Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘conservative’

Americans for Prosperity has a letter from several national conservative leaders on the Democrats’ and Obama’s “bailout budget”.

National Conservative Leaders Speak Out on Obama’s “Bailout Budget”

A message from the following conservative leaders, representing the broader conservative movement:

Edwin Meese, former Attorney General
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform
David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union
Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity
David McIntosh, former U.S. Representative from Indiana
Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America
Alfred S. Regnery, publisher of The American Spectator

Obama’s Bailout Budget will Bankrupt Americans as it bails out government and special interests, adding $10,000 per family per year to the national debt for the next ten years.

The unprecedented massive spending in the budget proposed by President Barack Obama is simply a bailout for government and special interests. The National Energy Tax and other tax hikes take resources out of the hands of struggling working Americans to finance this bailout. In order to pay for this spending spree, the government will cause irresponsible increases in the deficit, bankrupt the country, and place crushing financial burdens on future generations.

• The president claims that Republicans with “short memories” caused the current debt problems, but in reality he plans to quadruple George W. Bush’s single largest deficit — the record-breaking 2008 deficit — in his first year. The proposed budget will add nearly $1,000,000,000,000 to the national debt every year for the next 10 years, or about $10,000 per family per year.

• The president’s spending measures are too much even for the freewheeling Senate Democrats, 12 of whom declared in a letter to the Budget Committee that “the deficits projected by CBO are simply not acceptable.”

• The Administration raises revenue for this orgy of spending through a series of new taxes, including a National Energy Tax which will impose a “light switch” tax of $3,128 a year on every American household – the same Americans whose taxes Obama promised to cut in the 2008 presidential campaign.

The Obama Administration is happy to present the middle class with the bill for a massive spending program designed to cover the government’s past irresponsibility and benefit key Democratic constituencies. While the President always focuses his rhetoric on the “failed” ideas of the Bush Administration, he doubles down on the exact kind of fiscal irresponsibility that led to the current downturn.

George Bush set records with a onerous deficit that surpassed $400,000,000,000, but Obama easily outdoes him in bankrupting the country with an initial planned deficit of $1,850,000,000,000 — roughly $6100 per man, woman, and child in the nation. Every budget through the next decade calls for deficits double Bush’s biggest deficit. This massive bout of overspending will finance Obama’s wildly expensive pet projects, but at tremendous costs to future generations.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

If you’ve ever had any dealings with editing a Wikipedia page, there’s no big shocker here.  WorldNetDaily reports on the “edit war” that has taken place over the Wikipedia entry of Barack Obama.

The short version is if your views are negative toward any person or company that the Wikipedia “administrators” seek to protect (like Obama or Google), then your entry will be deleted and your user name banned from the site.  Having an online encyclopedia that is maintained by its users may sound like a good idea, but, there is no real oversight of the “administrators” so it devolves into a left-wing, liberal supporting engine that seeks to protect its own while allowing conservative topics to be assaulted.

My conclusion: Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information and a great source of disinformation that marches to the beat of the liberal drum.

Eligibility issue sparks ‘edit war’

Wikipedia blocks users from posting criticism of Obama


Posted: March 09, 2009
8:42 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Portrait of President Obama featured on Wikipedia

A WND article reporting yesterday that Wikipedia had been scrubbing President Obama’s biography of criticism has resulted in an “edit war” on the website in which a large number of users were barred from posting on key issues, including any mention of challenges to Obama’s eligibility.

Ultimately, administrators at Wikipedia, the online “free encyclopedia” mega-site written and edited by its users, entirely locked Obama’s page so that only top editors could make changes to the entry – and only if a change is supported by a consensus of editors.

A perusal through Obama’s Wikipedia entry yesterday found a heavily guarded, mostly glowing biography about the U.S. president. Some of Obama’s most controversial past affiliations, including with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers, were not once mentioned, even though the associations received significant media attention and became themes during the presidential elections last year.

Also completely lacking is any mention of the concerns surrounding Obama’s eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief.

