Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

"Ugly Black Babies" and the Left

• 
• Maggie Gallagher
  

Aug 09, 2012

For 40 years, the academic left has taught that reality is socially constructed, preferably by the left for the left.

But every once in a while, reality bites back in a big way. This week was one of those times.
In mediaworld, abortion doctors are just noble people striving to protect the equal rights of women.
In mediaworld, gay marriage activists are all ordinary loving couples who seek nothing more than to be left alone to snuggle as they choose, and opposing gay marriage is "controversial" for a business executive.
In mediaworld, all children raised by gay couples are grateful for the experience and turn out as impressive as young Zach Wahls.

This week, we learn that in the real world, some abortion doctors are men like Charlotte, N.C.'s Dr. Ashutosh Virmani, who when surprised on July 26 by polite pro-life activists at his doorstep shouted that they should "adopt one of those ugly black babies" to save the taxpayers money.

"I, as a taxpayer, do not wish to pay for those babies to be born and brought up and kill those people in Colorado," Virmani said, referring to the Aurora, Colo., theater killer, who was a college-educated white man.

Virmani has been a donor to Democrat candidates and causes, although not (unsurprisingly!) to President Obama.

This week, we learn that when Chick-fil-A's Dan Cathy tells the Baptist Press he supports the Biblical definition of marriage, and big-city mayors like Tom Menino of Boston vow to hurt this man's business, major gay rights organizations "applaud," as the Human Rights Campaign put it in a press release praising Menino.
This week, we also learn that in reality, while Americans will crowd for hours to eat chicken sandwiches to show support for marriage and the Cathy family, calling for Starbucks Appreciation Day and Chick-fil-A kiss-ins will leave you with "egg on your face," as the Washington Times reported.
Starbucks, which has been the target of a boycott by the National Organization for Marriage (which I co-founded) for endorsing gay marriage as a corporation, actually nervously asked the organizers of Starbucks Appreciation Day to take the company's name out of it.

This week, we also learn that not all children raised by gay parents are as enthusiastic as young Zach Wahls.

Professor Robert Oscar Lopez, a self-identified Latino bisexual professor of English raised by two lesbian moms, wrote an essay praising professor Mark Regnerus' study on the subject.
Children with a gay parent, Lopez says, are typically kids like him, the product of a previous heterosexual relationship. By declaring the children of "bisexuals" off limits, critics of Regnerus are seeking to shut out the voices of the majority of children with a gay parent, Lopez says, the voices of people like him
He went on to say that Regnerus "deserves tremendous credit -- and the gay community ought to be crediting him rather than trying to silence him."

"Regnerus' study identified 248 adult children of parents who had same-sex romantic relationships. Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda. Yet the results are backed up by an important thing in life called common sense. ... Like my story, these 248 people's stories deserve to be told. The gay movement is doing everything it can to make sure that nobody hears them. "

Lopez says, "I cherish my mother's memory, but I don't mince words when talking about how hard it was to grow up in a gay household "
Not all children with gay parents feel this way, of course.
But some do.

These children deserve better than to be told that science has proven they do not exist, or to have those who are bringing forth their truths be persecuted for doing so.

Because, in the end, reality has a way of biting back ideology every time.

GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO STAY OUT OF BUSINESS

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Government Has No Business Dabbling in Business

• 
• Scott Rasmussen
  

Aug 10, 2012

Just 16 percent of voters nationwide believe it was a good idea for the government to provide Solyndra with loan guarantees. The solar power company went bankrupt and stuck taxpayers with the tab for a half-billion dollars.
The Obama administration generally has responded to questions about the program in the way a venture capital firm would respond to questions about a portfolio loss. They note that similar government investments have turned out just fine and that it's only fair to look at their portfolio as a whole.
It's not a bad argument if you believe government should behave like a venture capitalist. But the American people soundly reject that notion. Only 27 percent believe it's ever appropriate for the government to make investments in private companies.
One reason is that people tend to view government as a lousy investor. Seventy-one percent believe that private sector companies and investors are better than government officials at determining the long-term benefits and potential of new technologies. Only 11 percent believe government officials have a better eye for future value.

If the government provides funding for a project that private investors refuse to back, 64 percent believe the government money will be wasted.

In addition to questions about competence, there are concerns about corruption and crony capitalism. Sixty-six percent of voters believe most government contracts are given to the company with the most political connections rather than the one that can provide the best service for the best price.
Americans agree that it's important to develop alternative sources of energy, but precisely because they consider it important, they are even more skeptical about government funding.
Most voters believe free market competition is more likely than government subsidies and regulation to help the United States develop alternative sources of energy. By a nearly two-to-one margin, voters also believe the solar power industry will be stronger in the long run if it is developed by the private sector and private investors. Just 31 percent believe it would be stronger with the help of government subsidies and investments.

That's the reason voters oppose government investments in Solyndra, direct subsidies for Chevy's Volt electric car and all other forms of corporate welfare.

The current campaign debate over Solyndra misses all of this. It's not a question of whether the Solyndra deal was a good or a bad investment. It's a question of whether the government should be providing corporate welfare in any form.
Those who mistakenly believe the Solyndra issue will help Mitt Romney's campaign should keep in mind a couple of very simple facts. First, by a three-to-one margin, voters believe elected politicians routinely provide help to favored companies. Second, seven out of 10 Americans believe government and big business work together against the rest of us.

In other words, Americans believe crony capitalism is a reality regardless of which party is in the White House. This is the root cause of much of the frustration sweeping the nation today.

Voters don't want to be selecting a venture capitalist in chief; they want to pick someone to run the government. And they want the government to stop picking winners and losers in the business world.

