The young Conservatives of Texas have come up with an excellent plan. They have Created an ACLU Nativity Scene to protest the ACLU's and the Left's attempt to remove Christian values from the Public Square. I think that at every place where the Nativity Scene has been Banned by Liberal Anti-1st Amendment Government, we should post the "ACLU Nativity Scene" in it's place.


From the Young Conservatives of Texas:

Conservative Students to Display "ACLU Nativity Scene"
November 29, 2006
Contact: Kevin Potter, Director of Communications - 469.231.4327

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Conservative Students to Display “ACLU Nativity Scene”


Young Conservatives of Texas at UT Austin

November 29, 2006

Contact: Tony McDonald, Chairman 512.923.6893

tony.mcdonald@yahoo.com


AUSTIN, TX – The Young Conservatives of Texas - University of Texas Chapter announced today that they will be displaying an “ACLU Nativity Scene” on the West Mall of the University of Texas campus on Monday and Tuesday, December 4th and 5th. The group’s intent is to raise awareness on the extremity of the ACLU, and bring to light its secular-progressive efforts to remove Christmas from the public sphere. The display, the first of its kind in the nation, will feature characters that are quite a bit different than the standard crèche.

“We’ve got Gary and Joseph instead of Mary and Joseph in order to symbolize ACLU support for homosexual marriage, and of course there isn’t a Jesus in the manger,” said Chairman Tony McDonald. “The three Wise Men are Lenin, Marx, and Stalin because the founders of the ACLU were strident supporters of Soviet style Communism. The whole scene is a tongue-in-cheek way of showing the many ways that the ACLU and the far left are out of touch with the values of mainstream America.”

The scene will also display a terrorist shepherd and an angel in the form of Nancy Pelosi.

“The ACLU and other left-wing extremist groups are working diligently to destroy American’s rights to the free expression of religion,” said Executive Director Joseph Wyly. “We’ve already seen in Chicago an attempt to censor the nativity by a city government this week. It’s just more evidence that there is a War on Christmas being waged by the far-left in this country.”

Young Conservatives of Texas, a non-partisan conservative youth organization, has been fighting for conservative values for more than a quarter century in the Lone Star State and publishes the most respected ratings of the Texas Legislature. YCT has chapters at universities across Texas including Texas A&M University, West Texas A&M University, Baylor University, University of Texas at Austin, Southern Methodist University, Midwestern University, Texas State University, University of Texas San Antonio, University of North Texas, Hardin-Simmons University, Texas Tech University, and Stephen F. Austin University.

-30-

 From Little Shell Tribe website:

PRESS RELEASE

Little Shell Tribal Members website fully endorses Conrad Burns for US Senator

Denver, Co (LittleShellTribe.com) Oct 27, 2006 – The Little Shell Tribal Members Website has fully endorsed Conrad Burns as the US Senator from Montana. Conrad has shown full support in our century long quest to regain our sovereignty and for government to government relations with the United States in our quest for Federal Recognition. He has taken the time to talk to individual Tribal members over the years on our concerns with our Federal Recognition, Civil Rights, and other matters and has given his personal support in return. Visiting with all 7 Native American Reservations in the State of Montana and with our Tribe on an official basis, he has been instrumental in bring back funds and projects to Montana that Native Americans need from the Federal Government. He has also pledged to move forward any legislation in the US Senate that will allow for full government to government federal recognition of the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana Tribe.

When individual tribal members tried to approach Liberal Democrat John Tester on our own as tribal members, we were rebuffed by his office and were told that in essence we were not “important enough” to discuss our tribal concerns by the phone or in person with Mr. Tester. When the Little Shell Tribal Council Vice Chairman James Parker Shield asked Mr. Tester if he’d support legislation to bypass Bureau of Indian Affairs red tape in the recognition process, Tester replied that he hadn’t read the proposal, and couldn’t commit to supporting it. Could not commit to supporting our Sovereignty and right to government to government relations with the US Government?? Who is John Tester kidding? This is a slap to the Little Shell Tribe and to Individual Tribal Members everywhere.

Because John Tester pays only Lip Service to Native Americans without providing any real assistance or support we here at the Little Shell Tribal Website will give our wholehearted and total endorsement for the United States Senate race for Montana to Conrad Burns. We give this endorsement because we feel that Conrad Burns is the only candidate who represents us and will actually fight and forward any legislation introduced in the Senate to give a Federal Recognition of Government to Government relations to the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana. Whereas John Tester has proven that he would only “Suck Up” to Native Americans to gain votes and that he would not represent us as Native Americans or Montanan’s in general in the US Senate but would only represent a partisan political doctrine.

The Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana is made up of approximately 4,300 members, mostly in Great Falls and surrounding areas along with scattered members around the United States. The Tribe gained Government to Government Relations with the State of Montana in the year 2000, this same year, the Department of Interior issued a positive finding and a preliminary recognition. Since then little progress has been made due to bureaucratic obstacles. A bill submitted to the House of Representatives by Republican Denny Rehberg in August 2006 is a beginning for Legislative path to recognition for the tribe.

The Little Shell Tribal Members Website was founded on October 22, 2002 by individual tribal members seeking a way for other tribal members to get their word out to the world. The website is privately owned and not affiliated in any way with the official government of the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians. Its pages have been donated to the cause of the Little Shell Tribe. Affiliated Websites include littleshelltribalmembers.com an experimental tribal member blogging domain, and with littleshelltribe.org a non-profit domain that allows non-profits free web space if they have been endorsed by the Little Shell Tribal Council.

For further information about this endorsement, please contact the Webmaster of the LittleShellTribe.com website in the evenings: Bob Rudeseal Tel: 303-756-4497 e-mail: WebMaster@LittleShellTribe.com.

#####

 From the NY Post:

HUMORLESS DAVE RIPS O'REILLY

October 27, 2006 -- ANY lingering doubts that David Letterman detests Bill O'Reilly will be laid to rest tonight, when the gap-toothed funnyman has the conservative Fox News powerhouse on his CBS "Late Show" and machine-guns him with insults.

In a tape previewed by Page Six, things go downhill fast as O'Reilly sits down and jokingly presents the liberal-leaning host with a plastic sword to do battle and holds up a plastic shield to defend himself.

An irritated Letterman cracks, "Oh, that's nice, that's cute, you come out with toys . . . Am I right about one thing: You guys over there at Fox and guys like Rush Limbaugh, you guys know it's all just a goof, right? You're just horsing around. You're doing it 'cause you know it'll be entertaining?" Letterman adds he's never seen O'Reilly's show because, "I dial up Fox and it's always 'The Simpsons.' "

O'Reilly tries to lighten the mood by telling the audience he and Letterman are "on the same bowling league" and asks whether he'd appear on "Dancing With the Stars."

"Bonehead!" snaps Letterman, who then starts shaking his fist and waving his arms at O'Reilly as the subject turns to the war in Iraq. "Let me ask you a question - was there more heinous, more dangerous violence taking place [before America invaded] Iraq, or is there more heinous, dangerous violence taking place now in Iraq?"

"Oh, stop it," O'Reilly scolds the host. "Saddam Hussein slaughtered 300,000 to 400,000 people, all right, so knock it off . . . It isn't so black and white, Dave - it isn't, 'We're a bad country. Bush is an evil liar.' That's not true."

"I didn't say he was an evil liar," Letterman shoots back. "You're putting words in my mouth, just the way you put artificial facts in your head!"

Letterman admits he hasn't read O'Reilly's new book, "Culture War," because "I looked at it. I said, 'What is it, a book on sailing?' "

Checking his watch to signal an end to the insult-a-thon, Letterman sarcastically quips, "Oh, gosh, where has the time gone?" He adds: "I have no idea what I'm talking about - but I don't think you do, either."

