Sunday, November 22, 2009

Anti-Obama billboard stirs controversy

 

Call it Freedom of Speech. A billboard recently erected in Wheat Ridge compares President Barack Obama to a terrorist and questions his U.S. citizenship.

The billboard, located at 4855 Miller Road, shows two cartoonish images of Obama wearing a Muslim turban and reads "PRESIDENT or JIHAD?"

It also says "BIRTH CERTIFICATE - PROVE IT!" alluding to the conspiracy theory which claims Barack Obama was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii, which would disqualify him for the office of President.

The words "WAKE UP AMERICA! REMEMBER FT. HOOD!" appear on the bottom of the billboard.

The sign belongs to a car dealership.

"Since Fort Hood, I've had it," owner Phil West told FOX 31 News Friday. "You can't suggest things. You can't profile. You gotta call a spade a spade."

"Everything I have read about Mr. Obama points right to the fact that he is a Muslim. And that is the agenda of what Muslim is all about. It's about anti-American, it's about anti-Christianity," West said.

The Anti-Defamation League condemned the sign, as did AM760 radio host David Sirota, who discussed the sign and interviewed West on his program Friday morning.

"It's out of control," Sirota said. "This conservative hatred of Barack Obama is out of contol, and this brings together all those strands of it: the racism, the anti-Muslim fervor. It's one thing to criticise the president on health care, or Wall Street reform, or immigration. But this is outrageous. And I think it's a fair question to ask why these questions about religion and ancestry are being directed so viciously at the first African-American President of the United States."

While the ADL issued a statement calling the billboard an exploitation of the Ft. Hood shootings that is "divisive and offensive, and perpetuates hateful and harmful stereotypes about Muslims", prominent conservatives have been silent thus far.

"That could suggest that conservative leaders are afraid to confront the extreme fringe of their base," Sirota said. "Or it suggests they actually condone this message. Either way, it's disturbing."

Sirota is an unabashed liberal, but not all self-identified conservatives who drove past the sign Friday disagree with him.

"I'm not concerned with that at all," said Linda Alexander, of Golden, in regard to the dispute over President Obama's American citizenship. "He was elected, he's the president -- that's it, as far as I'm concerned. Some people just can't accept that, obviously."

But Keith Walters, another passing driver, saw nothing wrong with the billboard.

"I can't honestly say he's a Jihadist, but there's a lot of things that are questionable," Walters said. "The whole birth certificate controversy. From what I've read, there's no proof Obama isn't a Muslim. And I don't believe there's any racism [in the billboard]. I think that should be a question asked to any president who -- they have some questionable backgrounds."

Supporters of the birth certificate theory, known as 'Birthers,' believe the Certification of Live Birth produced by the state of Hawaii is a forgery. (view the birth certificate)

Read more >>

Patient trapped in a 23-year coma was conscious all along

 

Supporters of euthanasia and assisted suicide argue that people who have lain in persistent vegetative states for years should be given the opportunity to have crucial medical support withdrawn because of the 'indignity' of their condition.

Web News

A man thought by doctors to be in a vegetative state for 23 years was actually conscious the whole time, it was revealed last night.

Student Rom Houben was misdiagnosed after a car crash left him totally paralysed.

He had no way of letting experts, family or friends know he could hear every word they said.

46-year-old Rom Houbne was trapped in a coma for 23 years and had no way of letting anyone know he could hear what they were saying (pictured posed by model)'I screamed, but there was nothing to hear,' said Mr Houben, now 46.

Doctors used a range of coma tests, recognised worldwide, before reluctantly concluding that his consciousness was 'extinct'.

But three years ago, new hi-tech scans showed his brain was still functioning almost completely normally.

Mr Houben describes the moment as 'my second birth'.

Therapy has since allowed him to tap out messages on a computer screen.

Mr Houben said: 'All that time I just literally dreamed of a better life. Frustration is too small a word to describe what I felt.'

His case has only just been revealed in a scientific paper released by the man who 'saved' him, top neurological expert Dr Steven Laureys.

'Medical advances caught up with him,' said Dr Laureys, who believes there may be many similar cases of false comas around the world.

The disclosure will also renew the right-to-die debate over whether people in comas are truly unconscious.

Mr Houben, a former martial arts enthusiast, was paralysed in 1983.

Doctors in Zolder, Belgium, used the internationally accepted Glasgow Coma Scale to assess his eye, verbal and motor responses.

But each time he was graded incorrectly.

Only a re-evaluation of his case at the University of Liege discovered that he had lost control of his body but was still fully aware of what was happening.

He is never likely to leave hospital, but as well as his computer he now has a special device above his bed which lets him read books while lying down.

Mr Houben said: 'I shall never forget the day when they discovered what was truly wrong with me - it was my second birth.

'I want to read, talk with my friends via the computer and enjoy my life now that people know I am not dead.'

Dr Laureys's new study claims that patients classed as in a vegetative state are often misdiagnosed.

'Anyone who bears the stamp of "unconscious" just one time hardly ever gets rid of it again,' he said.

The doctor, who leads the Coma Science Group and Department of Neurology at Liege University Hospital, found Mr Houben's brain was still working by using state-of-the-art imaging.

He plans to use the case to highlight what he considers may be similar examples around the world.

Dr Laureys said: 'In Germany alone each year some 100,000 people suffer from severe traumatic brain injury.

'About 20,000 are followed by a coma of three weeks or longer. Some of them die, others regain health.

'But an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 people a year remain trapped in an intermediate stage - they go on living without ever coming back again.'

Supporters of euthanasia and assisted suicide argue that people who have lain in persistent vegetative states for years should be given the opportunity to have crucial medical support withdrawn because of the 'indignity' of their condition.