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Unfit to Govern

• 
• Mona Charen
  

Aug 10, 2012

We have reached a point in the 2012 campaign when you long for a referee -- someone with a whistle to call foul and declare that one side has so discredited itself that it must forfeit points or be otherwise disqualified.
Nancy Pelosi, the leader who warned that we were losing "500 million jobs a month" without the stimulus bill and who said "God bless them" regarding Occupy Wall Street but condemned the tea party as "AstroTurf," has declared that the Republican Party supports E. coli. True, it's not news when Pelosi mangles the facts. But until her colleagues demote her, she remains the leader of House Democrats. Speaking at a fundraiser, she described the Republican Party as follows: "It's an ideology. We shouldn't have a government role. So reduce the police, the fire, the teachers -- reduce their role." As a mother, she continued, "You could depend on the government for one thing -- it was about, you had to be able to trust the water that our kids drank and the food that they ate. But this is the E. coli club. They do not want to spend money to do that."
In an ideal world, a loud buzzer would issue from the heavens. Foul! The Democrats have presided over an expansion of the welfare state to the point where 1 in 3 American households now receive some form of welfare. That's 100 million Americans receiving benefits -- excluding those receiving Social Security, Medicare and the Earned Income Tax Credit. Yet to suggest that the federal government must reduce the rate of increase in federal spending -- or even to cut back to the comparatively sane levels of spending that prevailed under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush -- is to be the party of E. coli. Maybe Pelosi should stick to theology. She once explained that the Catholic Church didn't oppose abortion.
Don't look to the other body for relief. The Senate majority leader, who holds a post usually associated with at least a minimal level of dignity, has descended into outright McCarthyism -- claiming that "the word is out" that Mitt Romney hadn't paid taxes in 10 years. How did the "word" get out? Some anonymous caller supposedly told it to Harry Reid. Where's that buzzer? An equivalent accusation would be for John Boehner to announce that "the word is out" that Barack Obama quietly and illegally gutted the work requirements in the welfare reform law passed in 1996. Oh, wait ...
Now, an Obama Super PAC, Priorities USA, has issued an ad that is so cartoonish that it seems to have come straight from The Onion. A former employee of GST Steel, Joe Soptic, accuses Mitt Romney of closing the plant. Actually, the plant was shut down two years after Romney left Bain. Soptic then relates that his wife became ill, but because he had lost his health coverage due to the plant closing, she couldn't afford health coverage and died of cancer. Not quite. The plant closed in 2001. She died in 2006. Ranae Soptic didn't lose health coverage because of what happened to her husband. She was covered by her own employer, until an injury caused her to lose her job. The ad closes with Soptic saying, "I do not think Mitt Romney realizes what he's done to anyone, and furthermore I do not think Mitt Romney is concerned." Buzz.
As CNN and others have noted, Soptic has cooperated with the Obama campaign before and appeared in an Obama ad back in May -- though, oddly, Obama campaign advisor Robert Gibbs insists that he "doesn't know the specifics of this woman's case." Bain bought the troubled steel company, couldn't revive it and closed it. It's possible that if Bain hadn't invested in the company, it would have closed in 1993 instead of 2001. It's possible that even if Ranae Soptic's cancer had been detected earlier, she would have died anyway. It's possible that Joe Soptic might have contracted cancer if the plant had remained open, leaving his wife a widow. Who knows? The beat of a butterfly's wings in Bolivia supposedly can cause a thunderstorm in Bangor. But never let a misfortune go to waste when you can accuse your opponent of murder.
This has become the season of Democrat disgrace. Beyond running the dirtiest, emptiest and most deceptive campaign in memory, the party has demonstrated a total incapacity to govern. The Democrat-controlled Senate has not passed a budget -- the sine qua non of governing -- in more than three years. Under Reid's leadership, no budget resolution has even been brought to the floor. The federal debt, under Barack Obama, has increased by more than $5 trillion in less than four years. The economy is stalled. After saying (in a nonelection year) that he lacked the power unilaterally to alter immigration laws, the president did exactly that. The administration was so heedless of national security in its haste to laud Obama's accomplishments that even the usually phlegmatic former Obama administration secretary of defense, Robert Gates, felt obliged to tell the president's national security advisor to "shut the f--- up."
There is no cosmic buzzer. It's all up to us voters.

5 THINGS THAT WILL BE DIFFERENT IF ROMNEY DEFEATS OBAMA

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

5 Things That Will Be Different If Mitt Romney Defeats Barack Obama

• 
• John Hawkins
  John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News

