Unlike Bush's 'Google Bomb,' Google Quickly Defuses Obama's

Credit: FoxNews.com

By Joshua Rhett Miller

It took four years for Google to address the "Google bomb" that was lobbed at former President Bush.

But it took the Internet behemoth only a few days to defuse the same attack on President Obama.

Four years versus a few days ... Some Googlers are asking why.

In 2003, President Bush's detractors successfully gamed the Google search engine by arranging to have countless Web sites link the words "miserable failure" to Bush's official biography on the White House Web site.

The result was that when someone typed the search term "miserable failure" into the Google search box, Bush's bio rose to the top of the search results.

And that's how it stayed until 2007, when Google developed an algorithm to detect what became known as "Google bombs" and re-directed the term "miserable failure" to non-political pages.

Unfortunately for Obama, "miserable failure" reverted back to his bio when he moved into the White House. The new president was also Google-bombed with the phrase "cheerful achievement."

But this time, Google stepped in quickly, rectifying the situation in a few days, instead of four years.

The difference in time did not go unnoticed.

"You let this go on for the entire Bush administration," a reader named w3bgrrl wrote on a Google blog. "But since you bought the White House for Obama, you don't want your candidates harmed ... And your claims not withstanding, even liberals know you're liberal."

But another writer, Mikkel deMib Svendsen, gave Google the benefit of the doubt.

"I do think many of [Google employees] are liberals but I am also 100% confident that the large majority of them are also very professional people that take the job of creating a good and unbiased search engine very, very seriously," he wrote.

Google itself said the reason it took only a few days to redirect Obama's Google bomb was that, this time, it already had the algorithm in place.

"Though the spirit of change may be in the air in Washington, some things apparently stay the same," Google software engineer Matt Cutts wrote on a Google blog. "After we became aware of this latest Googlebomb, we re-ran our algorithm and it detected the Googlebomb for [cheerful achievement] as well as for [failure]. As a result, those search queries now return discussion about the Google bombs, rather than the original pages that were returned."

In another company blog, Google software engineers Ryan Moulton and Kendre Carattini wrote that the "pranks" aren't a very high priority for the company.

"But over time, we've seen more people assume that they are Google's opinion, or that Google has hand-coded the results for these Googlebombed queries," they wrote. "That's not true, and it seemed like it was worth trying to correct that misperception."

Aritcle continues here....

Network News Embraces Obama's Wall Street-Bashing

Ok, finally a way to put Wall Street bonuses in perspective. The below article from Newsbusters.org shows everybody both sides of the story as the Wall Street definition of bonus is drastically different from your average annual bonus at XYZ factory.

Credit: NewsBusters.org

By Brent Baker

After years of agitation over what they saw as President George W. Bush's self-righteous moral certitude, journalists on Thursday night embraced President Barack Obama's vilification of those working for Wall Street firms who got a bonus last year. “Shameful,” NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams teased his newscast, “that's how President Obama labels those Wall Street types paying themselves big bonuses while getting billions in tax dollars.” Reporter Chuck Todd referred to how Obama was “channeling his inner populist” as he “got upset about something that the public has been angry about for weeks.”

CBS's Katie Couric led with how “we found out what it takes to get Barack Obama angry,” that “employees of financial companies in New York collected nearly $18.5 billion in bonuses last year” and “the President called it 'shameful.'” Chip Reid related how “the President told advisors the anger rose straight from his gut” before Reid relayed that another liberal politician, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, “said the President's remarks are 'a welcome breath of fresh air.'”

Echoing Couric, ABC anchor Charles Gibson announced: “The President did not mince words this afternoon. Indeed, he was angry.” Dan Harris, who showcased a clip of left-wing cable TV host Jon Stewart, backed up Obama's take: “These bonus numbers are not only infuriating to the President, many Americans are bewildered and angry, too.”

Only the CBS Evening News, in a follow-up piece from Anthony Mason, noted how many on Wall Street have “taken huge pay cuts” and explained how bonuses are part of basic compensation: “While it's true that more than $18 billion in bonuses was paid to Wall Street workers in 2008, that plunged nearly 50 percent from the record $34 billion two years ago. The average worker saw a 37 percent drop in bonus pay last year to $112,000. That's the lowest level in five years. What's more, Wall Street uses the term 'bonus' differently.” Viewers then heard from Scot Melland of Dice Holdings:

It's more than likely that the bonuses paid to these financial services people accounts for 50 percent or 75 percent of their total compensation and it's geared to revenue brought in or success they brought into the firm. So it's more akin to a sales commission than what you or I would think about as a bonus.