Following WND’s report on Obama’s Wikipedia page, the news outlet monitored the page as scores of users attempted to add entries about eligibility concerns, and the president’s past associations with Ayers and Wright. All attempts to post on Ayers or Obama’s birth certificate were removed within minutes by the site’s volunteer administrators.

One mention of Wright was finally allowed. Obama’s page currently states, “Obama resigned from Trinity [United Church of Christ] during the Presidential campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public.”

The Wikipedia entry does not currently outline some of Wright’s remarks, such as exclaiming “God damn America,” claiming the 9-11 attacks signified “America’s chickens” were “coming home to roost” or telling congregants the U.S. government invented the HIV virus as a means of “genocide” against black people.

Following a large volume of attempted postings on controversial issues, administrators yesterday placed a “protection” lock on Obama’s page, informing non-administrators that new postings would not be allowed until “disputes have been resolved.”

Meanwhile, WND was inundated with e-mails from Wikipedia users yesterday stating their recent attempts to edit Obama’s page were blocked. Some said they believed the site to be “biased” in favor of Obama. A sampling of e-mails included:

  • “As soon as Wikipedia found out I was conservative leaning and on the national lists of the righties, they banned me,” wrote author Mark Paul Seber
  • “Thought you might be interested to know that Wikipedia’s ‘Family of Barack Obama’ page contains inaccuracies about his paternal family relations and that when I tried to add the correct info it, too, was removed/changed,” wrote an anonymous WND reader.
  • “Before the election I was banned from Wikipedia multiple times for trying to post a picture of Obama and Odinga in Kenya on Odinga’s Wikipedia site,” commented WND reader “Don.”
  • “Back in January, I posted to Obama’s ‘talk page’ – not the main entry, just the talk page. My post pointed out that FactCheck is lying about the 10/31 statement from the Hawaii Dep’t of Health. I didn’t go into speculation. As a result, my username was permanently blocked, what I posted was deleted, and a “conflict of interest” notice was placed on my old user page,” wrote another anonymous reader.
  • “What you are looking at regarding the Barrack (sic) Obama article on Wikipedia is a ‘liberalization’ of not just that, but the entire website,” wrote Brian Macdonald of Murfreesboro, Tennessee. “The people who control and edit in Wikipedia will present what they think should be the article on Obama; they will not post anything about his socialism, his Bill Ayers connections, former Marxist “New Party” which he was involved in, or anything else that would portray him in a negative light, despite the official Wikipedia policy that everything is to be neutral.”

While Wright finally made it onto Obama’s Wikipedia page – if only in one sentence – multiple times the past month, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately and were banned from re-posting any material on the website for three days.

In one example, one Wikipedia user added the following to Obama’s page:

“There have been some doubts about whether Obama was born in the U.S. after the politician refused to release to the public a carbon copy of his birth certificate and amid claims from his relatives he may have been born in Kenya. Numerous lawsuits have been filed petitioning Obama to release his birth certificate, but most suits have been thrown out by the courts.”

As is required on the online encyclopedia, the entry was backed up by third-party media articles, citing the Chicago Tribune and WorldNetDaily.com

The entry was posted Feb. 24, at 6:16 p.m. Eastern Time. Just three minutes later, the entry was removed by a Wikipedia administrator, claiming the posting violated the website’s rules against “fringe” material.

According to Wikipedia rules, however, a “fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.”

The Obama eligibility issue has indeed been reported extensively by multiple news media outlets. WorldNetDaily has led the coverage. Other news outlets, such as Britain’s Daily Mail and the Chicago Tribune have published articles critical of claims Obama may not be eligible. The Los Angeles Times quoted statements by former presidential candidate Alan Keys doubting Obama is eligible to serve as president. Just last week, the Internet giant America Online featured a top news article about the eligibility subject, referencing WND’s coverage.

When the user tried to repost the entry about Obama’s eligibility a second time, another administrator removed the material within two minutes and then banned the Wikipedia user from posting anything on the website for three days.

Wikipedia administrators have the ability to kick off users if the administrator believes the user violated the website’s rules.

Over the last month, WND has monitored several other attempts to add eligibility issues to Obama’s Wikipedia page. In every attempt monitored, the information was deleted within minutes and the user who posted the material was barred from the website for three days.