Who are "They"? They are 5th Columnist who have invaded and taken over the Democrat Party and who declare themselves "Progressives", "Moderates", and "Liberals", "They" are socialist who want the destruction of the US Government, Anti-American international forces who hate the idea of an American Super-Power and the will to defend Freedom and Liberty. "They" are those who are from the Left-Side of the Spectrum, "They" are people who are so far to the left that Communist and National Socialist look like Far Right Wingers. What are they doing? They are attempting to "Bypass" the constitution and not allow states to vote for who becomes President of the US. They want Political Parties and Illegal Immigrants to vote who becomes the US President. How will they do this? By Ignoring the Constraints of the US Constitution and take away the Electoral College. They have already taken too much power from the States by making Senators beholden to Political Parties instead of the States they come from, so now Senators completely ignore their own State Legislature and Governors when voting on Bills before the Federal Government.

It never fails, instead of abiding by the US Constitution, Liberals and Democrats attempt to Overthrow and bypass the Constitution on a daily basis. To pass a bill as unconstitutional as this is typical of the Liberal thinking of "There is no constitution, there is no law and order other then what we decided it to be at that moment in time".. The cry of "The Electoral College is outdated" is crap. The Constitution guarantee's us a "Republican" form of Government, in other words a Constitutional Republic. This means that Power to rule is imbedded in the people and not the government. The Electoral College guarantees that Local Governments rule the Federal Government, and in doing so, It is LOCAL Governments who choose who is the person to keep the States United “United” is placed into power. The Liberals have subverted congress by taking the power from the states to appoint their own Senators and placed it in the hands of liberal power groups like those paid for and operated by George Soros and out of the Local Government's hands. The Local Government is directly elected by and represents the Local People.. Now to have a State be represented in the Federal Government is totally impossible because the Appointment of Senators is now done at the Political Party Level and Not the State Government level. The House of Representatives is representative of the People in the Federal Government, the Senate is supposed to represent the States, but is now representative of Political Parties, and instead of allowing the States themselves a say on who rules the Union, Liberal Activist now want the President to be appointed by Political Parties. This is the 2nd step in the destruction of the United States as a Nation of the Republic. If this is allowed, it will become the Soviet Socialist States of America, and that will be anarchy. I personally think that every person in the California Legislature or any legislature who voted for this type of bill should be tried for Treason by the Federal Government for trying to overthrow the US Constitution.


As the Bill in (AB 2948, Umberg Electoral college: interstate compact) California has been passed by the State Legislature and is before the Governor of California, Contact the Governor of California and demand that He VETO this Bill and to raise such a stink in the Press that this bill is such full of Unconstitutional premises that the Liberals will not attempt this unconstitutional overthrow of the US Government by California Liberals again.:

Contact the Governor using E-mail

Governor's Office

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-445-4633

Email

To send an Email please visit:
http://www.govmail.ca.gov/


To help us keep track of correspondence and to ensure that we are able to respond to California residents, please be sure to include your name and address when you communicate with the Governor's Office. We do not accept e-mail attachments.

District Offices

Fresno Office
2550 Mariposa Mall #3013
Fresno, CA 93721
Phone: 559-445-5295
Fax: 559-445-5328


Los Angeles Office
300 South Spring Street
Suite 16701
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: 213-897-0322
Fax: 213-897-0319


Riverside Office
3737 Main Street #201
Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: 951-680-6860
Fax: 951-680-6863


San Diego Office
1350 Front Street
Suite 6054
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-525-4641
Fax: 619-525-4640


San Francisco Office
455 Golden Gate Avenue
Suite 14000
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: 415-703-2218
Fax: 415-703-2803


Washington D.C. Office
134 Hall of the States
444 North Capitol Street NW
Washington D.C. 20001
Phone: 202-624-5270
Fax: 202-624-5280

From Newsmax:

California May Subvert Electoral College

The California legislature has passed a bill to drastically change the way the president is elected – giving the state’s 55 electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote, regardless of the results within the state.

The bill is now on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk, and he has until Sept. 30 to decide whether to sign it.

"It would be a major development if California enacts this thing,” Tim Storey, an analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures, told the New York Times.

The mechanism for changing the way Americans vote for the president without a constitutional amendment was devised by computer scientist John R. Koza, co-inventor of the scratch-off lottery ticket.

His brainstorm was to abandon efforts to amend the constitution and abolish the Electoral College, and instead focus on creating "interstate compacts” – contracts that bind states over issues like nuclear waste and port authorities.

In his capacity as chief executive of Scientific Games in Atlanta, Koza had learned how interstate compacts work.

"Multistate lotteries like Powerball are based on such compacts,” the Times reports. "What, he wondered, if a similar agreement bound states together to thwart the Electoral College.”

Koza’s compact, if approved by enough state legislatures, would commit state electors to vote for the candidate winning the most votes nationwide, thereby making an end run around the Electoral College.

"The bottom line is that the system has outlived its usefulness,” said Assemblyman Thomas J. Umberg, a Democrat who sponsored the California bill. "It’s past time that Americans should elect their president by direct vote of the people.”

Umberg said Schwarzenegger is giving the bill serious consideration.

A significant result of Koza’s plan would be a change in the way presidential campaigns are conducted.

"Now, the candidates spend almost all of their time in a handful of battleground states like Ohio and Florida and ignore the rest of the country,” he told the Times.

"This would force candidates to campaign nationally for every vote.”

The idea is not without its critics. Robert Hardaway, a professor of law at the University of Denver, said: "It’s legal, but it would be a terrible idea.

"Look at the trauma the country went through having a recount in Florida. Suppose what would happen, in the face of a close national election, if we had to have a recount in every little hamlet.”

And Jerry F. Hough, a professor of political science at Duke, said conservatives could oppose the effort as a liberal move to regain lost power, in light of Al Gore winning the popular vote in 2000: "I would say this is clearly in the face of Al Gore’s loss in 2000.”

From AP Wires:

Calif. lawmakers vote to give presidential electoral votes to nation's popular vote winner
By ROBIN HINDERY Associated Press Writer
2006-08-31SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - The California Legislature passed a bill that would give California's 55 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the candidate who captured the state _ but for now, the measure stands a slim chance of becoming reality.

That's because it could go into effect only if states with a combined total of 270 electoral votes, the number now required to win the presidency _ agree to the same process.

Similar legislation is pending in Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana and Missouri, which have a combined 50 electoral votes. With California's 55, the legislation would still be less than halfway there.

The movement is a reaction to the 2000 presidential contest, when Democrat Al Gore won the nationwide popular vote but lost the presidency to George W. Bush, who won more Electoral College votes. Gore also won California that year.

Democrats control the California Legislature. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has yet to take a public position on the bill, passed Wednesday.

Supporters said the move would boost California's relevance in national elections. California is a key fundraising state for presidential candidates but is often not visited in general campaigning because it is safely Democratic.

"Candidates don't come to California," said Assemblyman Rick Keene of Chico, one of the few Republican supporters of the measure. "We are currently disenfranchised in the electoral process."

But many Republicans criticized the bill.

"This is a way of amending the Constitution through the backdoor," said Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, a Republican from Irvine.

Critics also argued that campaigning would focus on heavily populated areas at the expense of other parts of the state.

 

 This is how Tolerant the Left Wing really is. From KIRO TV :

National Guardsman Brutally Attacked In Pierce County

POSTED: 4:33 pm PDT August 30, 2006
UPDATED: 6:15 pm PDT August 30, 2006

PARKLAND, Wash. -- The Pierce County Sheriff's Department is searching for five people who allegedly attacked a uniformed National Guardsmen walking along 138th Street in Parkland Tuesday afternoon.