Article continues here....

Palm Pre Smartphone Hands On

Here's a look at the new Palm Pre smartphone for all you techies out there like me.

Enjoy!

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

There is a nice little saying out there by Oscar Wilde, "Life imitates art far more than art imitates Life". This article from Stephen Moore at WSJ Online definitely taps that mantra.

Credit: Wall Street Journal Online

By STEPHEN MOORE

Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.

Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?

Article continues here.....

What the CIA's Censors Can Teach Us about Plans to Muzzle Talk Radio

Like any free thinking American, I enjoy talk radio as much as the next. Anybody who listens to the AM side of things has heard of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" that promotes nothing but censorship and complete unfairness. Below is an article from American Thinker regarding CIA censorship and how it applies to a future "Fairness Doctrine".

Credit: American Thinker

By Ishmael Jones

The Central Intelligence Agency runs a small bureau that censors books and articles written by current and former CIA employees. As the only official censorship bureau in America, its operation provides insights on how attempts to muzzle conservative talk radio through a renewed Fairness Doctrine or FCC "localism" may work. It also provides reasons for optimism about the eventual outcome.

CIA censorship seems to make sense at first glance - shouldn't there be a bureau that ensures secrets are not revealed? But CIA censors routinely approve books that contain classified material - especially those critical of the Bush administration - so long as they are not critical of the CIA itself. Memoirs by former CIA Director George Tenet and other top bureaucrats contain startling amounts of classified information. The CIA must use secrecy to hide the identities of agents and operations, of course, but separate laws have always covered that. The CIA has taken its unique ability to void the First Amendment, awarded by a judge in the late 1970's, and used it for its own agenda.

Either information is secret or it isn't. If America's only censorship bureau cannot handle the simple task of determining whether something is classified or unclassified, then we should be wary of creating multiple FCC censorship bureaus to handle far more complex and subjective issues. How can Americans possibly rely on government bureaucrats to decide what is fair and balanced?

The Fairness Doctrine may seem to make sense at a superficial glance - shouldn't all viewpoints be heard, shouldn't the media be fair? But the purpose of a renewed Fairness Doctrine appears to be simply to attack conservative talk radio. The political left's free speech is not constrained by talk radio, because it dominates most other media.

Just as open criticism of the CIA is vital because it can lead to repair of the intelligence gaps that expose Americans to great risk, uncensored talk radio is vital for American freedom because it allows free speech to be heard.

The Founders understood the evil of censorship and knew that censors would never be a panel of wise graybeards issuing Solomonic decisions. CIA censors are ordinary humans who weigh decisions based upon what is in their own interest. They ask themselves, "What decision can I make that will please my boss? What decision will improve my job security, my chances for advancement in the organization?" Censors employed under the Fairness Doctrine would likewise make decisions Chicago-style, decisions meant to serve the people who created their jobs and control their promotions.

Fortunately, the Fairness Doctrine is so obviously unconstitutional in the eyes of most Americans, so blatantly an attempt to block free speech, that it should be easy to defeat. Respect for the First Amendment is broad in American society - American soldiers fight to defend it, schoolchildren understand its importance. Happy warriors like Rush and Sean are already taking on the Fairness Doctrine with full confidence.

Smart politicians on the left know this and it's unlikely that a Rahm Emanuel, for example, would recommend support for heavy-handed attempts to censor conservative radio via a renewed Fairness Doctrine.

More likely is that the left will use the subtle, silent, and creeping tool of government bureaucracy to strangle conservative talk radio. The enforcement of "localism" regulations, as described in a 17 November 2008 American Thinker article by Jim Boulet, would use a system of complaints to the FCC and community advisory boards to attack conservative radio. A few tweaks in FCC regulations can require radio stations to submit time-wasting and expensive reports, hold public meetings, and create panels of local residents, led by community organizers, to evaluate programming. If the bureaucrats and peoples' panels are not pleased with a radio station's compliance, they'll be able to take away the station's license. The goal would be to attack conservative radio in obscurity, without an open showdown.

