“Loss of humanity is the issue at hand in the assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords and the senseless murder of a nine-year-old girl, among others. Losing liberty and finding ways to silence conservative views shouldn’t even be on the table,” said Project 21 member Lisa Fritsch, a guest host at KLBJ radio in Austin, Texas. “Those who use this tragedy as anything more than a reason to pray, reflect and call each of us — as brothers and sisters — to stand united in humanity and love are acting as tools of evil.”

Despite no evidence that the man charged with the shootings, Jared Lee Loughner, was motivated in any way by political speech, liberal politicians are using the Arizona shootings to launch a campaign to resurrect regulations to curtail freedom of speech in the media and possibly other aspects of American life.

Representative James Clyburn (D-SC), a member of the liberal leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives, has called for a reinstatement of “Fairness Doctrine” regulations that once allowed government to oversee and police political content. In a January 10 interview on National Public Radio, Clyburn said, “I really believe that everybody needs to take a look at where we are pushing things, and [we] may need to take a serious step back and evaluate what’s going on here.” Asked if this would constitute censorship to “an unfortunate degree,” Clyburn responded, “I don’t know that it’s necessarily to an unfortunate degree.” Clyburn’s daughter, Mignon, is a commissioner with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the agency that administered the Fairness Doctrine in the past.

Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY) similarly complained that the FCC is “not working anymore,” claiming that blame for flared tempers and violence, such as was experienced in Arizona, was due to “what they’re hearing over the airwaves.”

Project 21 member Joe R. Hicks, the host of the PJTV internet television network’s “The Hicks File,” said: “Along with the nation’s liberals and leftists, mainstream journalists and pundits spent the past week acting like vultures — picking at the bones of a national tragedy. Now liberal members of Congress are shamelessly seeking political advantage from the actions of a madman. Make no mistake, these members of Congress, in alliance with racial hucksters like the Reverend Al Sharpton, want to slam the door on free speech and limit the diversity of viewpoints that are currently available to the American people.”

“Those squealing the loudest about injustice and dangerous points of view seem most often to be guilty of the same. And I think, to their peril, the controls they now want would be more applicable to their ilk,” said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. “For example, Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy complains now about conservatives who are ‘[t]rading in ambiguity and veiled threats,’ but the Post published a column by him last March in which he expressed his desire to ‘spit on [tea party activists]… and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.’ That’s the type of person who now, without apparent remorse for his own actions, wants to arbitrate acceptable speech?”

Massie additionally warned: “A re-evaluation of our guarantee of freedom of speech in favor of undefined civility would — by necessity — silence people such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond and Louis Farrakhan because they all have long and proven records of using their own voices to poison minds and incite mayhem. I know Representative Clyburn would likely think otherwise, but fairness means you can’t go after Sarah Palin and the tea party movement without going after the race hustlers.”

Is that merely a coincidence?

The Editorial Staff at the NYT certainly show the lack of any credible research and expose themselves as being completely lacking in any knowledge of wildlife management by publishing a piece concerning gray wolves, hunting of those wolves and the processes that have taken place over at least the past 15 years. It honestly appears as though they copied the evangelical tripe of the environmental groups and published it to their own pages believing, as it appears they must, that their readers are complete dimwits.

If I were to pick out the fatal flaws of what the Times staff published, I would have to republish the entire editorial. It reeks of not only lies but pure unsubstantiated and non-scientific drivel that anyone can read on fringe animal rights groups’ web pages. The staff would have done better to have simply stated, “We love wolves and don’t want anybody doing anything to them regardless of the consequences of such actions”, than to expose themselves to their own lazy ignorance.

So, ridiculous is the whole thing that Dr. Valerius Geist, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Calgary, made the decision to pen a rebuttal piece to it. For me, it was like taking a step back to my days in the eighth grade and having my science teacher attempt to tell me that my effort and information I put into a homework assignment was lazy and lacked anything of a factual basis. Here’s what Geist wrote:

Dear Sir,

The author of this editorial has fallen victim to clever advocacy that is void of science, let alone scholarship. The presentation to the public by a leading newspaper of a complex issue so hopelessly compromised by inaccuracies and lack of understanding, is hardly a public service. Humanity has a very long and tragic history with wolves, as this predator is widespread and often abundant across Asia, Europe and North America. The introduction of wolves in the U.S. West is evolving in a predictable pattern, as one is bound to re-live the history one ignores. And that, me thinks, might be the real story.

Sincerely,

Valerius Geist

To further a rebuttal by Dr. Geist would be the equivalent of “casting pearls before swine”, as the swine continues its daily wallowing in muck, while the real gems of truth and knowledge remain dangling just above their heads and yet the Times staff refuses to take a moment from enjoying their own swill to look up and see what’s there.

The Times editorial says that decisions being used in wolf management in the West are based on outdated information from 1987. This, of course, is a lie. But the Times is contributing to the blocking of advanced science and knowledge by reprinting garbage like this. It is difficult to educate those not willing to learn or better yet, those who have an agenda in which truth is not part of the propagation of the rhetoric to advance that program.