The soldier was walking to a convenience store when a sport utility vehicle pulled up alongside him and the driver asked if he was in the military and if he had been in any action.

The driver then got out of the vehicle, displayed a gun and shouted insults at the victim. Four other suspects exited the vehicle and knocked the soldier down, punching and kicking him.

“And during the assault the suspects called him a baby killer. At that point they got into the car and drove off and left him on the side of the road,” Detective Ed Troyer with the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News.

The suspects were driving a black Chevy Suburban-type SUV.

“This is something new for us, we have not had military people assaulted because they were in the military or somebody's opposition to a war or whatever,” Troyer said.

The driver is described as a white male, 25-30 years old, 5 feet 10 inches tall, heavy build, short blond hair, wearing a black T-shirt and jeans, and armed with a handgun.

The vehicle's passengers are described as white males, 20-25 years old. Some of the suspects wore red baseball hats and red sweatshirts during the attack.

The Pierce County Sheriff's Department is offering a $1,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and charging of the individuals involved. Informants can call 253-591-5959, and callers will remain anonymous.

This Soldier can thank the DNC, Democrats in General, George Soros and his billions of "I hate America" dollars spent, and last of all, Liberal Propaganda supporting Terrorism and Terrorist Groups with their "America is at Fault!" "I hate Bush" "I hate the Military" chants, articles, and movies put out by the evil Left-Wing. These Neo-Liberal Terrorist need to be hung from the throats till dead. Period.

 Mark Burnett is saying the latest Survival season is not Racist.

"By putting people in tribes, they clearly have to get rid of people of their own ethnicity. So that's not racial at all."

The only problem with this statement is that you now have Racial Tribes competing against each other to find which race is Superior overall. That is what racism is all about and CBS's Survivor is now the Liberal bastone of Left-Wing Racism.

The Definition of Racism is:

rac?ism [rey-siz-uhm] –noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1865–70; < F racisme. See race2, -ism]

Burnett insists criticism of the show is the result of ignorance, adding, "People are saying things who've never seen Survivor... and don't understand how it works." He hopes that "maybe the taboo (of race) could disappear" through the new concept and that the show, as in seasons past, will illuminate social dynamics.

Here is the how the show Survivor works: Groups of people compete against each other in physical and mental contests to decide which group (Tribe) is superior. The most superior tribe wins goodies, while the losing tribe is sent back to live in squalor. Those who the losing tribe decide failed the group is voted off the island in an attempt to release the weakest link. As the people diminish, then the tribes are combined and then the "Survivors" then compete on an individual basis to claim superiority over all.

What CBS and Mark Burnett has done is to force people of different racial background to compete against others of different racial backgrounds to prove and decide which race is superior. Reading the Definition of Racism, this Season's Show is definitly racist, no matter how CBS and Mark Burnett "Spins" it.

Here is and article from AP that talks about how GE will no longer sponsor "Surviver":

General Motors Corp. has decided to end its sponsorship of CBS' hit series "Survivor," but the world's largest automaker said Wednesday that the decision had nothing to do with the reality show's controversial decision to divide its contestants in the upcoming season by race and ethnicity.
GM spokeswoman Ryndee S. Carney said the company made the decision in the normal course of making its media buys months ago, before the show made its recent announcement.

"I think it's just a coincidence. I know it's not cause and effect," Carney said.

A group of New York City officials have criticized the new format, saying it promotes divisiveness. They have asked CBS to reconsider its plans.

"How could anybody be so desperate for ratings?" City Councilman John Liu asked last week.

Show creator Mark Burnett said Tuesday that many of those criticizing the new approach haven't ever seen the show and don't understand how it works.

"By putting people in tribes, they clearly have to get rid of people of their own ethnicity," he told The Associated Press during a conference call. "So it's not racial at all."

For the first portion of the 13th edition of "Survivor," which premieres Sept. 14, the contestants competing for the $1 million prize while stranded on the Cook Islands in the South Pacific will be divided into four teams _ blacks, Asians, Hispanics and whites.

GM, which has sponsored "Survivor" since it premiered in May 2000, is shifting some of its media dollars from prime-time television to more live sports, awards shows and other big events, Carney said.

The Detroit-based company also decided that its media strategy should feature cars and trucks integrated into shows, which was difficult on "Survivor," she said. Although one episode did feature a Pontiac Aztek, the opportunities for cars and trucks on the show were few, Carney said.

"There's a limited number of possibilities as to how you can integrate a car or truck in a show that people spend their whole time on an island," she said.

CBS spokesman Chris Ender said GM notified the network of its decision long before the new "Survivor" format was announced. He said the company had no knowledge of the competition by race.

"They informed us several months ago that they wouldn't be part of the upcoming season. It's unrelated to the controversy surrounding the upcoming edition," Ender said.

CBS Entertainment, which is part of New York-based CBS Corp., will stick with the format despite the criticism, he said.

Ender would not say if any other sponsors had left the show or if CBS had a replacement for GM.

CBS Entertainment, which is part of New York-based CBS Corp., has defended the ethnic twist, saying it follows the show's tradition of introducing new creative elements and casting structures that reflect cultural and social issues.

 From Newsmax:

Michael Moore Threatens Democrats


Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, following the Connecticut primary defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman, issued a direct threat to his fellow Democrats: Denounce the war in Iraq or you’ll get what Joe got.

In a letter to his Web site visitors, which served as fertilizer for blogs everywhere, Moore raged that Ned Lamont’s anti-war victory was the beginning of a revolution among liberals.

Writes Moore on his Web site: "Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended -- and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.”

Moore referenced the 2004 Democratic presidential ticket – John Kerry and John Edwards – as two Democrats who voted for the war who have now "seen the light,” but because they "sided with Bush . . . may never enter the promised land.”


Moore saved his most pointed criticism for Sen. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic frontrunner for the presidency in 2008.

"To Hillary . . . You will never make it through the Democratic primaries unless you start now by strongly opposing the war. It is your only hope. You and Joe [Lieberman] have been Bush's biggest Democratic supporters of the war. Last night's voter revolt took place just a few miles from your home in Chappaqua. Did you hear the noise? Can you read the writing on the wall?”

 Leave it to the Democrat Party to provide aid and comfort to America's enemies and ensure that the USA is hogtied in it's ability to defend itself. Here is an example for millions of examples of how Liberals and Democrats want the USA to disband and fail.

From Newsweek:

Cuba Drills for Oil 60 Miles Off U.S. Coast


With Congress deadlocked over allowing oil drilling in presently restricted areas of the Gulf of Mexico, communist Cuba is already drilling for oil 60 miles off the coast of Florida.


Republicans in Congress have tried repeatedly in the past decade to open up the outer continental shelf to exploration. There are an estimated 45 billion barrels in oil reserves and 232 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in banned drilling areas of the Gulf, and Florida's waters hold the promise of major energy finds.

They have been strenuously opposed by Florida and environmental-minded legislators from both parties. Florida's powerful tourism and booming real estate industries fear that oil spills could hurt their business.



Meanwhile Cuba "is exploring in its half of the 90-mile-wide Straits of Florida within the internationally recognized boundary as well as in deep-water areas of the Gulf of Mexico,” the Washington Times reports.


Two Canadian companies are presently pumping more than 19,000 barrels of crude oil each day from fields in the straits about 90 miles from Key West, and a Spanish company has announced an oil strike in deep-water areas of the same region, according to the National Ocean Industries Association.


Cuba's state oil company, Cubapetroleo, has signed a deal with China's Sinopec to explore for oil, and it is using Chinese-made drilling equipment in the search.