Aug 10, 2012

Far too much of the campaign season so far has revolved around trivia. That's largely Barack Obama's fault. Obama wants to see more of Mitt's tax returns. Who cares? Obama's rich, but Mitt's really rich; so we should hate him because he has more money than we do -- or something. After Mitt left Bain, some company went bust, some random guy lost his health care and later got it back, but it wasn't as good as it was at Bain; so Mitt killed his wife somehow or another? On the other hand, while Mitt's campaign has at least focused on meaningful issues, the ad dollars have mostly been spent highlighting the sea of incompetence that has been Barack Obama's first four years in the White House, as opposed to what Romney would do when he gets elected. On top of that, neither candidate has exactly been a model of consistency when it comes to his views. So, it's worth asking the question: What will be different if Mitt Romney defeats Barack Obama?
1) Businesses will feel more comfortable hiring and spending money: As William Henry Harrison noted, "The prudent capitalist will never adventure his capital... if there exists a state of uncertainty as to whether the government will repeal tomorrow what it has enacted today." Barack Obama has introduced just that kind of uncertainty into the economy with his demonization of business, Obamacare, the fiscal cliff, and the threat of tax increases in his second term. That's why American corporations have piled up record cash reserves instead of using that money to increase production and hire new workers. Romney will be business-friendly, will oppose tax hikes, cut regulations, and reassure these companies that they're not going to be under attack for the next four years. In and of itself, that should significantly improve the economy and help create jobs.
2) Obamacare will be gutted: Obamacare is essentially Romneycare writ large and if Mitt were perfectly honest, he'd probably tell you that he thinks there's a lot to like in the plan. While there's always an outside chance that Mitt might be looking for some way to save Obamacare, he has gone so far out on a limb to condemn the unpopular plan that there would be serious political ramifications if he doesn't pull the trigger when the time comes. So, whether Obamacare will ultimately live or die on the vine seems likely to depend on who wins in November.
3) Taking a crack at entitlement reform may be tackled: It is impossible for the United States to get its spending under control without real entitlement reform and Barack Obama has chosen to demagogue the issue instead of making a serious attempt to fix the problem. Whether Romney could pull it off is up in the air because realistically, without some Democratic cooperation, it's not going to be possible to reform Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Still, when someone as cautious as Mitt Romney makes the politically risky decision to embrace Paul Ryan's plan, it means something. Mitt may not be able to push through entitlement reform, but if it’s passed in the next four years, he’ll deserve the lion’s share of the credit.
4) Taxes are more likely to go down than up: If Barack Obama is reelected, we can be sure that he will push a number of new tax increases and there are signs that the Republican Party is starting to soften its position on the issue. On the other hand, Mitt Romney is likely to push cuts to the marginal tax rate, the death tax, and the corporate tax rate in an effort to stimulate economic growth. That doesn't mean it's impossible that we could see a tax increase because Democrats are likely to demand higher taxes in return for their cooperation on any sort of serious entitlement reform or deficit reduction plan. However, Obama would be likely to raise taxes significantly in his second term, while Romney would be much more likely to cut them.
5) The Supreme Court may move to the right: Currently, we have four doctrinaire liberals on the Supreme Court (Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer), three originalist conservatives (Alito, Thomas, Scalia), and two right leaning moderates (Roberts, Kennedy). After looking at that precarious balance, consider that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 79, Antonin Scalia is 76, Anthony Kennedy is 75, and Stephen Breyer is 73. What that means is that depending on who retires, a single appointment has the potential to lead to a historic shift on the Court. Given the buzzsaw that George W. Bush ran into when he tried to appoint Harriet Miers, Mitt Romney has very little room to maneuver here. Appointing candidates that the base believes are originalists will be a necessity and then we'll face the same crapshoot that we always do with conservative judges: Will they stay true to the law or move to the left?

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Ratio Christi

• 
• Mike Adams
  

Aug 10, 2012

In one week, it starts all over again. Thousands of young people will enroll in classes in the sixteen-campus University of North Carolina system. Before the first day of class is over, the professors and administrators will begin the assault on students and their Judeo-Christian values. Parents will have spent their entire lives saving money that will ultimately be used to turn their children against them. Students will unlearn everything they were taught about the foundations of liberty, the basis of morality, and will even begin questioning the very existence of truth. Before long, many parents will realize they have risked bankruptcy funding a legacy of intellectual and moral impoverishment. I realized the situation was bad when a military officer wrote me a few years ago. While he was off serving his country, his twin teenaged girls were enrolling at Rice University. During “O” week, Rice orientation week, their orientation leader told them it was time to “experiment with their sexual liberty” now that they were off at college and away from their parents. The military officer was outraged over the incident – as he should have been. More parents would be outraged if only they were paying attention. Later that same semester, I sat through an excruciating graduation speech by a feminist sociologist. She smugly told the parents of graduating seniors that she hoped their children were leaving college with a “different perspective” than the one they brought with them. She said nothing about knowledge during her speech. She spoke only of “perspective” – smugly asserting that hers was better than the one held by the parents who were paying her salary. If I sound a little edgy when I broach this topic there is good reason for that. I abandoned my faith as an 18 year old college freshman – a mere two months into my first semester of college. It is true that I carried some anger into my freshman year, which fueled that abandonment. But it is also true that I took my first psychology class from an atheist professor who used the classroom to evangelize students. There may have been a legitimate reason for my psychology professor’s decision to discuss Sigmund Freud’s theory of how man created God, not vice versa. But when he talked about how B.F. Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning “explained away” religion it bordered on obsession. The psychology professor who feels compelled to rid students of their faith is no less perverted than the orientation leader who feels compelled to rid students of their chastity. eventually made my way back. And reading apologetics played a huge role in my spiritual transformation. For years after that transformation, I wondered why there was no national organization dedicated to bringing resident apologists to campuses in order to establish Christian apologetics groups that would challenge campus atheists. Then it finally happened. After hearing a speech I gave at Summit Ministries (www.Summit.org) in Colorado, Professor Lonnie Welch of Ohio University invited me to speak at the national conference of Ratio Christi (www.RatioChristi.org) in October of 2011. I did not even know that my friends John Stonestreet of Summit Ministries and ADF attorney Casey Mattox were on the Ratio Christi board. Speaking at that conference was one of the greatest thrills of my year. During my speech, my friend Frank Turek came in with none other than Josh McDowell. William Dembski and Greg Koukl showed up later for our conference dinner. It was an evening to remember. While I was there to speak, I was also there to learn. And what I learned was that Ratio Christi is the ideal campus Christian organization. There may be scores of Christian organizations already. But none prior to Ratio Christi were focusing on apologetics training. Such training is desperately needed to keep kids from falling away during college. How can students remain firm in their faith if they are not hearing both sides of the story? And how can they remain grounded if they were never grounded in the first place? Ratio Christi is dedicated to doing the work that other Christian groups are ignoring. It is also laying the intellectual framework that the church has failed to provide for the last half-century. So it was easy to say “yes” when attorney Aaron Marshall asked me to be the faculty sponsor of the new UNCW Ratio Christi chapter. Aaron will be leaving his law practice in Charlotte and moving to Wilmington to become our new chapter advisor. In addition to being a chapter sponsor, I am also a financial supporter for Ratio Christi. Throughout the year, I will be sending them 10% of the gross profits from every column I write and every speech I give. If you want to join me, send your donations to:

Ratio Christi 5531 Gardner Drive Erie, PA 16509

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Revisiting the DHS Smear of the Tea Party Movement

• 
• Michelle Malkin
  

Aug 10, 2012

In the wake of the horrific Sikh temple shootings in Wisconsin, left-wing barrel-scrapers are demanding that talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives apologize for criticizing a 2009 Department of Homeland Security report that hyped an ominous new wave of violent "rightwing extremism."
I don't apologize. I call foul.
The media lowlifes who exploit every tragic shooting to silence their law-abiding, First Amendment-exercising enemies are tearing this country apart. "Progressives" have had free rein to libel and slander peaceful, liberty-loving citizens -- while whitewashing the violent plots and criminal behavior of their ideological counterparts. No more.
Wade Michael Page was a chronically unemployed Army washout with a drinking problem; a body covered in abhorrent white supremacist tattoos; Neo-Nazi band membership; a recent breakup with his white supremacist girlfriend; and a military discharge under "other than honorable conditions" that suggests to several psychological experts he may have had a disqualifying mental illness.

