.S. Customs. At the time I was there a store called Little Switzerland was the world’s largest seller of Rolex watches. But there was also a dark side to this island paradise. Besides the duty-free shops the principle businesses are the hotel resorts scattered around the island’s crystal-clear waters but in between there is an alarming amount of squalor and poverty. Traveling by hotel taxis from the resorts to the city we passed by miles and miles of poor roads lined with hundreds of shacks with rusted corrugated metal walls and roofs that were obviously the homes of the thousands of low paid workers.

Now, as a retired airline employee, I have also traveled to the island of Bermuda which happens to be a British overseas territory and another island paradise. But the comparison between Bermuda and the island of St. Thomas ends with the beautiful beaches and sparkling water. While both islands consist of a number of different towns and cities, overall, Bermuda has the appearance of being a clean, well-run community of upper middle-class residents while St. Thomas, outside of the resort areas, appears more like an impoverished ghetto of welfare recipients. The per capita incomes of both islands confirm their physical appearance. St. Thomas, 31.24 square miles, population 51,181 and St. Croix, 82.88 square miles, population 60,000 have a combined per capita income of only $13,139. I have never traveled to the sister island of St. Croix but I did hear there is far less commercial development there than is found on St. Thomas. Apart from benefiting the local economy a convincing argument could have been made just on the basis of the available low income work force but our government under the direction of Barack Hussein Obama decided to do the only thing it knows how - throw away a ton of money.

Using cheap labor as an incentive to attract business is also used by a few stateside governments, as well. A few years ago the governor of Kentucky actually bragged about the low income labor force that Kentucky had to offer. He mentioned that fact after convincing a company to relocate here. People willing to work for low income wages usually come from places that have poor education. So the ability to create the former often depends on the later. That would be another subject all its own.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Comparing a shirtless Congressman to Kentucky Patriot Act wimps.

At the beginning of the Civil War the Commonwealth of Kentucky was officially neutral and did not side with either the North or the South. Never-the-less, Kentucky was a border state of key importance in the American Civil War. President Abraham Lincoln recognized the importance of the Commonwealth when he declared "I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky."

Today, the battle to save our Republic still needs God on our side and we also need to have courageous Republicans to stand up and defend our Constitution. To our complete disgrace we seem to have neither.

The U.S. House of Representatives DEFEATED legislation to extend three of the so-called “PATRIOT” Act’s controversial provisions. The vote taken two days ago to give an extension to The Patriot Act, a hastily drawn law that suspends the Constitutional rights of American citizens at the whim of whatever power controls the nation, failed to pass but the vote tally shows that 210 Republicans voted in favor of the extension. Among those 210 Republicans, who probably never read Benjamin Franklin's grave warning: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.", were Kentucky's entire delegation of representatives:

Ed Whitfield -  Kentucky, 1st District
Brett Guthrie  -  Kentucky, 2nd District
John Yarmuth  -  Kentucky, 3rd District
Geoff Davis  -  Kentucky, 4th District
Hal Rogers  -  Kentucky, 5th District
Ben Chandler  -  Kentucky, 6th District  

In case you are unfamiliar with just what The Patriot Act was able to do, here is a brief list of some of the worst provisions:

• Roving, warrantless wiretaps of virtually EVERY form of electronic communication used by U.S. citizens.

• Secret federal searches without warrants OR knowledge of the resident.

• Blanket warrants for the search and seizure of all library records, without naming individual suspects or providing probable cause.

• Judicial warrants replaced with “National Security Letters” signed by unaccountable Obama Administration bureaucrats and gag orders for those served with these letters which make it illegal to tell anyone about it -- including your spouse and your priest!

• Drastic expansion of the definition of “domestic terrorism,” which is sure to include gun owners.

• Expands asset seizure to permit the taking of assets from anyone “suspected” of terrorism, even if that person is NEVER charged or sent to trial

• Lone wolf provisions which allow the government to spy on ANYONE even if they’re not associated with a terrorist organization or foreign national, without due process or notification.

Now word comes out of another Republican who also voted in favor of extending The Patriot Act, Congressman Christopher Lee (Republican, NY 26th C.D.), has suddenly submitted his resignation. This two-term politician who supposedly campaigned on "family values" got himself into a very embarrassing situation after the web site Gawker revealed he had sent a shirtless photo of himself to a woman who advertised on Craigslist.