Sterling Burnett, a fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank, said America’s quarter-century limits on offshore drilling are putting the U.S. at a strategic disadvantage as oil and gas prices reach record highs.


"Canada and even economically backward Cuba are moving forward with plans to drill in offshore areas that abut U.S. coastal waters," he told the Times.

"Since pools of oil do not respect international boundaries, it is almost certainly true that Canada and Cuba will be accessing oil that could otherwise be developed by and for the benefit of Americans."



The House last month passed a bill that would allow coastal states to decide whether to open the first 100 miles of their waters for oil exploration. The states permitting exploration would receive half of the hundreds of billions of dollars in royalties and fees from drilling that would otherwise go to the federal government.

A Senate bill would permit drilling in a key area in the eastern Gulf but allow Florida to retain a 125-mile no-drilling buffer zone.

 An Oklahoma woman named Judy Vincent who's son, Cpl. Scott M. Vincent's had died April 2004 while defending his country from Terrorist, found out last year that an anti-american Liberal named Dan Frazier of Flagstaff, Ariz who runs the carryabigsticker.com website, had used her son's name on a t-shirt he sells for profit that says "Bush Lied, They Died" without her or her families permission.

Judy Vincent lobbied the Oklahoma Legisture for a law that makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to use a Soldier's name or likeness for advertising or profit without the families permission if the soldier, sailer, airman, or marine is not alive to give it. She is currently lobbying her senators and congressmen/congresswomen for the same law to be applied nationwied. Currently U.S. Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla, U.S. Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr. ,R-LA, and U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis, R-KY have submitted bills in the House of Representatives for laws preventing unauthorized use of fallen American Heros without permission.

The shirt vendor “has the right to voice his opinion, as we all do,” Vincent said.

“But I do believe the First Amendment stops when you use a person's name or likeness to make a profit. I don't care what he thinks about the war. I do care that he's making money off my son's death.”

This hateful liberal has posted a letter on his website where he is selling the shirts (I will not post a link to it as I feel he is illegally selling these items, and I do not support his intolerant and hateful speech) that says:

"I have been surprised by the outrage expressed by some family members who have written to me about these products. Many have said that the fallen soldiers they knew and loved would never have supported the message of my shirts."

He tries to defend his actions by saying he is a journalist with the right to Libel any dead person he wants:

"I have a background as a writer and editor. I know that libel laws could catch up with me if I made demonstrably false statements about living people, especially if such statements hurt their reputations. But I also know that in most states you can’t be held accountable for libeling a dead person, no matter who it is. ...The soldiers are dead. Legally, I could write a letter to the editor calling them a bunch of communists if I wanted to .."

He also tries to defend himself by saying it's the soldier's own fault for dying and tries to make it out that each soldier would support his anti-american intolerant hate-speech at the moment they died.:

We really can’t know what our fallen soldiers would say about anti-war products and protests if they could speak from beyond the grave. We may know what they said before they died, but can we really know what they were thinking at the moment they breathed their last breaths?

He is also trying to wrap himself in the flag by saying that he is doing this to protect his Free Speech rights, when in fact he is trampling on all of our rights:

We also know that many soldiers who have served have believed they were protecting the rights and liberties their country stands for, including freedom of speech. We do them a terrible disservice when we take away these liberties, particularly when we say we are doing it for their sake.

This guy is a total scumbag and one who tries to profit by inciting insurrection and treason then wraps himself around a false sense of patriotism while burning the flag and spitting on those who defend us. It's all Left-Wing Propaganda used to incite Treason and Insurrection, nothing less.

The definition of Insurrection and Treason is this:

Treason: a crime that undermines the offender's government [syn: high treason, lese majesty] 2: disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior [syn: subversiveness, traitorousness] 3: an act of deliberate betrayal [syn: treachery, betrayal, perfidy]: the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war; specifically : the act of levying war against the United States or adhering to or giving aid and comfort to its enemies by one who owes it allegiance

Insurrection: The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government. organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another : the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government; also : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt :whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States.

News reports about this:
AP Wire

Laws/Bills:
H.R. 7455 "Soldiers Targeted by Offensive Profiteering Act of 2006 (STOP Act)"

H.R. 5772: "Military Fallen Heroes Protection Act of 2006"

Oklahoma HB 2643 "4/20/2006 Crimes and punishments-Prohibit use of names and pictures of Armed Forces for ads"

From<a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WAL_MART?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-07-19-14-23-03" target="_BLANK"> AP Wires</a>:

<blockquote>
Judge overturns Wal-Mart health care spending law

By BRIAN WITTE
Associated Press Writer

   BALTIMORE (AP) -- A federal judge on Wednesday overturned a Maryland law that would have required Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to spend more on employee health care, arguing the retail giant "faces threatened injury" from the law's spending requirement.

   The state law would have required large employers to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care or pay the difference in taxes. Only Wal-Mart would have been affected by the law.

   U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz concluded that the law would have hurt Wal-Mart by requiring it to track and allocate benefits for its Maryland employees in a different way from how it keeps track of employee benefits in other states. Motz wrote that the law "imposes legally cognizable injury upon Wal-Mart."

   The Retail Industry Leaders Association, of which Wal-Mart is a member, filed the lawsuit contesting the legislation. The group contended the law unfairly targeted the world's largest retailer.

   Without the court's intervention, the law would have taken effect in January.

   Lawyers for the state argued before Motz that the so-called Wal-Mart law wasn't an illegal mandate. They said Wal-Mart was free to pay the penalty -- estimated at $6 million a year -- instead of providing better benefits. As another alternative, the retailer could also have set up health clinics for its employees.

   Other states have considered bills similar to Maryland's law, although no other state has adopted one.

   In Maryland, where state budget writers were looking for ways to rein in a $4.6 billion annual Medicaid tab, the Wal-Mart law was seen as a way to encourage companies to keep employees off public rolls. It became law last winter when the Democratic legislature overrode a 2005 veto by Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich.

   Wal-Mart shares rose 96 cents, or 2.2 percent, to $44.13 in early afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

 

</blockquote>

You can read the Opinion here:

<a href="http://www.leftwinghate.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/Walmartopinion.pdf" target="_BLANK">Walmart Opinion</a>

<a href="http://www.leftwinghate.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/walmartorder.19july06.pdf" target="_BLANK">Walmart Order</a>

 

It has been proven time and time again, Embronic Stem Cells cannot cure diseases, BUT Adult Stem Cells and Cord Cells HAVE been Proven to help Cure Diseases.. These Liberals and Pandering Politicians need to pull their heads out of their butts and stop trying to commit Genocide on the Human Race.



From AP Wires

Senate Approves Embryonic Stem Cell Bill


WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate voted Tuesday after two days of emotional debate to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and sent the measure to President Bush for a promised veto, the first of his presidency.

The bill passed 63-37, four votes short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override Bush's veto. The president left little doubt he would reject the bill despite late appeals on its behalf from fellow Republicans Nancy Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"The simple answer is he thinks murder's wrong," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "The president is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something living and making it dead for the purposes of scientific research."

From the White House Press Briefing for July 18, 2006:

Q On stem cell, will there be a ceremony for the veto, for the signing of the veto statement?

MR. SNOW: No, but there may be a ceremony for the signing of bills. You guys -- everybody seems to think that there's one bill. There are three bills that are going to be considered, and two of them await a presidential signature. You seldom have veto-signing ceremonies.

Q -- several, for partial-birth abortion and for --

MR. SNOW: The President has made clear what his views are on this. I'm not aware that we are going to have a ceremony for a veto. We are going to have the exercise of veto. It's going to be a picture of a veto.

Q -- a picture of him not signing? (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: No, they're not going to hand out ceremonial pens, they're not going to --

Q -- sign a statement in public and called it a veto ceremony. And the question was, do you anticipate something like that for this?