The Wikipedia entry about former President George W. Bush, by contrast, is highly critical. One typical entry reads, “Prior to his marriage, Bush had multiple accounts of alcohol abuse. … After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism. In 2005, the Bush administration dealt with widespread criticism over its handling of Hurricane Katrina. In December 2007, the United States entered the second-longest post-World War II recession.”

The entry on Bush also cites claims that he was “favorably treated due to his father’s political standing” during his National Guard service. It says Bush served on the board of directors for Harken and that questions of possible insider trading involving Harken arose even though a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation concluded the information Bush had at the time of his stock sale was not sufficient to constitute insider trading.

Angela Beesley Starling, a spokeswoman for Wikipedia, explained to WND that all the website’s encyclopedia content is monitored by users. She said the administrators who deleted the entries are volunteers.

“Administrators,” Starling said, “are simply people who are trusted by the other community members to have access to some extra tools that allow them to delete pages and perform other tasks that help the encyclopedia.”

According to Alexa.com, Wikipedia is the seventh most trafficked website on the Internet. A Google search for the words “Barack Obama” brings up the president’s Wikipedia page in the top four choices, following two links to Obama’s official websites.

Related Posts: WND Editor Had to Threaten Lawsuit to Fix Wikipedia Bio Entry
Use Scroogle, Not Google

Google’s Doodle – Patriot Day 2008

Read Full Post »

WorldNetDaily reports that CatholicVote.org has a new ad promoting the pro-life stance.  It features a sonogram of a baby who grows up to be Barack Obama.

Watch the ad showing ‘unaborted Obama’ in womb

‘This child will become the 1st African American president’


Posted: January 22, 2009
12:45 am Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A pro-life ad is celebrating President Barack Obama’s mother’s decision not to abort the first black American president, and the video has already caught the attention of more than 200,000 viewers.

The commercial begins with an ultrasound image of a baby moving in his mother’s womb.

“This child’s future is a broken home,” it says.

“He will be abandoned by his father.”

“His single mother will struggle to raise him.”

“Despite the hardships, he will endure,” the ad states. “This child will become the first African American president.”

It features a photo of President Obama and concludes, “Life. Imagine the potential.”

The ad comes just as a number of events are scheduled in Washington to mark the 36th anniversary of the 1972 U.S. Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade opinion that struck down state restrictions on abortion, essentially installing that “right” in the Constitution.

The promotion is sponsored by CatholicVote.org, a faith-based educational program. The organization website states that it launched its “Life: Imagine the Potential” campaign “to reach Americans who are either indifferent, or who have not yet thought about the great potential of every human life.”

President Obama’s agenda regarding “reproductive choice” has been posted on the White House website.

It states, Obama “has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration.”

Related Posts: Scripture: Life Begins at Conception

Read Full Post »

WorldNetDaily has followed up to an earlier story about NBC permanently banning Ann Coulter from its network.  Apparently, the company has changed its mind and is now going to give Ann two appearances on the “Today” show to discuss her new book.

Coulter is back: ‘Today’ rebooks
Author to appear on morning show after NBC reportedly banned her


Posted: January 06, 2009
2:37 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

One day after NBC News reportedly banned Ann Coulter for life, the “Today” show has rebooked the best-selling author for two appearances on tomorrow’s show to discuss her new book, “Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America.”

Yesterday, the Drudge Report cited NBC insiders saying the network had abruptly canceled Coulter’s scheduled appearance today, because it is “just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama, right now.”

“It’s such a downer. It’s just not the time, and it’s not what our audience wants, either,” the source reportedly told Drudge.

Coulter writes today on her website: “Drudge gets results: Today show changes mind.”

“Today,” which runs four hours, has her scheduled during its 7 a.m. and 10 a.m. hours tomorrow.

NBC officially explained yesterday the show cut Coulter from the broadcast because the schedule was overbooked.

But Drudge noted “Today” executives replaced the author with showbiz reporter Perez Hilton, who recently offered $1,000 to anyone who would throw a pie at Coulter.