The woman described as a 34-year-old Maryland resident and government employee provided the Gawker website with e-mails she said were an exchange between her and Lee in response to an ad she placed last month in the "Women Seeking Men" section of Craigslist.

These are not the kind of people we expected to get to stand up for us and I'm sure they are all an embarrassment to the Republican Party. The Tea Party movement wanted people of good character and a strong backbone to carry on our battle in Congress. People who were familiar with American History and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. People who both read and understood the words in the U.S. Constitution and, in particular, The Bill of Rights.  There is nothing funny about big government and Congress is not the place to play games. There is a definite evil presence in our country today and to fight it you do not play nice.

When fighting the bad guys it always pays to have a bigger weapon than they have. Like the popular expression says: "If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun." But what happens if you create a powerful weapon and let the "bad guys" use it? That is what The Patriot Act was and is, a very powerful weapon. So powerful you would have to worry that the "bad guys" ever got to use it. So who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys"? That's a really good question and the answer is very simple. The vast majority of American citizens are the "good guys". We obey the laws, show love and respect for our flag and our country and serve in our Armed Forces to protect us. I'll bet that you think you know who the "bad guys" are and if you have those radical Muslim terrorists who hijacked four airliners on Sept. 11, 2001 in mind, you would be right.

It was in the months after that attack that Congress first put together a hastily drawn law to help weed out and identify other terrorist groups. They called the law The Patriot Act. America had been attacked and we were at war and our politicians had to do something about it. But then we had a few elections afterward and some new people took control of our government and things began to change. The new people (the Dept. of Homeland Security) decided to identify who they thought would be the type of people that would become future terrorists and harm Americans. They started saying that people who followed the Pro-Life movement and had bumper stickers on their cars condemning abortion were dangerous. They began to say that anyone who supported our Second Amendment rights were bad. They said that proponents of third party political movements, even though unnamed were considered to be Libertarian's or Conservatives and maybe even the Tea Party, were suspected of having a radical agenda. In other words, these new people running our government were watching - us!

In case you are unfamiliar with just what The Patriot Act was able to do, here is a brief list of some of the worst provisions:

• Roving, warrantless wiretaps of virtually EVERY form of electronic communication used by U.S. citizens.

• Secret federal searches without warrants OR knowledge of the resident.

• Blanket warrants for the search and seizure of all library records, without naming individual suspects or providing probable cause.

• Judicial warrants replaced with “National Security Letters” signed by unaccountable Obama Administration bureaucrats and gag orders for those served with these letters which make it illegal to tell anyone about it -- including your spouse and your priest!

• Drastic expansion of the definition of “domestic terrorism,” which is sure to include gun owners.

• Expands asset seizure to permit the taking of assets from anyone “suspected” of terrorism, even if that person is NEVER charged or sent to trial

• Lone wolf provisions which allow the government to spy on ANYONE even if they’re not associated with a terrorist organization or foreign national, without due process or notification.

Last night the House of Representatives were called upon to authorize an extension of The Patriot Act. It failed.

Stupidity is killing the Republican Party 

Stupid is as Stupid Does 

An open letter to Geoff Davis, (R, 4th CD KY)

Thank GOD some of the people we sent to Washington had the right mind to deny this terrible threat another extension.

Divide and Conquer - How the Tea Party movement must avoid defeat.

Following a successful conspiratorial effort in 2007 among several hundred Left Wing journalists working in consort with a sympathetic news media to denounce and discredit the Republican Party, America went to the polls in November 2008 and elected its first Marxist/socialist president and gave him an overwhelming Democrat majority in both houses of Congress. With absolutely no checks and balances to hinder their efforts, these power-crazed Democrats immediately began to bankrupt the American economy and trash the Constitution of the United States. Somewhat slow to realize what was happening around them, the American people soon became a once sleeping giant now wide-awake and the Tea Party movement virtually exploded upon the American political scene in 2009.

Some background on the origin of the Tea Party:

The Tea Party movement acquired its name from the original Boston Tea Party in 1773 that precipitated the first American Revolution with a protest against British taxes on the Colonists and led to the Declaration of Independence. Two excerpts from Wikipedia explain the first critical developments of the Tea Party.