The behavior of CIA censors may be helpful in predicting that of FCC bureaucrats. Moving with the speed of an old oak tree, CIA censors respond months later to queries, if at all. A book I wrote as a tool in intelligence reform took CIA censors a year to read, and after lots of evasive conversations suggesting they might approve it, in the end came back as a stack of blank pages. It contained no classified information, but was critical of the CIA. Books go from censor to censor, each of whom wields a black magic marker. Free speech entering one end of a censorship process, like hay through a horse, comes out unrecognizable at the other end.

New FCC offices may sprout up throughout the United States in response to new FCC localism or Fairness Doctrine authority. It will be fascinating to see if they come to resemble CIA domestic offices. A peculiarity of many CIA offices within the US is that they have television sets on, providing a busy, newsroom atmosphere. Since FCC offices would be monitoring media, it's possible they too may run radio and television sets in each room. Like the CIA, the FCC may argue that ever-greater amounts of money and employees are necessary to achieve its new mission, and as the money flows, and the number of employees grows, the FCC may become a constituent group of its own, with lobbying power, difficult to dislodge.

Article continues here.......

And now, the top 20 facts about the $825 billion Pork (Stimulus) package

Oh these are some good ones, your tax dollars hard at work ladies and gentlemen.

Credit: Republicanleader.house.gov

1. The $825 billion package slated for a House vote later this week will exceed more than $1.1 trillion when adding in the interest ($300 plus billion) between 2009-2019 to pay for it.

2. The Capitol Hill Democrats’ plan includes funding for contraceptives; regardless of where anyone stands on taxpayer funded contraception, there is no question that it has NOTHING to do with the economy.

3. The legislation could open billions of taxpayer dollars to left-wing groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which has been accused of voter fraud, is reportedly under federal investigation; and played a key role in the housing meltdown.

4. Here are just a few of the programs and projects that have been included in the House Democrats’ proposal:

· $650 million for digital TV coupons.

· $600 million for new cars for the federal government.

· $6 billion for colleges/universities – many which have billion dollar endowments.

· $50 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts.

· $44 million for repairs to U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters.

· $200 million for the National Mall, including $21 million for sod.

5. The plan establishes at least 32 new government programs at a cost of over $136 billion. That means more than a third of this plan’s spending provisions are dedicated to creating new government programs.

6. The plan provides spending in at least 150 different federal programs, ranging from Amtrak to the Transportation Security Administration. Is this the “targeted” plan Democratic leaders promised?

7. Even though the legislation contains at least 152 separate spending proposals, the authors of the plan can only say that 34 have any chance at keeping or growing jobs.

8. Just one in seven dollars of an $18.5 billion expenditure on “energy efficiency” and “renewable energy programs” would be spent within the next 18 months.

9. The total cost of this one piece of legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire federal government.

10. The House Democrats’ bill will cost each and every household $6,700 in additional debt, paid for by our children and grandchildren.

11. The bill provides enough spending – $825 billion – to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700. $825 billion is enough to give every person in Ohio $72,000.

12. $825 billion is enough to give every person living in poverty in the United States $22,000.

13. Although the House Democrats’ proposal has been billed as a transportation and infrastructure investment package, in actuality only $30 billion of the bill – or three percent – is for road and highway spending. A recent study from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that only 25 percent of infrastructure dollars can be spent in the first year, making the one year total less than $7 billion.

14. Much of the funding within the House Democrats’ proposal will go to programs that already have large, unexpended balances. For example, the bill provides $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) – a program that already has $16 billion on hand. States also are sitting on some $9 billion in unused highway funds – funds that Congress is prepared to rescind later this year.

15. All board members of the “Accountability and Transparency Board” created by this legislation are appointees of the President; none will be appointed by Congress.

16. A scant 2.7 percent, or $22.3 billion of the overall package, is dedicated to small business tax relief.

17. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the legislation increases by seven million the number of people who get a check back from the IRS that exceeds what they paid in payroll and income taxes.

18. The “Making Work Pay” tax credit at the center of the plan amounts to $1.37 a day, or about the price of a cup of coffee.