He was, in short, an unrepentant racist and sicko for whom no decent Americans have sympathy or tolerance.

Before he turned the gun on himself, Page slaughtered six innocent human beings. But instead of mourning their deaths and decrying evil in all its forms, some vultures chose to indict the entire right. Instead of waiting for all the facts to come out about Page's life and mental history, political opportunists rifled through their drawer of partisan grievances to score points.

They are using the Sikh temple massacre to try to delegitimize perfectly legitimate criticism of the Obama administration's 2009 Department of Homeland Security report lumping in homicidal extremists like Page with ordinary activists who embrace the very principles of limited government espoused by our Founding Fathers.

On Thursday, Los Angeles Times reporter James Rainey promoted a smug article titled, "Sorry, Mr. Limbaugh, but Obama agency did not target tea party." Rainey, who describes himself as having "spent many of his 30 years in journalism cogitating on politics," blamed Limbaugh, Rep. John Boehner and yours truly for "prevent(ing) tracking of home-grown crackpots."
The DHS assessments, Rainey claimed, "were carefully couched as trends to beware of, directed not at everyday political activists but at those who planned to use violence to carry out their beliefs."
Sorry, Los Angeles Times. But your cogitating reporter misreported what was in those assessments and why conservatives successfully protested them. The politically timed documents were released just as thousands of peaceful, law-abiding Tea Party members were preparing the nationwide April 15 Tax Day Tea Party protests. DHS's overbroad report didn't just target those prone to violence with "carefully couched" language.
No, Los Angeles Times. The feds engaged in scare-mongering about unnamed groups and individuals "antagonistic toward the new presidential administration" and "those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely." Code words for the stimulus-opposing, bailout-protesting Tea Party movement. Duh. For good measure, the report tossed in vague references to pro-lifers, Second Amendment activists and border security advocates, too.
As I noted at the time, past FBI reports on domestic terrorism have always been very specific in identifying the exact groups, causes and targets -- i.e., the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and enviro-wackos who have engaged in physical harassment, arson, vandalism and worse against pharmaceutical companies, farms, labs and university researchers.
By contrast, the 2009 report was a sweeping indictment of conservatives. The report warned that unspecified "rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy." Conservative blogosphere? Guilty! And the entire report asserted with no evidence that an unquantified "resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity" was due to home foreclosures, job losses and "the historical presidential election." To the extent that the DHS assessments mentioned military service members, they focused on Army veterans returning from war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rainey and his ilk blithely glide over the fact that Page was an Army dropout who never saw combat.
No matter. Liberal commentators have convicted GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann, GOP Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and the entire conservative talk-radio world for Page's murderous rampage. On the dregs of cable TV news, MSNBC's Ed Schultz invoked our criticism of the 2009 report to try to shame and blame Righty.
Meanwhile, these ghouls remain radio-silent about actual domestic terror plots tied directly to the Democratic Party-embraced Occupy movement. Take the ring of self-identified Occupy leaders, members and anarchist organizers in Cleveland, Ohio, charged with plotting to bomb bridges in Ohio and kill potentially hundreds in order to sabotage local business and commerce. One pleaded guilty last month and will testify against the other four -- who attempted to detonate what they thought was an improvised explosive device intended to blow up a local bridge and take the lives of untold commuters across the Cuyahoga River. Media apologists have gone out of their way to minimize the severity of the plot and to enable Occupy organizers to distance themselves from their violent anarchist members.
In the warped world of James Rainey, MSNBC Neanderthals and George Soros operatives, every conservative is a rightwing terrorist. But there are no left-wing terrorists -- only misguided kids whose social justice agenda simply went awry. The bias reeks like an Occupy camp in the dog days of August

PAYBACK: DOJ REFUSES TO STAND FOR ITS PEOPLE

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Payback: Holder’s DOJ Refuses to Close Whistleblower’s Retaliation Case

• 
• Katie Pavlich
  News Editor, Townhall

Aug 10, 2012

Today marks the four year anniversary of when ATF Special Agent Jay Dobyns’ house was burned to the ground. The blaze was set to his home while his wife and children were sleeping inside at 3 a.m. As a refresher, Dobyns is a 25-year ATF veteran and worked undercover in the Hells Angels gang for two years in what was known as “Operation Black Biscuit.” When he got out after putting dozens of the Angels in prison, members of the gang in coordination with hard criminals in prisons around the country, issued death threats against him and his family. These criminals and their associates are suspected to be responsible for the arson of Dobyns’ home. Four years later, ATF still hasn’t held a single person accountable within the agency for failing to address threats against his family and hasn’t solved the arson of his home.

As a refresher:

Approximately a year after Operation Black Biscuit concluded beginning in 2004 through 2008, Dobyns and ATF became aware of credible and substantial violent threats against him and his family. Those threats included plans to murder him either with a bullet or by injecting him with the AIDS virus, kidnapping and torturing his then 15-year-old daughter and kidnapping his wife in order to videotape a gang rape of her. Dobyns and ATF also learned contracts were solicited between the Hells Angels, the Aryan Brotherhood and the MS-13 gang to carry out these threats.