The Times reveals its agenda and lacks good editorial practice by allowing the publication of such inept work.

Tom Remington

Photo from fOTOGLIF

The questions came from David Ridenour, Dr. Tom Borelli and Deneen Borelli of the National Center for Public Policy Research, who inquired about:

* extreme attacks on conservatives by the GE-owned MSNBC,

* GE’s extensive lobbying for cap-and-trade,

* the possibility of a conservative/Republican backlash against GE,

* how much the adoption of ObamaCare will cost GE;

* any GE lobbying for ObamaCare.

The National Center for Public Policy Research owns GE stock.

“MSNBC, part of GE’s NBC Universal, runs programming that is offensive to a substantial portion of the population. Keith Olbermann has called the Tea Party movement the ‘Tea Klux Klan’ and has said the Republican Party wants to re-impose Jim Crow Laws,” said David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center. “Whatever your political outlook, I said [to Immelt], this doesn’t make sense for GE… I also asked what he was doing to address the perception — especially among conservatives — that GE stands against them. Quite a bit of applause followed. Immelt didn’t answer but went to the next question.”

Later, Ridenour asked the same question, noting he never received a reply the first time. Immelt said GE has never attempted to influence the programming of its news or public affairs programs. Immelt repeated that when specifically asked about an April 16, 2009 New York Post Page Six story reporting that a three-hour meeting took place between Immelt and top CNBC executives and on-air talent for the purpose of making sure CNBC had not become “too conservative.”

“I asked Immelt about GE’s support of cap-and-trade and the letter from its political action committee that stated Waxman-Markey would good for its business,” said Tom Borelli, director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project. “I specifically asked how much money GE was going to make if cap-and-trade passes. Immelt responded that he did not know, and I told him that was a joke. My second question was focused on the political risk of GE/Immelt being so closely associated with the Obama Administration. I added that stopping cap-and-trade is highly ranked on the Tea Party’s ‘Contract for America,’ and by pushing against the movement the company could experience reputational and political risk. Finally, I mentioned there could be a backlash against GE if the House flips to Republicans. I asked Immelt if he is concerned about or measures political risk. He didn’t acknowledge a political risk.”

In light of John Deere and Caterpillar having to write off expenses against their earnings because of ObamaCare, Deneen Borelli of Project 21 asked Immelt how much ObamaCare will cost GE. “Immelt had Chief Financial Officer and Vice Chairman Keith Sherin respond, and he said the amount was $15 million for first quarter 2010 and additional costs going forward… My final question was did GE lobby for ObamaCare? Immelt said they did not individually lobby on health care and that their position was covered through the Business Roundtable,” said Deneen Borelli.

The National Center for Public Policy Research has questioned Mr. Immelt in the past. Go here for a video of Fox’s Bill O’Reilly interviewing Tom Borelli about the 2008 GE stockholder meeting and here for information about news reports detailing Jeff Immelt’s alleged retaliation.

Such is the case in the Northern Rockies area where the people are fighting back and now the environmentalists are using the media to demonize those pushing back, painting them as liars, polarizing the issue, misguiding the citizens, etc. Don’t be caught up in this giant media deception.

Photo from fOTOGLIF

“What is a black agenda?” asks Project 21′s Massie. “Jobs, retirement income, education, cost of living, crime and so on are not black American issues. They are American issues. It’s not predicated on race and color. So why is Tavis Smiley seeking to divide us when Americans should be coming together?”

Tavis Smiley, a PBS host, is set to hold a conference at Chicago State University on March 20 to discuss the alleged need for an exclusive political agenda for black Americans. Smiley has been critical of Barack Obama for not paying special attention to the black community and has taken black leaders to task for not pushing Obama to maintain a race-specific agenda for black citizens. Panelists at the event are reported to include noted left-wing luminaries Cornel West, Michael Eric Dyson, Julianne Malveaux, Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan.

“Project 21, the group I head, exists because there are those who would deny there is a diversity of opinion within the black community,” noted Massie. “With panelists representing a political range from Jesse Jackson to Louis Farrakhan, it seems sadly obvious that Smiley’s gathering will perpetuate this myth.”

Talking to the Associated Press about his conference and black support for Obama during the election and the need for his March 20 conference, Smiley asked: “[N]ow that he’s elected, what are black people being asked to do to hold him accountable to our agenda?”

“Obama is the President of the United States of America, he is not the president of black America,” Project 21′s Massie countered. “He can no more be expected to show preferential treatment to blacks any more than Jimmy Carter was expected to have shown preferential treatment to white southerners. Smiley, who recently abandoned his ‘State of Black America,’ is apparently feeling left out. This seems to be just another way for him to promote Tavis Smiley’s race-mongering agenda.”

Massie added: “One need only look at the cast malevolent marplots Smiley assembled as a panel to understand exactly what is taking place. I can assure you this is about them heretofore not being able to capitalize to the extent they would like from Obama being in office.”