19. Almost one-third of the so-called “tax relief” in the House Democrats’ bill is spending in disguise, meaning that true tax relief makes up only 24 percent of the total package – not the 40 percent that President Obama had requested.

20. $825 billion is just the beginning – many Capitol Hill Democrats want to spend even more taxpayer dollars on their “stimulus” plan. In fact, the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David Obey (D-WI), told Roll Call earlier this month, “I would not be surprised to see us go further on some of these programs down the line.”

Do police have the right to confiscate your camera?

Interesting off the beaten path article regarding the confiscation of cameras by police after a shooting occurred.

Credit: CarlosMiller.com

By Carlos Miller
Seconds after BART police officer Johannes Mehserle shot and killed Oscar Grant, police immediately began confiscating cell phones containing videos that have yet to see the light of day.

In fact, the only videos that have been seen by the public were filmed by people who managed to leave the scene before police confronted them.

In one instance, police chased after Karina Vargas after she stepped on the train, banging on the window after the doors closed and demanding her to turn over the camera. The train sped away with Vargas still holding her camera.

Her video, which did not show the actual shooting but captured the turmoil before and after, was one of the first to pop up on the internet. And soon after more videos popped up showing the actual shooting.

In the most vivid video, the train doors can be seen closing seconds after the shooting as the train speeds away.

But the truth is, police had no legal right to confiscate a single camera.

“Cops may be entitled to ask for people’s names and addresses and may even go as far as subpoenaing the video tape, but as far as confiscating the camera on the spot, no,” said Marc Randazza, A First Amendment attorney based out of Florida and a Photography is Not a Crime reader.

Bert P. Krages II, the Oregon attorney who drafted the widely distributed The Photographer’s Rights guide, responded to my inquiry with the following e-mail message:

“In general, police cannot confiscate cameras or media without some sort of court order. One exception is when a camera is actually being used in the commission of crime (e.g., child pornography, counterfeiting, upskirting).”

It didn’t appear that the BART videos were being used in a commission of a crime, so what could people have done to prevent police from illegally confiscating their cameras?

“Probably not a whole lot,” said Randazza. “You don’t want to get into a situation where you are refusing to comply with law enforcement, especially when that law enforcement officer just shot and killed somebody. No camera is worth losing your life over.”

But what can you do if you’re as stubborn as me and have a tendency to refuse unlawful orders?

“Make sure you have an attorney that specializes in First Amendment law,” he said during Monday’s phone interview. “Make sure you have his cell phone and home number. Sometimes calling an attorney on the spot can be helpful.”

Needless to say, I now have Randazza’s cell phone number programed into my cell phone.

Home sales up 6.5% as prices continue to fall

Home prices finally dropped enough to show an increase in sales volume. This still isn't a great sign but at least may signal a bottoming in the home price market. The article below is from Investors Business Daily. Enjoy!

BY SCOTT STODDARD

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 1/26/2009

Home resales unexpectedly rose in December, spurred by a record drop in prices as buyers snapped up foreclosed properties at a big discount, an industry group said on Monday.

Stocks fluctuated as the improved housing data and a surprise uptick in the Conference Board's index of leading economic indicators was tempered by renewed job cuts amid the longest recession in decades. The Dow moved up 0.48%, the S&P 500 0.56% and the Nasdaq 0.82%.

Sales of existing homes gained 6.5% to an annual rate of 4.74 million, the National Association of Realtors said. Economists had forecast 4.4 million, down from November's 4.45 million pace. Sales fell 3.5% vs. a year earlier.

The median price fell a record 15.3% from the prior year to $174,700 as buyers took advantage of discounts on foreclosed homes, which made up 45% of total sales.

"It appears some buyers are taking advantage of much lower home prices," Lawrence Yun, NAR's chief economist, said in a written statement. "But the market is still far from normal balanced conditions."

At the end of December the number of previously owned homes on the market represented a 9.3-month supply at the current sales pace. That's down from a record 11.2 months at the end of November. NAR says a five- or six-month supply is consistent with a stable market.

Article continues here.....

ObamaBerry is a go!