During Operation Black Biscuit, Dobyns operated as a special field agent under ATF Phoenix Field Office management. At the time of the threats, that management team included Special Agent in Charge of the ATF Phoenix Field Division William Newell, Assistant Special Agent in Charge George Gillett and ATF Deputy Assistant Director William McMahon, who served as Newell’s direct supervisor at the time.

These threats were laid out in prison letters and confirmed through FBI and ATF interviews of confidential informants inside the Florence Corrections Facility and the Arlington County Detention Center in Virginia. Also found circulating in the Florence Facility by a prisoner known as the captain of the Aryan Brotherhood named "WHITEY," was an extensive hit list with Jay Dobyns as a top target. Leaders of each gang in the prison had a copy of the list and had been given "permission to kill" persons listed according to ATF documents and interviews. Dobyns’ name, in addition to a detailed description of his appearance, also came up in prison yard talk.

Dobyns reported these threats to Special Agent in Charge William Newell, asking for protection for his family. The threats were based in Arizona and Dobyns lived in Arizona at the time. Newell was in charge of investigating and handling all threats made against agents working out of the ATF Phoenix Field Office. The threats were ignored. When Dobyns essentially "blew the whistle" on Newell, pointing out his failures to address violent death threats against a federal agent, he was retaliated against. Newell dismissed the threats and then covered up his blatant dismissal of those threats within the Phoenix Field Office.

When Dobyns reported the incident of his house being burned down to both ATF and Newell, he asked for an investigation into the case. Newell not only refused to investigate, calling the incident "just scorching," but allowed his subordinates, including Gillett, to attempt to frame Dobyns, accusing him of purposely burning down his own home with his family inside, has named him as a suspect and is investigating him. Newell conspired to destroy and fabricate evidence to "prove" his case. Emails, witness testimony, phone conversations and other documentation show the ATF Phoenix Field Divisions’ intentions, led by Newell, were to frame Dobyns, yet Newell denied under oath any involvement in this activity. His subordinates Gillett and ATF Tucson Group Supervisor over Operation Wide Receiver Charles Higman, also denied any attempts to frame Dobyns under oath, despite evidence showing otherwise.

           CLICK BELOW TO READ MORE

OBAMA'S POPULARITY WITH YOUNG VOTERS EXPLAINED?

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Obama's Popularity With Young Voters

• 
• Mark W. Hendrickson
  

Aug 11, 2012

Editor’s note: A version of this article first appeared at Forbes.com.
According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, Americans under the age of 30 favor President Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by almost a two-to-one margin. This is a startling statistic. What explains the lopsided support for President Obama among younger Americans?

I think the two main reasons are ideological and personal.

It’s no revelation to say that young people tend to be more liberal about issues like the redistribution of wealth. You may have heard the old adage, “Anyone who is not a socialist when he is 20, has no heart; anyone who is still a socialist when he is 30, has no mind.” I lived that adage. I was a young socialist 40 years ago who voted for the likable-but-too-conservative George McGovern. Then, after emerging from the collegiate cocoon, weaning myself from financial dependency on others, and seeing the real-world devastation wrought by socialism, I embraced capitalism.
The fact of the matter is that our intellect develops more slowly than our feelings. In my case, my youthful concern for the poor never left me. I simply recognized that free markets, however imperfect, are far more effective at reducing poverty than government programs and socialist dystopias. Likewise, today’s youth generally have good intentions; they just don’t always perceive the optimal means to attain their goals. When you combine that intellectual immaturity with the barrage of leftist indoctrination that many colleges inflict on them—plus their support of certain Obama social policies—it is no wonder that the under-30 segment of our population favors President Obama.
As significant as the ideological factor is for explaining the millennials’ support for him, the president’s personal attractiveness to them looms equally large. Indeed, the young are not unique in voting in response to a presidential candidate’s likability. We have known at least since the Kennedy-Nixon race (JFK’s fresh-faced handsomeness contrasted with Nixon’s off-putting jowly, 5 o’clock shadow during their televised debates) that many Americans vote for a president on the basis of the wrapping rather than the contents of the package—the triumph of image over substance. This may not speak well for our country’s political maturity, or perhaps even for democracy itself, but personality often trumps policy.
I have spoken to several under-30s recently, and I was struck by how often they referred to President Obama as cool or “hip.” Indeed, he can be very winsome. He has that charismatic, incandescent smile; the ability to project gravitas and dignity in one moment and then to be disarmingly informal and down-home normal in the next; the talent for delivering a text in tones that are alternately inspiring, warm, soothing, or fired with passion; and a knack for coming across as level-headed, genuine, reasonable, quietly confident, and so very accessible in his well-crafted television commercials.
If young Americans want to vote for President Obama because he is cooler than Romney, that is their right and privilege. It is sad, though, that they seem oblivious to the high price they are paying for “coolness.” Underneath the hip, attractive surface is a president who says many of the “right” things about helping America move forward, and then cynically acts in ways that hamper progress. Many young Americans (and not a few older ones) who find Obama attractive have a hard time connecting the dots and comprehending just how harmful his policies have been for young Americans.
Do the under-30s really want a president who has tried and succeeded in raising the price of electricity and gasoline; who has hastened the day of Social Security’s insolvency by cutting the revenues to that program; who has raised future taxes on young Americans through the reckless addition of trillions of dollars to the national debt; whose policies have pushed food prices higher; who has tried to keep home prices from falling to levels that would make them affordable to younger Americans?
Do they want four more years of an aggressively antibusiness, hyper-regulatory administration that has squelched job growth and employment opportunities?
Do they want to continue down the path to a European-style welfare state like Spain, where close to half of young adults are unemployed?
I think not, but that is the kind of country they may vote for. Too many young Americans don't connect the current economic stagnation with the president’s policies. They are charmed by his personality while being harmed by his policies. Because I too was once young, I understand that President Obama is like the Pied Piper wooing, attracting and seducing the young, who merrily and blindly follow his bewitching tune. I hope they veer off this path before it reaches its inevitable tragic end, a future they don’t want to experience.