"On January 19, 2009, stock-trader Graham Makohoniuk posted a casual invitation on the financial message board market-ticker.org to "Mail a tea bag to congress and to senate"."

"On February 19, 2009, in a broadcast from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, CNBC Business News editor Rick Santelli criticized the government plan to refinance mortgages, which had just been announced the day before. He said that those plans were, "promoting bad behavior," by, "subsidizing losers' mortgages." He suggested holding a tea party for traders to gather and dump the derivatives in the Chicago river on July 1. A number of the derivative traders around him cheered on his proposal, to the apparent amusement of the hosts in the studio. Video of Santelli's 'rant' went viral after it received a "red siren" headline on the news aggregation website, Drudge Report."

Protests against big government sprang up everywhere. The sleeping giant was now wide-awake. In their Hell-bent race to bankrupt and socialize America the Democrats rammed one piece of legislation after another through Congress such as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Federal Reserve Transparency Act and a series of health care reform bills. The highlight of the Tea Party movement culminated in the march on Washington, D.C. on September 12, 2009 in the Take Back America campaign and two million Americans from all over the country traveled at their own expense to be there.

The effect of the Tea Party movement was astounding. Soon afterward, WorldNet Daily News, one of the most prominent conservative news sites on the Internet organized a Pink Slip campaign putting every member of Congress on notice that they will be fired if they support this socialist legislation. When the campaign ended over 10-million slips had been delivered to every elected member of Congress. The immediate result of the Pink Slips was that a growing number of liberal Democrats and a few equally liberal RINO's (Republicans In Name Only) began to announce they would not seek reelection in November 2010.

The Pink Slip campaign was organized by Joseph Farah, CEO and editor of WorldNet Daily News and any citizen can order a set of Pink Slips to be delivered to every member of Congress for $29.95. Click this link to place your order: http://superstore.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=3251

Janet Porter, founder and president of Faith2Action and one of the organizers behind the "pink slips" campaign, was at a news conference today in Washington where U.S. Reps. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn.; Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Steve King, R-Iowa; and Trent Franks, R-Ariz., hailed the effort as an innovative new vehicle for the American people to express themselves to members of Congress.

The distinct advantage the conservatives have is in the blogosphere. While the liberals control the mainstream news media, the conservatives control the Internet.

There are several conservative news sources that I read every day and the strange thing about them is they all do not seem to like each other. I won't begin to mention who they are except to note the latest flap going on now between Ann Coulter, the conservative author, speaker and columnist and Joseph Farah,  CEO and editor of WorldNet Daily News. It seems that Mr. Farah is something of a puritanical blue-nose who takes a strong dislike to people of alternate lifestyles. Mr. Farah has organized a Taking Back America Conference to be held in Miami on Sept. 17th, and he did not like the fact that Ann Coulter accepted a speaking engagement before a group of Gay Republican conservatives so he dumped her off the list of speakers at his event. Here is how Ann Coulter defended herself as quoted from WorldNet Daily News:

"I speak at Harvard and I certainly don't endorse their views. I've spoken to Democratic groups and liberal Republican groups that loooove abortion. The main thing I do is speak on college campuses, which is about the equivalent of speaking at an al-Qaida conference. I'm sure I agree with GOProud more than I do with at least half of my college audiences. But in any event, giving a speech is not an endorsement of every position held by the people I'm speaking to. I was going to speak for you guys, I think you're nuts on the birther thing (though I like you otherwise!)."

I happen to agree with Ann Coulter. When it comes time for all patriotic Americans to stand side by side in the trenches I don't really care if the person next to me fighting our common enemy has a different view on who he or she should live with. As I pointed out to Mr. Farah in a letter to the editor, which they did not print:

What an interesting contradiction. First, Joseph Farah drops Ann Coulter from a Tea Party conference because she took a speaking engagement with a group of gay conservative Republicans. Now, WorldNet Daily is shilling a new book by executive vice president of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, in spite of the fact that the NRA endorsed and help get elected 52 Democrats in 2008 and is currently praising Democrat Senator Harry Reid instead of supporting Tea Party Republican Sharron Angle in Nevada.

In my world we call that hypocrisy, so Mr. Farah, in spite of your noble objectives, that makes you a hypocrite.