MR. SNOW: No, but I appreciate the history of veto statements.

Q Can you remind us why the President believes that it is not appropriate to use -- that it is more appropriate for stem cells to be thrown away than to be used, in this case, for medical research?

MR. SNOW: The President -- I don't think that's the choice that the President has presented. What the President has said is that he doesn't want human life destroyed. Now, you may consider that insignificant, but the President has said -- and you have had in a number of cases the Snowflake babies, where some of those fetuses have, in fact, been brought to term and have become human beings. The President believes strongly that for the purpose of research it's inappropriate for the federal government to finance something that many people consider murder; he's one of them.

Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that this government did make available already existing lines -- to sort of get back to your question, there were existing lines. And the most recent figures we have are 2004, but 85 percent of all the embryonic stem cell research on Earth was conducted using those lines. There is nothing that makes embryonic stem cell research illegal; it simply says that the federal government will not finance it. As you know, there are ongoing efforts in some states, including, I think, California and Massachusetts, to use state money for it, and I daresay if people think that there's a market for it, they're going to support it handsomely. The simple answer is he thinks murder is wrong, and he has said.

Q The legislation is going to be -- that deals with thousands and thousands of embryos that will be thrown out, destroyed.

MR. SNOW: That is a tragedy, but the President is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something that is living and making it dead for the purpose of research.

UPDATE: It's Vetoed!

Bush vetoes bill expanding federally funded embryonic stem cell research

Eds: ADDS 4 grafs to UPDATE with details. Moving on general news and financial services.

With BC-Presidential Vetoes-Glance, BC-Stem Cells-Quotes, BC-Stem Cells-Politics, BC-Stem Cells-Opinion

AP Photos DCLJ108-111

AP Graphic PRESIDENTIAL VETOES

By MARY DALRYMPLE
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush cast the first veto of his 5 1/2-year presidency Wednesday, rejecting legislation to ease limits on federal funding for research on stem cells obtained from embryos.

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life of the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our society needs to respect, so I vetoed it," Bush said at a White House event where he was surrounded by 18 families who "adopted" frozen embryos that were not used by other couples, and then used those leftover embryos to have children.

"Each of these children was still adopted while still an embryo and has been blessed with a chance to grow, to grow up in a loving family. These boys and girls are not spare parts," he said.

The veto came a day after the Senate defied Bush and approved the legislation, 63-37, four votes short of the two-thirds margin needed to override. White House officials and Republican congressional leaders claimed it was unlikely that Congress could override the veto.

Bush's support was the strongest in the House, which was expected to take up the veto as early as later Wednesday.

Bush has supported federally funded research on only those stem cell lines created before Aug. 9, 2001, the date of his speech to the nation on the subject.

The president vetoed the measure shortly after it came to his desk. His position was politically popular among conservative Republicans, and it was sure to be an issue in the midterm congressional elections.

---------------------------

WHITE HOUSE (AP) -- President Bush has vetoed a bill designed to allowed expanded federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research --saying it "crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect."

Bush says the measure Congress approved would "support the taking of innocent human life in hopes of finding medical benefits for others." He says it would've done away with what he described as a more balanced approach he had taken on the issue.

The veto is the first since Bush took office in 2001.

Colorado Congresswoman Diana DeGette (duh-GETT') was one of the original co-sponsors of the bill, and had pushed for a Senate vote.

Senators approved the bill yesterday, 63-to-37. Colorado Senator Wayne Allard voted "no," and Senator Ken Salazar voted for it.

 

 Anti-American Liberal George Soros started a group called "Democracy Alliance". It's purpose is to overthrow the Democrat Party and turn it into a Socialist Liberal Party that would make Stalin and Hitler Blush. You thought the support the Democrat Party gave and still gives to the Klu Kux Klan was bad, wait till this starts generating fruit.. You have already seen how part of it would work with the use of groups like People for the American Way, Moveon.org, Daily Kos, Democrat Underground, The Cobell Native American Lawsuit, ACLU, NAACP, Rainbow Coalition, etc.. All these and thousands more are funded by George Soros, his minions, and his billions of dollars he has dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Constitutional guarantee for a "Republican Form" of government for a "Socialist Form" of government. All demanding that their involvement be hidden from public view. Darkness.

This article by the Washington Post paints a favorable picture of this group "Democracy Alliance" as a "Good" thing.. But this is the Enemy Within talking here..

A New Alliance Of Democrats Spreads Funding
But Some in Party Bristle At Secrecy and Liberal Tilt

By Jim VandeHei and Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 17, 2006; A01



An alliance of nearly a hundred of the nation's wealthiest donors is roiling Democratic political circles, directing more than $50 million in the past nine months to liberal think tanks and advocacy groups in what organizers say is the first installment of a long-term campaign to compete more aggressively against conservatives.

A year after its founding, Democracy Alliance has followed up on its pledge to become a major power in the liberal movement. It has lavished millions on groups that have been willing to submit to its extensive screening process and its demands for secrecy.

These include the Center for American Progress, a think tank with an unabashed partisan edge, as well as Media Matters for America, which tracks what it sees as conservative bias in the news media. Several alliance donors are negotiating a major investment in Air America, a liberal talk-radio network.

But the large checks and demanding style wielded by Democracy Alliance organizers in recent months have caused unease among Washington's community of Democratic-linked organizations. The alliance has required organizations that receive its endorsement to sign agreements shielding the identity of donors. Public interest groups said the alliance represents a large source of undisclosed and unaccountable political influence.

Democracy Alliance also has left some Washington political activists concerned about what they perceive as a distinctly liberal tilt to the group's funding decisions. Some activists said they worry that the alliance's new clout may lead to groups with a more centrist ideology becoming starved for resources.

Democracy Alliance was formed last year with major backing from billionaires such as financier George Soros and Colorado software entrepreneur Tim Gill. The inspiration, according to founders, was a belief that Democrats became the minority party in part because liberals do not have a well-funded network of policy shops, watchdog groups and training centers for activists equivalent to what has existed for years on the right.

But the alliance's early months have been marked by occasional turmoil, according to several people who are now or have recently been affiliated with the group. Made up of billionaires and millionaires who are accustomed to calling the shots, the group at times has gotten bogged down in disputes about its funding priorities and mission, participants said.

Democracy Alliance organizers say early disagreements are first-year growing pains for an organization that has decades-long goals. Judy Wade, managing director of the alliance, said fewer than 10 percent of its initial donors have left, a figure she called lower than would be expected for a new venture. And she said the group's funding priorities are a work in progress, as organizers try to determine what will have the most influence in revitalizing what she called the "center-left" movement.

"Everything we invest in should have not just short-term impact but long-term impact and sustainability," she said. The group requires nondisclosure agreements because many donors prefer anonymity, Wade added. Some donors expressed concern about being attacked on the Web or elsewhere for their political stance; others did not want to be targeted by fundraisers.

"Like a lot of elite groups, we fly beneath the radar," said Guy Saperstein, an Oakland lawyer and alliance donor. But "we are not so stupid though," he said, to think "we can deny our existence."

This article is based on interviews with more than two dozen Democrats who are members of the alliance, recipients of their money or familiar with the group's operations. None would speak on the record about financial details, but all such details were confirmed by multiple sources.

Democracy Alliance works essentially as a cooperative for donors, allowing them to coordinate their giving so that it has more influence.

To become a "partner," as the members are referred to internally, requires a $25,000 entry fee and annual dues of $30,000 to cover alliance operations as well as some of its contributions to start-up liberal groups. Beyond this, partners also agree to spend at least $200,000 annually on organizations that have been endorsed by the alliance. Essentially, the alliance serves as an accreditation agency for political advocacy groups.