Credit NetworkWorld.com:

In today's just-concluded press briefing, the White House has confirmed that President Barack Obama will have the use of a security-enhanced BlackBerry, to correspond with a small group of personal friends and senior staff.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the wireless e-mail communications will be secure, and that hackers will not be able to access GPS coordinates on the device to pinpoint its location

When asked if other friends and members of Congress would be able to e-mail the president, Gibbs declined to answer on security grounds. Gibbs confirmed that all wireless e-mails will be covered by the Presidential Records Act, and made public in due course under the Act's provisions.

We reported last night that political blogger Marc Ambinder asserted yesterday, without attribution, that Obama would receive a standard BlackBerry device outfitted with a government-supplied "super encryption" package, presumably from the National Security Agency, to protect e-mails. Bloggers today have speculated that Obama would be using the high-security Sectera Edge smartphone, a Windows Mobile device built by General Dynamics.

Article continues here.....

You can see the whole article at the NetworkWorld link above. It is an interesting fact that neither George W. Bush nor Bill Clinton even had an e-mail address.

It's hot and heavy at the Villages!!!!

A rather humorous article on the Village, a Florida based retirement community, appeared on FoxNews.com today:

'Villages' Retirement Home is Widower's Sex Paradise

Lady LAKE, Fla. — It's 11 p.m. at the Bourbon Street Bar, and Roselyn's gyrating her hips to the blues band, Sue's sipping a cocktail and flirting with her new boyfriend, and Alan is scanning the crowd for cute girls.

"See those two?" a buxom blonde asks, pointing to an elegant couple at the bar. "They were caught having sex in their golf cart a few weeks ago. It happens a lot!"

Welcome to ground zero for geriatrics who are seriously getting it on.

It's a Thursday night at one of a half-dozen hot spots at the 20,000-acre Central Florida complex called The Villages, the largest gated retirement community in America — and one of the most popular destinations for New Yorkers in their golden years — where the female-to-male ratio runs 10 to 1.

It's a widower's paradise, and the word on the street is that there's a big black market for Viagra.

Though The Villages — which spans three counties with 40,000 homes and more than 70,000 residents — boasts 34 golf courses, nine country clubs, two downtown squares and a slew of restaurants and bars, getting lucky is one of the residents' primary pastimes.

That female to male ratio looks pretty good!!!!!!

ACORN set to steal billions of taxpayer dollars in new stimulus bill

The new pork (stimulus) bill proposed in Washington is chock full of bureaucratic wastefulness and empty stimulus promises. Check out the little $4 billion piece that groups like ACORN can get a hold of in the new bill.

The following info is courtesy of John Boehner's official website:

Washington, Jan 23 - The House Democrats’ trillion dollar spending bill, approved on January 21 by the Appropriations Committee and headed to the House floor next week for a vote, could open billions of taxpayer dollars to left-wing groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). ACORN has been accused of perpetrating voter registration fraud numerous times in the last several elections; is reportedly under federal investigation; and played a key role in the irresponsible schemes that caused a financial meltdown that has cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars since last fall.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and other Republicans are asking a simple question: what does this have to do with job creation? Are Congressional Democrats really going to borrow money from our children and grandchildren to give handouts to ACORN in the name of economic “stimulus?”

Incredibly, the Democrats’ bill makes groups like ACORN eligible for a $4.19 billion pot of money for “neighborhood stabilization activities.” Funds for this purpose were authorized in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, signed into law in 2008. However, these funds were limited to state and local governments. Now House Democrats are taking the unprecedented step of making ACORN and other groups eligible for these funds:

“For a further additional amount for ‘Community Development Fund,’ $4,190,000,000, to be used for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes as authorized under division B, title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–289), of which—

“(1) not less than $3,440,000,000 shall be allocated by a competition for which eligible entities shall be States, units of general local government, and nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities[.]”

“(2) up to $750,000,000 shall be awarded by competition to nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities to provide community stabilization assistance […]”`

The House Democrats’ trillion dollar spending bill also includes $1 billion for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. CDBG funds are given by the federal government to state and local governments which often contract with nonprofits for services related to the purpose of the grant.

ACORN knows how to secure CDBG funds. Audit reports filed by ACORN’s headquarters with the Office of Management and Budget show that ACORN spent $1,588,599 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program funds from FY 2003 through FY 2007. It is not clear from these records when or from what source the funds were awarded to ACORN. It is also not clear whether ACORN chapters or affiliates have received CDBG grants on their own.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) repeatedly urged President George W. Bush and other federal officials to withhold taxpayer funds from ACORN, including $17.2 million in federal grants awarded in December 2008 after numerous allegations of wrongdoing in connection with ACORN’s election activities were reported by the news media.