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Liberty Lessons from the Past

• 
• Kathryn Lopez
  

Aug 11, 2012

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has an old story that she likes to tell about her days as Speaker of the House: My chair was getting crowded, it begins. She was at her first White House meeting as the first woman Speaker when she found Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Alice Paul and Sojourner Truth, among others, all sitting in her chair. I could hear them say: 'At last we have a seat at the table.' And then they were gone.
It's too bad Anthony wasn't able to stick around long enough to have a conversation about the trajectory of modern feminism and Pelosi's role as a leading advocate of legal abortion. Anthony and other suffragettes, after all, recognized the rights of the vulnerable unborn as clearly as they did their own rights as women.
At about the same time as there was buzz about Pelosi's sisterhood seance, President Obama was in Denver, being introduced by Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law activist who has become the poster gal for the controversial health-care mandate. Obama made the point, that this mandate is both equivalent to and at the core of women's health, but insisted that he had reached a reasonable compromise with Catholic schools and hospitals. The truth of the matter is quite different, however. Even the University of Notre Dame, which once honored Obama, is now suing him to protect its religious rights, and a former key ally, Sister Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Association, is rejecting administration claims that an acceptable accommodation has been drawn up.

The primary women's health claim that is at the heart of this drive -- in which managing fertility has become a preventative service as part of Obamacare's regulatory scheme -- is one that would be foreign to the women who crowded Pelosi's chair.

Let's look at Charlotte Lozier, a 19-century physician whose life Chuck Donovan is currently honoring, having just established the Charlotte Lozier Institute, an educational outgrowth of the pro-life political group the Susan B. Anthony List.
Lozier secured a medical degree, against the staunch resistance of the scientific establishment of her day, served as a vice president of the National Working Women's Association, bore three children of her own, stood for women's suffrage alongside Susan B. Anthony and other contemporaries, and was profoundly pro-life, is how Donovan makes the introduction. Lozier viewed abortion as an assault on the healing profession and clearly did not see it as a pathway to women's equality or freedom, Donovan explains.
Dr. Lozier, Donovan, emphasizes, fought against a tide that told her she could not be a mother and pro-life feminist and still win a degree in medicine. We have something of the opposite problem now; we are told ... that women cannot realize their ambitions in the world of work without having abortion available. Charlotte Lozier and her allies rejected that idea -- in an era where women's options for dealing with sexual behavior, pregnancy and career opportunities were far narrower than they are now.
Donovan cautions against the perils of leaving these issues entirely to politics. The goal must be to make progress no matter who is in power. If consciences are dulled, we have to sharpen the instruments we're poking with. But consciences are not political property.
Of course, this necessitates well-formed consciences in the first place, in order to address these issues with moral honesty and scientific truth.
Which brings us right back to the presidential election this year, which Obama has made a battle over conscience rights, forcing a fight over the definition of religious liberty.

Has this become a fundamental American value? Insisting that women are only free when we've all been forced to embrace abortion, sterilization, and contraception as basic health care? A value so fundamental that religious liberty can be cast aside, redefined, and subject to punitive fines?

Pelosi's spiritual visitors can offer some guidance here, if we're up for a longer reflection. And one trailblazing doctor in particular, who was known to demonstrate as much compassion as conviction in her work to protect the lives of children and mothers and the integrity of her medical profession, may have a winning prescription. Free& contraception propaganda obscures what we really face today: choices about matters of basic freedom, cultural conscience, and the very soul of our nation.

Ryan comes out swinging as Romney VP pick, condemns Obama 'record of failure'

Posted by BH

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

Paul Ryan came out swinging Saturday in his new role as Mitt Romney's running mate, accusing President Obama of presiding over a "record of failure" and promising to speak "truth" to America's problems and correct course.
"We can turn this thing around," Ryan vowed, as he and Romney joined for the first time as the official 2012 Republican ticket.
The Wisconsin congressman, to the backdrop of retired battleship USS Wisconsin, gave a feisty opening speech -- setting the tone for the Romney-Ryan bus tour that's next on the agenda, and the race going forward. Dutifully promoting the top of the ticket, Ryan touted Romney as the solution to the economic problems under Obama.
Met with chants of "USA, USA" from a riled-up crowd in Virginia, Ryan spoke broadly about the virtues of free enterprise and specifically about America's economic woes, all laced with pointed attacks on the White House incumbent. Though Ryan's reputation is that of a reserved and wonkish pol, his break-out speech as running mate signaled he'll be playing offense for Romney quite frequently.
Ryan accused the Obama team of being "more worried about their next election than they are about the next generation." He blamed Obama's "misguided policies" for the economic rut the country's been stuck in.
"No one disputes that President Obama inherited a difficult situation. And, in his first two years, with his party in complete control of Washington, he passed nearly every item on his agenda. But that didn't make things better," Ryan said. "In fact, we find ourselves in a nation facing debt, doubt and despair. ...
"Whatever the explanations, whatever the excuses, this is a record of failure."
Ryan may continue pushing for a version of the budget proposal he reintroduced earlier this year. That proposal would overhaul Medicare and Medicaid and make other sweeping changes that Democrats have labeled as extreme. But Ryan has stuck by his proposal as the solution to an ever-growing deficit inflamed by out-of-control entitlement spending.
In a dose of the tough-love approach Ryan's become known for, he said: "We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes."
The Republican presidential candidate called his new running mate a man of "steadiness" and "integrity" as he introduced him. Speaking Saturday morning, Romney praised Ryan as an "intellectual leader" of the party, one who understands the toll the debt is taking on the country but is optimistic about the future.
"He doesn't demonize his opponents. He understands that honorable people can have honest differences and he appeals to the better angels of our nature," Romney said. "He's never been content to just curse the darkness. He'd rather light candles."
Romney initially fumbled his introduction of Ryan. In the closing line of his remarks, he referred to Ryan as the "next president." Romney quickly returned to the podium to correct himself.
The selection comes roughly two weeks before the start of the Republican National Convention in Tampa, and gives Romney plenty of space to rally the party behind his pick before the official nomination.   
The announcement comes as some polls, including a recent Fox News survey, show the Republican presidential candidate losing some ground to President Obama.
Ryan, 42, already considered a rising star in the Republican Party, is chairman of the House Budget Committee. He's been in Congress since 1999 and is best known this session for his controversial budget plan that includes an overhaul of Medicare.
Democrats have persistently tried to vilify that plan as a scheme to "end Medicare as we know it."
The Obama campaign repeated that line in its first official response to the Ryan selection Saturday morning.
"The architect of the radical Republican House budget, Ryan, like Romney, proposed an additional $250,000 tax cut for millionaires, and deep cuts in education from Head Start to college aid. His plan also would end Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher system, shifting thousands of dollars in health care costs to seniors," the campaign said. "As a member of Congress, Ryan rubber-stamped the reckless Bush economic policies that exploded our deficit and crashed our economy. Now the Romney-Ryan ticket would take us back by repeating the same, catastrophic mistakes."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/11/ryan-comes-out-swinging-as-romney-vp-pick-condemns-obama-record-failure/#ixzz23GPGTmHd