This accreditation process is the root of Democracy Alliance's influence. If a group does not receive the alliance's blessing, dozens of the nation's wealthiest political contributors as a practical matter become off-limits for fundraising purposes.

Many of these contributors give away far more than the $200,000 requirement. Soros, Gill and insurance magnate Peter Lewis are among the biggest contributors, but 45 percent of the 95 partners gave $300,000 or better in the initial round of grants last October, according to a source familiar with the organization.

Democracy Alliance organizers say they are trying to bring principles of accountability and capital investment that are common in business to the world of political advocacy, where they believe such principles have often been missing.

Wade declined to discuss the donors or the groups they fund. But, in an interview, she described how the groups were chosen. Alliance officials initially reviewed about 600 liberal and Democratic-leaning organizations. Then, about 40 of those groups were invited to apply for an endorsement -- with a requirement that they submit detailed business plans and internal financial information. Those groups were then screened by a panel of alliance staff members, donors and outside experts, including some with expertise in philanthropy rather than politics. So far, according to people familiar with the alliance, 25 groups have received its blessing.

The goal was to invest in groups that could be influential in building what activists call "political infrastructure" -- institutions that can support Democratic causes not simply in the next election but for years to come.

Those who make the cut have prospered. The Center for American Progress (CAP), which is led by former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta, received $5 million in the first round because it was seen as a liberal version of the Heritage Foundation, which blossomed as a conservative idea shop in the Reagan years, said one person closely familiar with alliance operations. CAP officials declined to comment.

Likewise, a Democracy Alliance blessing effectively jump-started Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). It bills itself as a nonpartisan watchdog group committed to targeting "government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests." Alliance officials see CREW as a possible counterweight to conservative-leaning Judicial Watch, which filed numerous lawsuits against Clinton administration officials in the 1990s. A CREW spokesman declined to comment.

The Center for Progressive Leadership and its president, Peter Murray, are getting funding from the alliance and are seen by some as a potential leader in training young activists on the left. While the center is still dwarfed by conservative groups such as the Leadership Institute, alliance donors have helped increase Murray's budget to $2.3 million, compared with $1 million one year ago, he said.

But Democracy Alliance's decisions not to back some prominent groups have stirred resentment. Among the groups that did not receive backing in early rounds were such well-known centrist groups as the Democratic Leadership Council and the Truman National Security Project.

Funding for these groups was "rejected purely because of their ideologies," said one Democrat familiar with internal Democracy Alliance funding discussions.

Officials with numerous policy and political groups in Washington said they have reservations about the group's influence. Several declined to talk on the record for fear of alienating a funding source.

But Matt Bennett, a vice president at Third Way, a centrist group that did not receive funding in the first wave of endorsements, said he believes that Democracy Alliance has merit. "It will enable progressives, for the first time ever, to build a permanent infrastructure to beat the conservative machine," he said.

Philanthropist David Friedman, an alliance partner and self-described centrist, said that "as our portfolio grows, we will fund a broader range of groups."

But some consider Democracy Alliance's hidden influence troubling, regardless of its ideological orientation. Unlike election campaigns, which must detail contributions and spending, most of the think tanks and not-for-profit groups funded by the alliance are exempt from public disclosure laws.

"It is a huge problem," said Sheila Krumholz, the acting executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. She noted that for decades "all kinds of Democrats and liberals were complaining that corporations and individuals were carrying on these stealth campaigns to fund right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups. Just as it was then, it is a problem today."

The exclusive donor club includes millionaires such as Susie Tompkins Buell and her husband, Mark Buell, major backers of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), and Chris Gabrieli, an investment banker running for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Massachusetts this September. Mark Buell estimated that about 70 percent of alliance partners built their own wealth, while 30 percent became wealthy through inheritances.

Bernard L. Schwartz, retired chief executive of Loral Space & Communications Inc. and an alliance donor, said the group offers partners "an array of opportunities that have passed their smell test." This is most helpful, he said, for big donors who lack the time to closely examine their political investment options.

Trial lawyer Fred Baron, a member of the alliance and longtime Democratic donor, agreed: "The piece that has always been lacking in our giving is long-term infrastructure investments."

There also are a few "institutional investors" such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) that pay a $50,000 annual fee and agree to spend $1 million on alliance-backed efforts.

Some Democratic political consultants privately fear that the sums being spent by alliance donors will mean less money spent on winning elections in 2006 and 2008.

But Rob Stein, co-founder of Democracy Alliance, said the party will become ascendant only if it thinks beyond the next election cycle.

Stein has closely studied the conservative movement -- often with envy. Armed with a PowerPoint presentation for potential donors, he argues that Republicans dominate the federal and many state governments because they methodically made investments in groups that could generate new ideas, shape public opinion, train conservative activists and elected officials, and boost voter turnout among conservatives -- aware that there was no near-term payoff. Liberals have done nothing comparable, he said.

"It is not possible in the 21st century to promote a coherent belief system and maintain political influence without a robust, enduring local, state and national institutional infrastructure," Stein said. "Currently, the center-left is comparatively less strategic, coordinated and well financed than the conservative-right. These comparative disadvantages are debilitating."

Cillizza is a staff writer for washingtonpost.com.

From Capitol Research Center:

Foundation Watch
Spawn of Soros
Funding a New Generation of Think Tanks

By Robert M. Huberty
You can’t keep a rich man down. George Soros, the man who spent almost $24 million to defeat George W. Bush in 2004, is planning a comeback for “progressive politics” (the new untainted term for liberalism). He thinks he’s found just the vehicle to drive the progressive agenda onward—think tanks funded by mega-rich leftists. Too bad Soros’s big plans require organization and content. And don't miss Joe de Feo's examiniation of Jeffrey Skoll’s Hollywood activism. Audiences want to watch movies that entertain. Filmmakers want to create cinema that raises serious social and political issues. Studios want to make money. Has Jeff Skoll found a new nonprofit formula to square this circle?

 Anti-American Liberal George Soros started a group called "Democracy Alliance". It's purpose is to overthrow the Democrat Party and turn it into a Socialist Liberal Party that would make Stalin and Hitler Blush. You thought the support the Democrat Party gave and still gives to the Klu Kux Klan was bad, wait till this starts generating fruit.. You have already seen how part of it would work with the use of groups like People for the American Way, Moveon.org, Daily Kos, Democrat Underground, The Cobell Native American Lawsuit, ACLU, NAACP, Rainbow Coalition, etc.. All these and thousands more are funded by George Soros, his minions, and his billions of dollars he has dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Constitutional guarantee for a "Republican Form" of government for a "Socialist Form" of government. All demanding that their involvement be hidden from public view. Darkness.

This article by the Washington Post paints a favorable picture of this group "Democracy Alliance" as a "Good" thing.. But this is the Enemy Within talking here..

A New Alliance Of Democrats Spreads Funding
But Some in Party Bristle At Secrecy and Liberal Tilt

By Jim VandeHei and Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 17, 2006; A01



An alliance of nearly a hundred of the nation's wealthiest donors is roiling Democratic political circles, directing more than $50 million in the past nine months to liberal think tanks and advocacy groups in what organizers say is the first installment of a long-term campaign to compete more aggressively against conservatives.

A year after its founding, Democracy Alliance has followed up on its pledge to become a major power in the liberal movement. It has lavished millions on groups that have been willing to submit to its extensive screening process and its demands for secrecy.

These include the Center for American Progress, a think tank with an unabashed partisan edge, as well as Media Matters for America, which tracks what it sees as conservative bias in the news media. Several alliance donors are negotiating a major investment in Air America, a liberal talk-radio network.