Hilton also was promoting the launch of a new book, “Red Carpet Suicide.”

NBC’s official statement yesterday denied Coulter had been banned for life, as Drudge reported.

“We’ve had Ann Coulter on ‘Today’ many times, but because of the news in Washington and the Middle East, we decided to cancel her appearance tomorrow,” the network’s statement said. “Understanding the media as well as she does, we are sure she knows this happens from time to time. We look forward to welcoming her back in the future.”

But Drudge reported a “Today” show insider said the book’s theme prompted NBC executives to cancel Coulter, who had been invited months ago.

Coulter previously told WND her book explains how liberal politicians and reporters drag sob stories before the public eye and bemoan how Americans are being “victimized” by trumped-up injustices, all to further their plan to change America’s culture, laws and government.

“Most Americans are normal, lovely, decent people, and they hear these wails of a liberal claiming to be ‘offended, offended,’ and their reaction is to go and provide comfort to the afflicted,” Coulter explained to WND. “I want them to start noticing these are crocodile tears. … These people pretend to be victims in order to advance, attack, and oppress others.”

The insiders told Drudge yesterday Coulter also had been barred from NBC’s cable outlet, MSNBC.

MSNBC morning host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, reportedly was concerned about the ban and was “working to overrule it,” according to a Drudge source.

Coulter received the most-lucrative advance ever paid to a conservative author, according to Drudge.

Last night, in an interview on the Fox News Channel’s “Hannity and Colmes” show, Coulter contended the “Today” booking “was a setup from the beginning.”

“I know the whole thing was a setup to block me from other TV shows,” she said.

Coulter said the head producer for MSNBC’s only conservative host, Scarborough, told her publicist they were not interested in having her on the show.

“Now they’re backing down. So I guess Matt Drudge gets results,” Coulter said.

In her trademark ironic style, Coulter then quipped: “This is very upsetting. This is like being fired from Chrysler, because NBC, I mean they are just chugging along.”

“I think if this book does well I can buy NBC,” she said.

Coulter was interviewed this morning by Harry Smith on CBS’ “Early Show.”

Related Posts:  “[We’re] Just Not Interested In Anyone So Highly Critical of President-Elect Obama”

Read Full Post »

Fox News has a story detailing how a conservative student at the Rhode Island College School of Social Work was ridiculed, given failing grades, and denied his final project all because his views differed with theirs.

Student Says School Persecuted Him for Being Conservative

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

A former student at the Rhode Island College School of Social Work is suing the school and several of his professors for discrimination, saying he was persecuted by the school’s “liberal political machine” for being a conservative.

William Felkner, 45, says the New England college and six professors wouldn’t approve his final project on welfare reform because he was on the “wrong” side of political issues and countered the school’s “progressive” liberal agenda.

Felkner said his problems with his professors began in his first semester, in the fall of 2004, when he objected in an e-mail to one of his professors that the school was showing and promoting Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” on campus. He said he objected because no opposing point of view was presented.

He said Professor James Ryczek wrote to him on Oct. 15, 2004, saying he was proud of his bias and questioning Felkner’s ability to “fit with the profession.”

“I think the biases and predilections I hold toward how I see the world and how it should be are why I am a social worker. In the words of a colleague, I revel in my biases,” he wrote.

Felkner’s complaint, filed two years ago, alleges that Ryczek discriminated against him for his conservative viewpoint and gave him bad grades because of it in several classes. It also alleges discrimination by other professors and administrators.

/*<![CDATA[*/
var adsonar_placementId=”1307847″,adsonar_pid=”144757″,adsonar_ps=”-1″,adsonar_zw=190;adsonar_zh=200,adsonar_jv=”ads.adsonar.com”;
qas_writeAd(); /*]]>*/

Felkner said he received failing grades in Ryczek’s class for holding viewpoints opposed to the progressive direction of the class.

Felkner says he was also discriminated against by Professor Roberta Pearlmutter, who he says refused to allow him to participate in a group project lobbying for a conservative issue because the assignment was to lobby for a liberal issue. He alleges that Perlmutter spent a 50-minute class “assailing” his views and allowed students to openly ridicule his conservative positions, and that she reduced his grade because he was not “progressive.”