What we all need to do is put aside our petty differences and realize that the only way we can win our battle in November to take back our country is to work together to fight our common enemy. We must avoid at all costs the worst thing that could happen, that we become divided and fail. We have got the enemy on the run and cannot allow anything to distract us from the pursuit. We must avoid snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

And speaking about Ann Coulter's remark about Mr. Farah's "birther thing" here is another letter I wrote to WorldNet Daily News that they did publish on their web site:

Chris W. Cox has been getting a lot of nasty emails lately. He said so in the August issue of American Rifleman. The July issue of American Rifleman magazine had a glowing two-page spread about how much the NRA appreciates the hard work that Nevada Senator Harry Reid has done for gun owners. My response to this bull crap was to say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, and to resign my 42-year long, Benefactor level Life Membership. Consider the time lag in printed publications that is almost 3-months long, those letters and emails from NRA members complaining about some of the questionable endorsements had to have been written well before the July issue that praised the Democrat from Nevada. I can only guess what the mail room at NRA headquarters at 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, Virginia must look like today. 

So now I have read the latest posting from Chris W. Cox on his web site dated July 7, 2010, NRA-PVF ENDORSEMENTS NOT YET ANNOUNCED IN ANY U.S. SENATE RACE FOR NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION. When he gets around to mentioning Democrat Harry Reid, he says: "Admittedly, Senator Reid’s record is not perfect; few politicians’ records are.   For a number of years (primarily in the 1990s) Sen. Reid had some problematic votes on our issue." Mr. Cox then proceeds to describe a few of Reid's pro-gun accomplishments in recent years and finishes by giving this warning. "All of which leads to a very serious question for all NRA members and gun owners who oppose Sen. Reid to contemplate: who would take Reid’s place if he loses his race—and his critically important position as Senate Majority Leader?  Remember, the Senate Majority Leader is the gatekeeper who decides which legislation will be considered on the Senate floor.  If Sen. Reid loses, the next candidate for Majority Leader is very likely to be Chuck Schumer or Richard Durbin—two of the most anti-gun U.S. Senators in history!"

Doesn't this sound like the NRA is assuming the Democrats will keep their control over Congress after the mid-term elections in November? The NRA has put all their eggs in one basket after they endorsed 53 Democrats in 2008 and they don't want to admit they made a big-a** mistake in giving total control of the government to the most anti-gun political party in American history. Now it seems the NRA is burying their collective heads in the sand by ignoring the Tea Party movement and the taxpayer revolt that has been sweeping across America. Every political writer is predicting the Democrats will loose their majority in the House and may well loose it in the Senate so Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer or Richard Durbin don't stand a chance of becoming the next Senate Majority Leader. 

Single-issue organizations like the NRA must be held accountable for the consequences of their endorsements. Those 52 Democrats they helped get elected in 2008 have voted along side their left-wing cohorts to cram one socialist piece of legislation after another down our throats and the American people are about to toss them out of office. You would think the NRA would get the message when 50,000 people staged a protest in Harry Reid's home town of Searchlight, Nevada a few months ago. That's some crowd seen in the aerial photos below.

Maybe that was too far away from their Virginia office complex to notice. Maybe then they should have paid attention when 2-million American citizens went to Washington, D.C. for their taxpayer protest on September 12, 2009. Hey, Chris, if you missed it, here is what it looked like.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Is the NRA about to commit the ultimate treachery against gun owners?

   
If you read my bio you will know that I have been a proud member of the National Rifle Association for over 42 years. In fact, I have been a Life Member since 1968 and in the last 15 years have elevated my status from Life Member to Endowment level membership to Patron level membership to my current Benefactor level membership which is the highest level anyone can attain outside of actual employment with the NRA. I have willing supported the goals of the NRA over the years because I have recognized that they are the foremost supporter of 2nd Amendment gun rights in America. My support of the NRA has been a bumpy ride over the last 42 years due to the changing leadership of this organization. In the mid 1970s a group of elite intellectuals gained control of the NRA and began a campaign of smearing conservative, right-wing groups who in actuality were among their biggest supporters. The NRA, out of necessity, has always been a politically driven organization because politics either protects or threatens our rights and freedoms and liberty.

Is the NRA about to commit the ultimate treachery against gun owners? Or are they about to do the stupidest thing in the history of their existence?