The left has a new crisis! A photograph of Sarah Palin taken sometime while at the 2010 Tea Party Convention, shows writing on her hand that might suggest a couple of notes made, or not, to assist her through her speech. The left is outraged at this seeming ignorant act from a “hick” from Alaska, the same left that supports their president, who while reading from his teleprompter, twice mispronounced the word Corpsman as “Corpse Man”. To think of the difficulties some people have in life as long as Sarah Palin walks, eats and breathes.

*Update:* I posted this video for a little bit of light entertainment. The idea that a former governor of Alaska would write a note on her hand and a portion of our society would go insane over it. Yes, I criticized President Obama for using a teleprompter in a sixth grade class setting. No, I never said Obama shouldn’t be using a teleprompter. All presidents do but dare we say Obama has carried a bit too far?
Anyway, the video is intended to be on the lighter side of things, to show the silliness of the whole thing.
Regardless, those who have viewed this video at the YouTube site, it seems a handful of viewers are afflicted with Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome. That and what appears to be a lack of vocabulary.

*Update 2*There were two things I made assumptions about and now seem to be coming true. The photo of Sarah Palin with “Hi Mom” on the palm of her hand was evidently taken at a later time while campaigning for Texas Gov. Rick Perry. I didn’t say in the video this picture was taken at the same Tea Party Convention. I said it was taken later. I just didn’t know when at the time. (Yes I could have been more explicit about that.) Why is everyone missing one of the points that Sarah Palin is having a lot of fun with this, knowing full well, the media would now have magnifying glasses on her hands and who knows where else. She was right and got in a “shout out” to her mom.

The second thing has to do with the 5 items on her hand. This too appears that these she did to assist her through the question and answer session. And, yes, for all you whose undies are in a wad, it was announced during the televised part of the question and answer, that Sarah Palin agreed to do a question and answer and that the questions were selected ahead of time. Yup! 3×5 cards would have worked as well and would have also brought on the same hysterical response from the media.

My God!!!! Allahpundit thinks also that this is all a bit too silly and that there is hypocrisy in the reporting when compared to something like President Obama’s “corpse man” gaffe, which I learned today he has mispronounced on other occasions prior to the latest. Oh, my! So what’s the deal? Has his staff not informed him he’s mispronouncing this word? Do they know the difference? Or maybe, he just has trouble with that word….kind of like someone we all knew who said, “nucular”. So that must also make Obama stupid.

Tom Remington

Photo from fOTOGLIF

Mychal Massie (chairman of Project 21): “Harry Reid is a loathsome individual whose apology was based on exposure not repentance. Reid’s comments are proof positive that the racial animus of the past is alive and prevalent among liberals today, notwithstanding the fact that their standard-bearer is a black man.”

Robert A. George: “How nice to see that, when it comes to race in America, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has such, ahem, ‘enlightenment’ (pun intended). Thank goodness no jive-talkin’ darky ever thought about running for president! No way Reid could have supported him!!” (This quote comes from Robert’s “Ragged Thots” blog. The entire post can be seen at http://raggedthots.blogspot.com.)

Bob Parks: “The hazard of being an apologist is having your own words thrown back in your face. Obama demanded the Republicans drum Senator Trent Lott out of their party in 2002 when Lott gave inappropriate praise to centenarian and reformed segregationist senator Strom Thurmond on his birthday. The underlying problem here is that boneheaded racist statements by politicians are all too common, and only conservatives seem to get called on them and punished. Republicans did strip Lott of his leadership post. Obama is absolving the Democrats of acting against Reid. This is a dangerous trend.” (More can be found on Bob’s “Black and Right” web site at http://www.black-and-right.com.)

Lisa Fritsch: “Why would Harry Reid apologize now when it seems clear he felt it and meant it at the time? It was less likely ‘a poor choice of words’ than an honest reflection of Reid’s character.”

R. Dozier Gray: “Black people historically have a lot of forgiveness in their hearts for people who make statements like the one Reid made. I might have forgiven him long ago had he sought to be accountable when he realized that what he said was stupid instead of when he realized that a book featuring it was coming out. But the black ‘leadership’ will likely let this slide. Power is usually more important to them than this sort of soft racism from a political ally. Truth be told, some of the policies advocated by Reid and his allies are more damaging than a few of his random racial comments.”

Darryn “Dutch” Martin: “In the grand scheme of things, what Reid said, his apology and Obama’s acceptance of it is irrelevant. What is striking is that Reid said it in 2008, a Time magazine reporter knew it and didn’t make it public until 2010! Why wasn’t it reported as soon as it became known? Would the mainstream media exercise such restraint and bury a newsworthy quote if a conservative public figure made a similar linguistic faux pas? I think not.”

In the book Game Change, set to be released Monday, authors Mark Halpern and John Heilemann write that Reid privately analyzed the electoral appeal of then-Senator Barack Obama, referring to Obama as “light-skinned” with “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

When the comments were posted on Marc Ambinder’s Atlantic magazine website, Reid expressed “deep regret [for] using such a poor choice of words.” President Obama issued a rare immediate public statement saying he “accepted Harry’s apology without question.”

Reid is no stranger to using the race card for political gain. In December 2009, for example, Reid compared those who opposed a government takeover of health care to lawmakers who opposed abolishing slavery and civil rights legislation.