The Rhode Island College School of Social Work did not respond to a request for comment.

Felkner, a self-proclaimed free-market conservative, told FOXNews.com that during his final year, he wanted to do a project on “work first” welfare, which requires that recipients get jobs before they can get benefits. He said the school advocated an “education first” system, in which recipients get job training and don’t have to work for benefits.

“Basically it was a system that resulted in 2 percent of [Rhode Island’s] recipients being on welfare for over 10 years. It was just not working,” Felkner said. While at the college he had an internship with the governor’s office on public policy to work on welfare reform.

The social work organizing and policy degree program requires a student to complete a project that works for “progressive social change.” He was scheduled to complete his project in January, but he said the defendants’ actions kept him from finishing and graduating.

“There were two years worth of discrimination really, there’s no better way to put it, because I had different views than the school does,” Felkner said. “It’s kind of insane to think that someone studying how to help the poor can’t research welfare reform.”

Felkner also alleges in his complaint that the school’s treatment of him restricted his ability to express his opinions and that his bad grades damaged his professional reputation and would make it difficult for him to get a job as a social worker.

Kim Strom-Gottfried, professor of social work at U.N.C. Chapel Hill, said that faculty members should not impose their politics on students.

“My bottom line is I think clearly as faculty we have to appraise our students based on required competencies and demonstrations of that, whether critical thinking or whatever, but there shouldn’t be a belief litmus test for joining the profession or for an assignment,” Strom-Gottfried said.

“The questions I have in cases such as his — why would someone choose to affiliate with a profession that’s so at odds with his beliefs and his value-base? That’s always a question for me,” she said.

Bruce Thyer, professor of social work and former dean at the College of Social Work at Florida State University, has written about discrimination against conservatives and against evangelical Christians in social work. He said discrimination hurts the profession.

“I have seen students actively discouraged from perusing social work because of their politically conservative views. I’ve also seen it happen with students who have held strong religious views,” he said. “I think that the profession is a great and noble discipline and there are occasional episodes like this that cast a black eye, and it’s really unnecessary.”

Thyer said liberal and conservative social workers have the same goal — to help people — and that the school overstepped its bounds in Felkner’s case.

“I think it’s an overzealous faculty wishing to impose their own political views upon those of their students, and that’s unfortunate because there are many areas in which liberal and conservative thinkers within the discipline of social work have so much to agree upon,” he said. “Nobody’s advocating, certainly not Bill Felkner, that people not be helped.”

The college filed a motion for summary judgment this summer, but it was recently denied by the court. Felkner said the school is now seeking a settlement.

He said he would still like to receive his masters in social work, and he is still working on government policy on social welfare programs in Rhode Island through the Ocean State Policy Research Institute, which he founded after leaving the school.

“You can say what you want about the war on poverty and how it’s going, but I think that it hasn’t gone well and I think there are better alternatives, and I think it was a shame I wasn’t even allowed to research and pursue those interests,” Felkner said. “It’s indoctrination.”

Read Full Post »

The American Issues Project is a Republican, conservative, non-profit organization (501c4) that is helping bring conservative issues to the public via the mainstream media in opposition to the left-wing groups spending tens of millions of dollars furthering their agenda.  They promote Reganesque, small government, strong national defense, and energy security, and other issues that are currently ignored by the mainstream media.  They’re helping fill the void in the coverage that is slung by the left by showing what is right.

They are currently running 2 separate ads.  The first ad is about Senator Obama’s relationship with William Ayers.  It raises the question of the relationship between Obama and Ayers because Obama refuses to spell out exactly what that relationship was; the Obama camp responded to the ad, but failed to dispute a single fact.  The second ad shows the relationship between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the economic chaos rooted in Chris Dodd’s office and committee, facts that are being ignored by the liberal media.

They also have an online blog that covers other issues that show the sides that are not covered by 99% of the mainstream media.  They are prepared to stay around for a long time to counter the left’s side of issues.

Read Full Post »