The bold fact is that the NRA is a recognized force that influences its 3-million plus membership to vote for political candidates that purport to endorse the rights of gun owners. The downside of this is that the NRA is a single-issue group that does not judge any other aspect of the candidates qualifications. It is also blind to the reality of political affiliations. Two years ago the NRA gave its endorsement to 54 so-called Blue Dog Democrats running for Congress. These Blue Dog Democrats were supposed to be center right conservatives. In the 2008 landslide that elected a Marxist Socialist far-left candidate named Barack Hussein Obama, 53 of those Democrats endorsed by the NRA were also elected. The result of that election has given the Democrats total control of our government. The Democrat majority proceeded to pick Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House and Senator Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader. We have seen how these two leaders have ramrodded one ultra-liberal piece of legislation after another through Congress that were encouraged by and willingly signed into law by the White House. In fact, the tax and spend policies of Reid and Pelosi have had such a dramatic impact on the citizens of this country that it gave birth to the Tea Party movement and the Take Back America campaign that brought together millions of protesters.

There is a rule of thumb used by many conservative groups to evaluate political candidates. It is how they stand on a core group of issues. A candidate must not only support the 2nd Amendment, they must be Pro-Life, pro Constitution, for limited government and support and defend American sovereignty. These combined issues produce candidates of good character that can be trusted. The NRA uses only one of these issues to pass judgment on a candidate and is seemingly ignorant of the implications surrounding party affiliation. To be a candidate for elected office in any political party an individual must swear allegiance to the party platform in order to have the support of the party. The platform of the national Democratic Party often reads like the communist manifesto with its pro-socialist agenda. The platform of the national Republican party is just the opposite. 

Now we have another ultra-liberal, Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State who has just signed the United Nations treaty to ban small gun ownership. This treaty needs to be passed by the United States Senate and if it does, some informed people fear it will abrogate our rights under the U.S. Constitution. Barack Hussein Obama wants this ban on gun ownership applied to all Americans. Obama is Harry Reid's boss and it will be Harry Reid's job to push this treaty through the Senate.

Senator Harry Reid is up for reelection in Nevada this coming November and the Tea Party has shown great strength in supporting his opposing candidate. Reid is in trouble and he knows it so he has been pandering to the NRA to get their endorsement. The current issue of the NRA magazine American Rifleman has a lengthy story praising Harry Reid for his efforts to have a large shooting range built outside of Las Vegas. Newsmax, the conservative magazine and Internet news group has recently stated that Harry Reid is boasting of a comfortable relationship with the NRA. Will the NRA return the favor for Reid's help in getting the shooting range built by giving him their endorsement? God help us if they do.

I wrote a letter on May 9th to Cris Cox, Chairman of the NRA Political Victory Fund that I would like to share with you.

NRA Political Victory Fund
Chris W. Cox, Chairman

Dear Mr. Cox,

I don’t usually pay attention to rumors but this one has some disturbing facts and I couldn’t put it aside. Two years ago, the NRA endorsed 54 so-called Blue Dog Democrats for Congress and I read that 53 of them were elected. This fact enabled the Democrats to gain control of Congress and Nancy Pelosi to become the Speaker of the House. As a citizen of the United States and a conservative American I am aware of the consequences that have happened since: We all now face the most anti-gun administration in the history of America.

Now, if the following report proves to be true and the NRA endorses Harry Reid, you can count on at least three things to happen.

1. I will submit my resignation to the NRA and end my 42 year long Life Membership and present Benefactor level status.
2. I will write endless blogs denouncing your treasonous acts against patriotic gun-owning Americans.
3. I predict that my reaction will be shared by a large percentage of other NRA members, many of whom may also be followers of the Tea Party movement.

In light of this Newsmax report, below, I am withholding all contributions to NRA-PVF.

    Regards,
  
    Nelson F. Abdullah

article from Newsmax 5-9-2010

NRA Still Loves Harry Reid

The National Rifle Association has a record of supporting far more Republicans than Democrats, but there’s one powerful Democrat who has a not-so-secret admirer in the NRA — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The NRA hasn’t officially endorsed Sen. Reid, who is facing a tough re-election battle in Nevada, but the gun rights group “really loves” Reid, an NRA insider tells Newsmax.

Even as tea partyers rallied against Reid in his hometown of Searchlight, Nev., on March 27, Reid was joined by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre at the official grand opening of a $60 million shooting range Reid helped build north of Las Vegas.