But the large checks and demanding style wielded by Democracy Alliance organizers in recent months have caused unease among Washington's community of Democratic-linked organizations. The alliance has required organizations that receive its endorsement to sign agreements shielding the identity of donors. Public interest groups said the alliance represents a large source of undisclosed and unaccountable political influence.

Democracy Alliance also has left some Washington political activists concerned about what they perceive as a distinctly liberal tilt to the group's funding decisions. Some activists said they worry that the alliance's new clout may lead to groups with a more centrist ideology becoming starved for resources.

Democracy Alliance was formed last year with major backing from billionaires such as financier George Soros and Colorado software entrepreneur Tim Gill. The inspiration, according to founders, was a belief that Democrats became the minority party in part because liberals do not have a well-funded network of policy shops, watchdog groups and training centers for activists equivalent to what has existed for years on the right.

But the alliance's early months have been marked by occasional turmoil, according to several people who are now or have recently been affiliated with the group. Made up of billionaires and millionaires who are accustomed to calling the shots, the group at times has gotten bogged down in disputes about its funding priorities and mission, participants said.

Democracy Alliance organizers say early disagreements are first-year growing pains for an organization that has decades-long goals. Judy Wade, managing director of the alliance, said fewer than 10 percent of its initial donors have left, a figure she called lower than would be expected for a new venture. And she said the group's funding priorities are a work in progress, as organizers try to determine what will have the most influence in revitalizing what she called the "center-left" movement.

"Everything we invest in should have not just short-term impact but long-term impact and sustainability," she said. The group requires nondisclosure agreements because many donors prefer anonymity, Wade added. Some donors expressed concern about being attacked on the Web or elsewhere for their political stance; others did not want to be targeted by fundraisers.

"Like a lot of elite groups, we fly beneath the radar," said Guy Saperstein, an Oakland lawyer and alliance donor. But "we are not so stupid though," he said, to think "we can deny our existence."

This article is based on interviews with more than two dozen Democrats who are members of the alliance, recipients of their money or familiar with the group's operations. None would speak on the record about financial details, but all such details were confirmed by multiple sources.

Democracy Alliance works essentially as a cooperative for donors, allowing them to coordinate their giving so that it has more influence.

To become a "partner," as the members are referred to internally, requires a $25,000 entry fee and annual dues of $30,000 to cover alliance operations as well as some of its contributions to start-up liberal groups. Beyond this, partners also agree to spend at least $200,000 annually on organizations that have been endorsed by the alliance. Essentially, the alliance serves as an accreditation agency for political advocacy groups.

This accreditation process is the root of Democracy Alliance's influence. If a group does not receive the alliance's blessing, dozens of the nation's wealthiest political contributors as a practical matter become off-limits for fundraising purposes.

Many of these contributors give away far more than the $200,000 requirement. Soros, Gill and insurance magnate Peter Lewis are among the biggest contributors, but 45 percent of the 95 partners gave $300,000 or better in the initial round of grants last October, according to a source familiar with the organization.

Democracy Alliance organizers say they are trying to bring principles of accountability and capital investment that are common in business to the world of political advocacy, where they believe such principles have often been missing.

Wade declined to discuss the donors or the groups they fund. But, in an interview, she described how the groups were chosen. Alliance officials initially reviewed about 600 liberal and Democratic-leaning organizations. Then, about 40 of those groups were invited to apply for an endorsement -- with a requirement that they submit detailed business plans and internal financial information. Those groups were then screened by a panel of alliance staff members, donors and outside experts, including some with expertise in philanthropy rather than politics. So far, according to people familiar with the alliance, 25 groups have received its blessing.

The goal was to invest in groups that could be influential in building what activists call "political infrastructure" -- institutions that can support Democratic causes not simply in the next election but for years to come.

Those who make the cut have prospered. The Center for American Progress (CAP), which is led by former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta, received $5 million in the first round because it was seen as a liberal version of the Heritage Foundation, which blossomed as a conservative idea shop in the Reagan years, said one person closely familiar with alliance operations. CAP officials declined to comment.

Likewise, a Democracy Alliance blessing effectively jump-started Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). It bills itself as a nonpartisan watchdog group committed to targeting "government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests." Alliance officials see CREW as a possible counterweight to conservative-leaning Judicial Watch, which filed numerous lawsuits against Clinton administration officials in the 1990s. A CREW spokesman declined to comment.

The Center for Progressive Leadership and its president, Peter Murray, are getting funding from the alliance and are seen by some as a potential leader in training young activists on the left. While the center is still dwarfed by conservative groups such as the Leadership Institute, alliance donors have helped increase Murray's budget to $2.3 million, compared with $1 million one year ago, he said.

But Democracy Alliance's decisions not to back some prominent groups have stirred resentment. Among the groups that did not receive backing in early rounds were such well-known centrist groups as the Democratic Leadership Council and the Truman National Security Project.

Funding for these groups was "rejected purely because of their ideologies," said one Democrat familiar with internal Democracy Alliance funding discussions.

Officials with numerous policy and political groups in Washington said they have reservations about the group's influence. Several declined to talk on the record for fear of alienating a funding source.

But Matt Bennett, a vice president at Third Way, a centrist group that did not receive funding in the first wave of endorsements, said he believes that Democracy Alliance has merit. "It will enable progressives, for the first time ever, to build a permanent infrastructure to beat the conservative machine," he said.

Philanthropist David Friedman, an alliance partner and self-described centrist, said that "as our portfolio grows, we will fund a broader range of groups."

But some consider Democracy Alliance's hidden influence troubling, regardless of its ideological orientation. Unlike election campaigns, which must detail contributions and spending, most of the think tanks and not-for-profit groups funded by the alliance are exempt from public disclosure laws.

"It is a huge problem," said Sheila Krumholz, the acting executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. She noted that for decades "all kinds of Democrats and liberals were complaining that corporations and individuals were carrying on these stealth campaigns to fund right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups. Just as it was then, it is a problem today."

The exclusive donor club includes millionaires such as Susie Tompkins Buell and her husband, Mark Buell, major backers of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), and Chris Gabrieli, an investment banker running for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Massachusetts this September. Mark Buell estimated that about 70 percent of alliance partners built their own wealth, while 30 percent became wealthy through inheritances.

Bernard L. Schwartz, retired chief executive of Loral Space & Communications Inc. and an alliance donor, said the group offers partners "an array of opportunities that have passed their smell test." This is most helpful, he said, for big donors who lack the time to closely examine their political investment options.

Trial lawyer Fred Baron, a member of the alliance and longtime Democratic donor, agreed: "The piece that has always been lacking in our giving is long-term infrastructure investments."

There also are a few "institutional investors" such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) that pay a $50,000 annual fee and agree to spend $1 million on alliance-backed efforts.

Some Democratic political consultants privately fear that the sums being spent by alliance donors will mean less money spent on winning elections in 2006 and 2008.

But Rob Stein, co-founder of Democracy Alliance, said the party will become ascendant only if it thinks beyond the next election cycle.

Stein has closely studied the conservative movement -- often with envy. Armed with a PowerPoint presentation for potential donors, he argues that Republicans dominate the federal and many state governments because they methodically made investments in groups that could generate new ideas, shape public opinion, train conservative activists and elected officials, and boost voter turnout among conservatives -- aware that there was no near-term payoff. Liberals have done nothing comparable, he said.

"It is not possible in the 21st century to promote a coherent belief system and maintain political influence without a robust, enduring local, state and national institutional infrastructure," Stein said. "Currently, the center-left is comparatively less strategic, coordinated and well financed than the conservative-right. These comparative disadvantages are debilitating."

Cillizza is a staff writer for washingtonpost.com.