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Him Again

• 
• Paul Greenberg
  

Aug 11, 2012

Any hope for peace and light in Syria was doomed from the start as long as a remnant of Bashar al-Assad's murderous regime was allowed to stick around. Now its death throes have become the Syrian people's. But the appointment of Kofi Annan to negotiate a peace there double-doomed that empty hope. For wherever the man goes, massacres are sure to follow. Also corruption, injustice and general chaos. Kofi Annan is our own era's Joe Btfsplk, the Al Capp character who brings disaster to all around him while he himself goes blithely on without a scratch. Much like The Hon. Kofi Annan returning from another failed mission without a hair out of place. Syria may be about to fulfill Joe Biden's now forgotten formula for peace in Iraq: Divide the country into three (at least) vivisected parts, one for each ethnic group/militia. Soon enough Bashar al-Assad may have to retreat to Latakia to head a rump Alawite state while Sunni, Shi'a, Kurds, al-Qaida and other assorted terrorist outfits, or just bloody-minded opportunists in general fight over the remains. All the pieces are being set in place for a repeat of Lebanon's unending civil war (1975-91), this time on Syrian soil. But without the murky resolution. And the world shrugs. Solemnly, of course. For there's nothing to be done. Certainly not by those who don't really want to do anything. Especially follow a clear, coherent, forceful strategy. That might cost something. Everything this ever calm, ever dignified diplomat touches has a way of turning into a bloody mess. One year he's presiding over genocide in Rwanda, a couple of years later he performs the same dubious service in the Balkans. Anybody still remember Srebrenica, or is it as forgotten as what happened there? But you can always count on Kofi Annan to be present at the scene of the crime -- as head of a "peacekeeping" mission. Think of him as the mourner whose arrival is the surest indicator of the funeral soon to come. Whether he is doing business with Saddam Hussein in Iraq, enabling that tyrant to kill still more and calling it oil-for-food, or standing idly by in Sudan's Darfur while the killing goes on, His Excellency Kofi Annan will emerge perfectly groomed, not a spot of blood on his Savile Row suit. He is always able to bear the unbearable suffering of others in style. Like someone passing by the most horrific of crashes in a plush limousine. Ambassador/Special Envoy/Man of the World Annan may not actually do anything to help -- indeed, he aids and abets the violent -- but afterward he always remembers to say tsk, tsk. As if he had no real connection with the events he's been party to. He's a kind of genius at acting all innocent and sorrowful, as if he hadn't played any role in what has happened on his watch. Again. In Syria, too, he has given the world the time and excuse it sought to put off doing anything much to halt the daily passion of Syria's people, who are being slaughtered by both sides, by all sides, in that country's spreading bloodbath. Syria is but a preview of the world that awaits as American influence wanes. In Washington, an American president "leads from behind," his latest euphemism for not leading at all. Our secretary of state no longer refers to Bashar al-Assad, president and chief executioner of Syria, as a "reformer," but that doesn't mean this country is actually going to do anything much to rid Syria of its homicidal tyrant. The old coalition of the willing is now unwilling. And when will falters, so does any hope of peace. Instead we get diplomatic platitudes, and the Syrians get death and destruction. The vacuum of American leadership in the world is now being filled, or rather not filled, by the meaningless resolutions of the United Nations and moral frauds like The Hon. Kofi Annan. No doubt a world in which the United States plays a leading role is full of dangers and doubts and sacrifice, as every American family with a soldier, sailor, Marine or airman in Iraq or Afghanistan well knows. But a world in which our president makes excuses instead of policy is not just dangerous but disastrous. See Iran and the nuclear capacity it is about to have -- and employ. That coming, chaotic world now rushes toward us behind a curtain of diplomatic doubletalk. Its surest sign and symbol: Kofi Annan's unruffled presence as he ushers in still another bloody disaster after the other. Any place he goes should be given fair warning: The worst is soon to come -- first invited, then compounded by his ministrations. The man may be the world's most prominent, distinguished and experienced jinx.

CHICK-FIL-A , D.C. MAYOR VERNON GRAY, AND HATE SPEECH

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Chick-fil-A, Mayor Vernon Gray, and “Hate Speech”

• 
• Humberto Fontova
  

Aug 11, 2012

For expressing the opinion of the majority of voters in the 31 states where gay marriage was put to vote Chick-fil-A’s President Dan Cathy is accused of “hate speech” by D.C. Mayor Vernon Gray. Such is the mayor’s revulsion that he threatens to mimic Lester Maddox circa 1962 and stand at his city gates wielding an ax handle to bar restaurant Chik-fil-A’s entry into his municipal domain.