“I know how you worked,” LaPierre said to Reid at the opening. “[This] would not have opened without the work of Sen. Reid.”

Reid’s re-election campaign describes LaPierre as “one of the senator’s supporters,” according to CNN.

Since his election to the Senate in 1986, Reid has consistently voted to protect the rights of gun owners and manufacturers:

    * In 1993, he was 1 of only 8 Democrats to vote against an assault weapons ban.
    * The following year he voted in favor of a bill preventing third-party lawsuits against gun manufacturers and distributors when their weapons are used illegally.
    * He voted against legislation that would have made it a federal crime to keep a gun unlocked and loaded for personal protection in the home.

The NRA sent a letter to its members in July 2009 stating that “for many years, Harry Reid has been supporting our Second Amendment rights in the U.S. Senate.”

At the opening of the shooting range, Reid donned ear plugs to test out his 12-gauge shotgun, Politics Daily reported. After the ribbon cutting, he autographed shell casings.

Will we see a miracle in Massachusetts?

Has the tidal wave of anti-Democrat resentment finally arrived? In a story this morning in the Boston Herald, it was reported that a recent poll has revealed Republican Scott Brown now has a 4% lead over Democrat Martha Coakley. This poll indicated a 19% surge for Mr. Brown who had been trailing Coakley as recently as a month ago. This is a three way race for U.S. Senator to fill the vacancy after the hero of Chappaquidick, Ted Kennedy died of brain cancer. The poll shows Republican Scott Brown with 50%, Democrat Martha Coakley with 46% and Libertarian Joseph L. Kennedy, no relation to Ted, with 3% and 1% undecided. The very low number of undecided voters in the poll is just as significant as the poll results for the Libertarian candidate as it is suspected that many of those leaning to the Libertarian candidate may cast their votes for the Republican next week on January 18th. 

Poll shocker: Scott Brown surges ahead in Senate race.

By Jessica Van Sack
Friday, January 15, 2010

Riding a wave of opposition to Democratic health-care reform, GOP upstart Scott Brown is leading in the U.S. Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows.

Although Brown’s 4-point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley is within the Suffolk University/7News survey’s margin of error, the underdog’s position at the top of the results stunned even pollster David Paleologos.

“It’s a Brown-out,” said Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center. “It’s a massive change in the political landscape.”

Thanks in part to the massive nation-wide protests by participants in the TEA Parties (Taxed Enough Already) last year, the American public has awakened from its stupor that allowed the Democrats to gain control of the Federal government. Intoxicated with their own power to do whatever they wanted, the Democrats began to reveal their true nature with a frantic race to pass the most Marxist/Socialist legislative transformation of the American Republic ever seen in our nation's history. Last year the first ripples of voter payback came when the solidly Democrat state of New Jersey elected a Republican governor in a landslide victory. On that same day, the state of Virginia voted in a Republican governor. In upstate New York, in the 23rd Congressional District race, the Democrat candidate was narrowly elected over the Conservative Party candidate after the left-wing Republican candidate dropped out of the race and threw her votes to the liberal Democrat.

The warning signs of voter resentment toward Democrats across the country has loomed heavily on the upcoming November elections and several key Democrats have already withdrawn their reelection bids. If Scott Brown wins the special election on Tuesday in Massachusetts it will send a clear signal that the Democrats are doomed. Thank God for giving our country a second chance to Take Back America.

Tora! Tora! Tora! in Massachusetts.

In the final scene of the 1970 movie Tora! Tora! Tora! about the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto, who planned and carried out the attack, says to a subordinate, "I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

We all know how the war with Japan ended four years after their attack. We vaporized two of their cities with atomic bombs. So much for American's terrible resolve!

Today, a year after the Democrats took control of America, they have revealed the true nature of their drunken libido by unleashing their intoxicated feeling of power. They have enjoyed their moment of glory and now the payback begins.