From Capitol Research Center:

Foundation Watch
Spawn of Soros
Funding a New Generation of Think Tanks

By Robert M. Huberty
You can’t keep a rich man down. George Soros, the man who spent almost $24 million to defeat George W. Bush in 2004, is planning a comeback for “progressive politics” (the new untainted term for liberalism). He thinks he’s found just the vehicle to drive the progressive agenda onward—think tanks funded by mega-rich leftists. Too bad Soros’s big plans require organization and content. And don't miss Joe de Feo's examiniation of Jeffrey Skoll’s Hollywood activism. Audiences want to watch movies that entertain. Filmmakers want to create cinema that raises serious social and political issues. Studios want to make money. Has Jeff Skoll found a new nonprofit formula to square this circle?

Read the whole article in PDF Format:
Spawn of Soros: Funding a New Generation of Think Tanks

 Here is the Press Release from the United States Senate Committee on Enviroment and Public Works that explains it all:

Majority Press Release
Contact: MARC MORANO 202-224-5762 (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov) MATT DEMPSEY 202-224-9797 (matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov

BROKAW’S OBJECTIVITY COMPROMISED IN GLOBAL WARMING SPECIAL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw’s lack of objectivity and balance on the issue of global warming appears to have tainted his upcoming Discovery Channel documentary called: “Global Warming: What You Need To Know” airing on July 16.
Brokaw’s partisan past and his reliance on scientists who openly endorsed Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004 and who are financially affiliated with left wing environmental groups, has resulted in a documentary that is devoid of balance and objectivity.

Colorado State climatologist and professor of atmospheric sciences at Colorado State University, Roger Pielke, Sr, viewed an advance copy of the Brokaw’s special and declared that it contained “errors and misconceptions.”

“The show relied on just a few scientists with a particular personal viewpoint on this subject which misleads the public on the broader view that is actually held by most climate scientists,” Pielke wrote on July 7.


Unfortunately, viewers should not expect a scientifically balanced view of the climate from the former NBC newsman. Brokaw who has been affiliated with the Sierra Club and has recently lavished praise on former Vice President Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth.” Brokaw, who called Gore’s film “stylish and compelling”, has called the science behind catastrophic human caused global warming ‘irrefutable.” Brokaw also chose to ignore all 60 scientists who wrote to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in April of 2006 questioning the science of climate alarmism.


Brokaw’s partisan environmental credentials are so firmly established that the former anchor was offered a job in the Clinton-Gore Administration to be the director of the National Park Service in 1993. According to The Washington Post, Brokaw ‘very seriously’ considered the offer at the time but decided to remain with NBC News. "I have a lot of friends in the environmental movement,” Brokaw said. Brokaw’s wife also serves as vice president of the environmental group Conservation International.


In his new Discovery Channel special, Brokaw does not disclose the potential and known biases of the scientists he chose to feature.


For example, Brokaw presents NASA’s James Hansen as an authority on climate change without revealing to viewers the extensive political and financial ties that Hansen has to Democratic Party partisans. Hansen, the director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz.


Subsequent to the Heinz Foundation grant, Hansen publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004, a political endorsement considered to be highly unusual for a NASA scientist.


Hansen also has acted as a consultant to Gore's slide-show presentations on global warming, on which Gore’s movie is based. Hansen has actively promoted Gore and his movie, even appearing at a New York City Town Hall meeting with Gore and several Hollywood producers in May.

Hansen also conceded in the March 2004 issue of Scientific American that the use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public's attention to the issue --- a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist.

Brokaw’s special also features Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. Brokaw once again fails to disclose Oppenheimer’s partisan and ideological affiliations to viewers.


Brokaw fails to note that Oppenheimer actively campaigned against President George Bush in 2004 and, like Hansen, endorsed Senator Kerry for president. Oppenheimer was affiliated with the partisan group Scientists and Engineers for Change and the green group Environment2004 financially bankrolled in part by the Heinz Foundation where Teresa Heinz-Kerry serves as the chairwoman. Environment2004, which put up billboards in Florida mocking President Bush in the final months of the 2004 presidential election.


Viewers of Brokaw’s program will not be informed that Oppenheimer personally donated to the group Environment2004, a group that was so partisan it encouraged visitors to their Webpage to “get involved” in defeating President Bush by playing a game called “Whack-a-Bush.”


In addition, Oppenheimer also serves as a "science advisor" to the left wing and politically charged group Environmental Defense and was a co-founder of Climate Action Network.


Finally, Oppenheimer appeared with Hollywood activist Leonardo DiCaprio and Gore’s movie producer Laurie David on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show.


Brokaw’s Special ‘a disappointment’


Brokaw’s special has led climatologist Pielke to conclude that Brokaw presents “a narrow view of the issue of natural and human climate variability and change.”


“It is a disappointment that this show, hosted by Tom Brokaw, did not use the two hours to present a balanced view on the spectrum of perspectives on the human influences on the climate system,” Pielke wrote.


Pielke has authored more than 275 peer reviewed journal articles on climate. According to Pielke, Brokaw also presents flawed science in his program.


“Rapid glacial retreat is not a new observation, nor are all glaciers retreating. The Grand Pacific glacier in Glacier Bay National Park, for example, retreated 48 miles from 1794 to 1879, and a further 17 miles by 1916. Large masses of glacial ice breaking from the Antarctic continent are not a new feature of this region,” Pielke noted.


The Discovery Channel, the BBC and NBC News Productions jointly produced Brokaw’s global warming special.


# # # # #


The Discovery Channel has a Chat Board setup for questions of Dr. Oppenheimer about the Special and Global Warming.

 I think Robert Novak has made it absolutely clear who is responsible for Outing Wilson's CIA Wife Valerie Plame.. and that name is..


Drumroll please.....


Joseph Wilson

No way!

Well, it's true.. Seems that Joe "Frog March" Wilson loves Publicity, so He, himself, without any arm wrenching or gun to his head, submitted his Name and His Wife's Name to "Who's Who in America".

According to Rober Novak, "Who's Who in America". is the source where he learned that Valerie Plame was Joe Wilson's wife, and from that he considered Joe's wife's role in initiating Wilson's mission, later confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, to be a previously undisclosed part of an important news story.


On October 5, 2003, Joe Wilson during an interview with CBS's "Face the Nation", Joe stated "Whoever released the name, potentially engaged in outing a national security asset. "If that was determined to have been a crime, I would love to see them frog-marched out of the White House," he said. "

So I think we need to grab Joe Wilson, Call a National Press Conference and possibly ask for National Airtime and then proceed to Frog March Joe Wilson out of the White House and throw his lying butt into the Street.

3 years listing to these Left Wing Liberal Anti-American lies is enough.

Here is what Robert Novak is saying about ">his Article in Human Events:

">My column this week revealed my role in the federal investigation by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald of the Valerie Plame case and carried with it some conclusions for the entire affair.

I wrote the column after Fitzgerald's statement to my attorneys that, after two and a half years, he had concluded investigations of matters concerning me in the case. That suggests that his remaining concern is his prosecution of former vice presidential Chief-of-Staff Scooter Libby, in which I am not involved.


Apart from revealing that I testified to the grand jury, the column's major revelation was that Fitzgerald has known almost from the start of the investigation—independent of me—the identity of my sources. That also indicates that it was determined there was no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.


I still feel constrained from identifying my primary source, until such time as he identifies himself. The fact that Fitzgerald has seen no need to reveal that source indicates that he does not consider any law was broken and that there is no need to bring his name into the law enforcement process.


A conclusion can be reached that my sources did not commit a crime in revealing Plame's role in instituting the mission to Niger of her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. That is a letdown for the enemies of President Bush who have tried to magnify this story.