Washington D.C’s black mayor is a prominent patron of his hometown restaurant/bookstore Busboys and Poets, billed by its owner as “The Cultural Hub of the Black Community,” and known as “a haven for writers, thinkers and performers from America's progressive social and political movements.”

This restaurant features posters of Che Guevara on its walls and Che Guevara’s books in its adjoining bookstore. Busboys and Poets also sponsor tours of Cuba in partnership with Castro’s Stalinist regime. Every penny spent by Mayor Gray’s starry-eyed constituents on these Potemkin tours lands in the pockets of the only regime in the Western Hemisphere to herd thousands of men and boys into forced labor camps at Soviet-bayonet point for the crime of fluttering their eyelashes, flapping their hands and talking with a lisp. Every penny spent in Cuba by these progressive writers and artists enriches the only regime in the Western Hemisphere to fuel bonfires with Orwell’s Animal Farm, The UN Declaration of Human Rights and the writings of Martin Luther King.
"Work Will Make Men Out of You" read the sign at the Cuban prison-camp’s gate where tens of thousands of Cuban gays, suspected gays, “longhaired heepees”s and religious youths were jailed and tortured for years. The sign as prominent right over the barbed wire and next to the Soviet-trained machine gunners posted on the watchtowers. The initials for these camps were UMAP, not GULAG, but the conditions were quite similar.
When patronizing Busboys and Poets black Mayor Vernon Grey and his black and “progressive” constituents also reward a purveyor of the following sentiments:
“The Negro is indolent and spends his money on frivolities and drink, the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent…The negro has maintained his racial purity by his well known habit of avoiding baths.” Che Guevara wrote these lines in his famous “Motorcycle’s Diaries,” which is prominently displayed in Busboys and Poets bookstore.
“My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood,” also appears in this popular book for peace activists. “Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any surrendered enemy that falls in my hands! With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!”
Among the sites omitted by Busboys and Poets Cuba tours are the prisons and torture chambers that held the longest-suffering black political prisoners in modern history. Prisoners were often taunted with racist epithets – “we pulled you down from the trees and cut off your tail!” Eusebia Penalver’s Castroite jailers would yell at him. Eusebio Penalver suffered longer in Castro and Che’s prisons than Nelson Mandela in apartheid South Africa’s.
Two years ago black human rights activist Orlando Zapata-Tamayo was beaten comatose by his Castroite jailers and left with a life-threatening fractured skull and Subdural Hematoma. More racist epithets followed and — “Worthless peasant!” was yelled by his white jailers while gleefully kicking and bludgeoning this black human-rights activist. A year later Zapata-Tamayo was dead after a lengthy hunger-strike. But don’t look for his face on any Busboys and Poets’ mural. Instead you’ll find his torturers, who patrons can help enrich by signing up for those “Cuba Tours.”
Che Guevara was famous for driving the mothers of his young murder victims to near suicidal despair. He’d often give the mothers an audience in his office. Then as they pleaded for their sons’ life Che would often grab his telephone and bark the orders to execute her son that very night. Often the mother was privileged to hear the firing squad volley that murdered her son.
Rigoberto Hernandez was 17 when Che’s soldiers dragged him from his cell in La Cabana, jerked his head back to gag him and started dragging him to the stake. Little “Rigo” pleaded his innocence to the very bloody end. But his pleas were garbled and difficult to understand. His struggles while being gagged and bound to the stake were also awkward. The boy had been a janitor in a Havana high school and was mentally retarded. His single mother had pleaded his case with hysterical sobs. She had begged, beseeched and finally proven to his “prosecutors” that it was a case of mistaken identity. Her only son, a boy in such a condition, couldn’t possibly have been “a CIA agent planting bombs.”
“Fuego!” and the firing squad volley riddled Rigo’s little bent body as he moaned and struggled awkwardly against his bounds, blindfold and gag.
"When you saw the beaming look on Che's face as the victims were tied to the stake and blasted apart by his firing squads," said former Cuban political prisoner Roberto Martin-Perez, to this writer, "you saw there was something seriously, seriously wrong with Che Guevara."
Thus far I’ve cited Che Guevara’s bluster when addressing his defenseless victims, the defenseless mothers of his victims, and reporters. On October 8th 1967 in Bolivia “the world’s most famous guerrilla fighter” (thanks to Fidel Castro’s hand-outs to his ever-faithful international media and academic lapdogs and parrots) finally faced something properly describable as guerrilla combat. Shortly into this unprecedented, baffling and utterly terrifying experience Che Guevara snuck away from the firefight, dropped his fully loaded weapons and whimpered: “Don’t shoot! I’m Che! I’m worth more to you alive than dead!”
“If the missiles had remained in Cuba we would have fired them at the heart of the U.S.” boasted Che Guevara to Sam Russell of The London Daily Worker, Nov. 1962.
Given the veneration by Washington D.C’s Busboys and Poets of the racist- Stalinist who craved to nuke Washington D.C. we have to think they also carry Che’s Message to the Tricontinental Conference in Havana 1966. Chik-fil-A “tastes like hate,” Mayor Gray? Well, then chew on this:
“Hatred is the central element of our struggle!... Hatred that is intransigent….Hatred so violent that it propels a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him violent and cold- blooded killing machine…We reject any peaceful approach. Violence is inevitable. To establish Socialism rivers of blood must flow. The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims!” (thus spaketh the icon of flower-children)

Had the icon of Busboys and Poets prevailed in October 1962, today the incinerated remains of many of the restaurant’s patrons, and those of practically all of their parents and grandparents, would fit in one Cappuccino cup. 

 by wp:

 This is a prime example of the insanity that is running through our society today.  Supposedly intelligent, educated men and women of all races are displaying a level of hatred and intolerance seldom seen in America before.  It is sad to see America and her ideals brought so low.