Leader Boehner also released a study of federal records in October 2008 listing tens of millions in federal grants received by ACORN. A new updated and more expansive study reveals that ACORN has actually received millions more than first thought. A review of the Federal Register and news releases issued by federal agencies showed that ACORN was awarded more than $53 million in taxpayer dollars. This amount does not reflect the millions more ACORN has received in federal block grant funds awarded to state and local agencies which passed them on to ACORN.

Obama picks a fight with Rush Limbaugh

Here's a bad move by our new President, within his first week in office President Barack Obama has picked a political fight with Rush Limbaugh. On Friday, Obama told Republican leaders, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."

In typical Rush fashion, the radio host extraordinaire immediately responded with a statement on National Review Online with this blog post.

Here is a brief section of Rush's comments:

There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.

Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting:

"If we don't get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town."

More on this topic in a little while........

We The People Congress to convene in February 2009

An interesting movement started by the We The People Foundation is gaining some steam around the planning of the We The People Congress to convene in February. According to their website, the Continental Congress 2009 is scheduled to be held in Philadelphia directly across from Independence Hall.

I don't have a lot of time to discuss it right now, but take a look at the link above.

Celebrities pledge to be two-faced hypocrites

I Pledge to Ridicule Celebrities Who Refuse to Recognize We Are At War With People Who Want to Kill Them, Too

The above editorial by Andrew Breitbart at BigHollywood.Breitbart.com is a great commentary on the hypocrisy and absolute idiocy of Hollywood celebrities. They are on the Obama train and are going to change the world.

The first thing Hollywood should do to help change the world is get off the news stands at the grocery stores and the mindless MTV and VH1 tv shows on every channel. This would immediately help raise the collective IQ of America a minimum of 5 points.

Obama eligibility still in question - battle rages on 3 fronts

Credit: WorldNetDaily.com

Original article posted: January 18, 2009

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Officials at Occidental College in Los Angeles have been served with a demand to produce records of Barack Obama's attendance there during the 1980s to determine whether he was registered as a foreign national.

The case is one of three fronts now established that contest the president-elect's constitutional eligibility for the Oval Office.

The Supreme Court and Congress also are being challenged to address concerns that Obama doesn't meet the requirements of the U.S. Constitution that the president be a "natural born" citizen.

WND has reported on a long list of legal cases raising questions over the issue, including several that have reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices have declined to give any of the cases full hearings on their merits, but another conference remains on the Supreme Court docket for Jan. 23 on the issue.

"If Obama is sworn in as president, we will file a Petition for Writ of 'Quo Warranto,' a case that will challenge Obama as being ineligible to serve as president because he is 'not qualified,'" said Philip J. Berg, a lawyer who has brought several cases to court.

Berg, whose information is on his ObamaCrimes.com website, indicated the issue isn't going away.

Orly Taitz, a California lawyer whose dispute remains pending before the high court, agreed, noting that one of the hearings already is scheduled for the days following Obama's inaugural Tuesday.

Taitz said her arguments rest on precedents from both the California Supreme Court, which years ago removed a candidate for president from the ballot because he was only 34, and the U.S. Supreme Court's affirmation of the ruling. The Constitution requires a president to be 35.

The whole article can be viewed here.

Dan Burisch Stargates Interview Part 4

The conclusion of Project Camelot's interview with Dan Burisch discussing the existence of stargates:

Dan Burisch Stargates Part 4

Dan Burisch Stargates Interview Part 3

Continuation of Project Camelot's interview with Dan Burisch discussing the existence of stargates:

Dan Burisch Stargates Part 3

Dan Burisch Stargates Interview Part 2

Continuation of Project Camelot's interview with Dan Burisch discussing the existence of stargates:

Dan Burisch Stargates Part 2

Dan Burisch Stargates Interview Part 1

Project Camelot's interview with Dan Burisch discussing the existence of stargates:

Dan Burisch Stargates Part 1

The original interview can be found at Project Camelot.

Bill Holden Interview Part 2

Project Camelot's interview with Bill Holden Part 2:

Bill Holden Part 2