I cannot help but think many followers of this left-wing movement are now looking at the American voters in the same light as Admiral Yamamoto looked at America's resolve. The massive TEA Party movement and the Take Back America theme that brought over 2-million protesters to Washington, D.C. on September 12th last year have energized an enormous anti-Democrat force that has seen two Democrat governors lose their bid for re-election and two Democrat Senators and half a dozen Democrat Congressman decide not to run for re-election in November. Now we have the special election on Tuesday, January 19th for the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts to fill the vacancy after Ted Kennedy died of brain cancer. In a state that numbers Democrats 3 to 1 over Republicans, the Democrat candidate is trailing behind in the polls. In a state so liberal the voters, who couldn't hold Ted Kennedy accountable for his cowardly actions at Chappaquidick, are now dumping Democrat Coakley in favor of Republican Scott Brown. So popular has this race become that Republican Scott Brown has been getting a million dollars a day in campaign contributions from everywhere.

So desperate are the Democrats to shore up Martha Coakley's failing campaign they have decided to bring in the big guns to make one final push. Their great leader Obama, who will undoubtedly remind everyone of his own importance as he usually does wherever he speaks and Bill Clinton, who will take time off from his duties as special envoy to the U.N. that is supposed to be helping the earthquake victims in Haiti, will both make campaign appearances. I suspect their attempts will backfire. The voters aren't listening to this bull-sh*t anymore. 

With assistance from CAIR, Mohamed Bary’s new lawyer, Shayan "Shaytan" Elahi waged a legal battle in both the Ohio and Florida courts. When the Family Court in Columbus, Ohio claimed jurisdiction, Judge Daniel P. Dawson in Florida agreed that Rifqa should be returned to Ohio and placed in a temporary foster home. Most importantly Judge Dawson laid down the law and said in no uncertain terms that Rifqa would not be returned to Ohio until the Bary family immigration documents were produced. Complicating this is the fact that copies of Dept. of Homeland Security documents that have been leaked show that Mohamed Bary entered the U.S. illegally through Mexico and his application for amnesty were denied and he lost all his appeals. When CAIR’s lawyer filed their claims for the Bary family in Florida the Bary family committed perjury by making false statements about his immigration status.

Origins of the Fourth Estate.
 
Wikipedia defines the Fourth Estate
Fourth Estate is a term referring to the press. The term goes back at least to Thomas Carlyle in the first half of the 19th century. Thomas Macaulay used it in 1828.

Novelist Jeffrey Archer in his work The Fourth Estate made the observation: "In May 1789, Louis XVI summoned to Versailles a full meeting of the 'Estates General'. The First Estate consisted of three hundred clergy. The Second Estate, three hundred nobles. The Third Estate, six hundred commoners. Some years later, after the French Revolution, Edmund Burke, looking up at the Press Gallery of the House of Commons, said, 'Yonder sits the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all.'"

The problem with the news media today is that they are too willing to print what they are told to print; while at the same time too unwilling to ask questions, open doors or breath some fresh air into the smoke filled rooms.

The following quotes come from an article entitled “Is the Fourth Estate a Fifth Column?“ written by Bill Moyers, on In These Times, July 11, 2008. While much of the commentary in it were directed at the Bush administration, the observations are just as relevant today with the Obama administration. On Sunday, October 11, 2009 The New York Times quoted White House communications director Anita Dunn as saying of Fox News: “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent.”  To put it another way, all those who are not with me are against me.

Wikipedia defines a Fifth Column
A fifth column is a group of people who clandestinely undermine a larger group, such as a nation, from within, to the aid of an external enemy.

Is the Fourth Estate a Fifth Column?
Corporate media colludes with democracy’s demise
By Bill Moyers

Across the media landscape, the health of our democracy is imperiled. Buffeted by gale force winds of technological, political and demographic forces, without a truly free and independent press, this 250-year-old experiment in self-government will not make it. As journalism goes, so goes democracy.

The dominant media remains in denial about their role in passing on the government’s unverified claims as facts. That’s the great danger. It’s not simply that they dominate the story we tell ourselves publicly every day. It’s that they don’t allow other alternative competing narratives to emerge, against which the people could measure the veracity of all the claims.

Sadly, in many respects, the Fourth Estate has become the fifth column of democracy, colluding with the powers that be in a culture of deception that subverts the thing most necessary to freedom, and that is the truth.

Bill Moyers is the president of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy and the host of Bill Moyers Journal on PBS.

This article was adapted from Bill Moyers’ keynote address at the National Conference for Media Reform Conference in Minneapolis on June 7. You can read and respond to the full speech at www.pbs.org/moyers.

Read the complete article here:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3790/is_the_fourth_estate_a_fifth_column/