But there have been several cases in which people judged to be in vegetative states or deep comas have recovered.

Twenty years ago, Carrie Coons, an 86-year-old from New York, regained consciousness after a year, took small amounts of food by mouth and engaged in conversation.

Only days before her recovery, a judge had granted her family's request for the removal of the feeding tube which had been keeping her alive.

In the UK in 1993, doctors switched off the life support system keeping alive Tony Bland, a 22-year- old who had been in a coma for three years following the Hillsborough disaster.

Dr Laureys was not available for comment yesterday and it is not clear why he thought Mr Houben should have the hi-tech screening when so many years had passed.

Read more >>

Kennedy: Barred from Communion

 

The church holds that abortion is a taking of human life that is intrinsically evil. Exclusion from the Holy Eucharist — bread that the faithful believe to have been transformed into the body of Christ — is a rare and serious penalty

Web News

Providence Bishop Thomas J. Tobin has forbidden Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy to receive the Roman Catholic sacrament of Holy Communion because of his advocacy of abortion rights, the Rhode Island Democrat said Friday.

“The bishop instructed me not to take Communion and said that he has instructed the diocesan priests not to give me Communion,” Kennedy said in a telephone interview.

Kennedy said the bishop had explained the penalty by telling him “that I am not a good practicing Catholic because of the positions that I’ve taken as a public official,” particularly on abortion. He declined to say when or how Bishop Tobin told him not to take the sacrament. And he declined to say whether he has obeyed the bishop’s injunction.

Bishop Tobin, through a spokesman, declined to address the question of whether he had told Kennedy not to receive Communion. But the bishop’s office moved quickly to cast doubt on Kennedy’s related assertion about instructions to the priests of Rhode Island.

“Bishop Tobin has never addressed matters relative to public officials receiving Holy Communion with pastors of the diocese,” spokesman Michael K. Guilfoyle said in an e-mailed statement.

This latest exchange between Bishop Tobin and Kennedy, the only remaining public official in the nation’s most prominent Catholic family, escalates their heated public debate over how the eight-term congressman’s work for abortion rights bears on his standing in the church.

Their dispute comes against the backdrop of the national debate about whether U.S. taxpayers should subsidize abortions in the new health-care system that President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress have labored for months to create.

The episode adds another volatile element to a highly emotional dispute that has complicated Mr. Obama’s pursuit of his top legislative priority.

For Catholics, the debate could scarcely be more visceral. The church holds that abortion is a taking of human life that is intrinsically evil. Exclusion from the Holy Eucharist — bread that the faithful believe to have been transformed into the body of Christ — is a rare and serious penalty to impose on any Catholic.

Over the past few weeks, Kennedy and Bishop Tobin have shown glimpses of their dealings in piecemeal fashion, revealing only a sketchy picture of the congressman’s status as a member of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence.

In an October interview about the opposition of the nation’s bishops to any health-care overhaul that did not include a strict ban on federal subsidies for abortion, Kennedy called into question the “pro-life” credentials of the churchmen. Health care for millions of uninsured is at stake, he said. Bishop Tobin shot back with a sharply worded statement, noting that the bishops are staunch and longtime supporters of reforming the health-care system. He said, however, that the bishops will not support a health-care bill that fails to include a ban on taxpayer subsidy of the procedure.

The exchange, via open letters and interviews, has continued, with Bishop Tobin pointedly suggesting that “obstinate” opposition to church doctrine on abortion should cause a Catholic public official to reconsider his membership in the church.

On Friday, in response to questions from a reporter, Kennedy asserted that Bishop Tobin had told him not to receive Communion. But like the bishop, Kennedy withheld key details about their discussions.

Asked how he reacted as a Catholic, Kennedy would say only that he has “personal feelings of disappointment” about the matter, but he declined to elaborate.

For his part, the bishop declined to be interviewed. Spokesman Guilfoyle said in an e-mail: “Bishop Tobin has nothing more to add to the current discussion for the time being. Any previous correspondence or conversations between the Bishop and the congressman is still considered private at this time.”

While the teachings of the church and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops are clear on abortion, there is much disagreement on the issue of whether Catholic legislators should be penalized for action contrary to the doctrine.

“The vast majority of bishops don’t want people denied Communion” over the abortion issue, said Thomas J. Reese, a Jesuit scholar at the Woodstock Theological Center in Washington. “But the problem is, every time an individual bishop does it — especially if the public official has a high-profile name like Kennedy — it’s going to make headlines across the country and every bishop is going to suffer because of it,” Father Reese said.

Because every bishop has wide latitude in his own diocese, the controversy between Kennedy and Bishop Tobin is likely to be greeted with silence from other bishops — even if most would disagree with action to deny Communion to a Catholic legislator, according to Father Reese.

“We don’t comment on the individual actions of bishops because they are authoritative in their own dioceses,” said Deirdre McQuade, of the bishops conference, when asked about the exchanges between Kennedy and Bishop Tobin.

For the policy of the bishops conference, McQuade referred to a 2006 writing on how a Catholic maintains his or her worthiness to take Communion. If a Catholic were “knowingly and obstinately to repudiate ... definitive teaching on moral issues,” the document says in part, then receiving Communion “would not accord with the nature of the Eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.”

Orders by bishops to deny Communion to Catholic public officials are very unusual but not unprecedented. In 2003, another prominent Catholic Democrat with a mixed voting record on abortion, Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, was admonished not to take Communion in his congressional district by Bishop Raymond Burke of LaCrosse.

Spokeswoman McQuade said the bishops conference could not give a count of how many times bishops have actually denied Communion to government officials. But a review of news accounts of the past two decades suggests that public impositions of the penalty are very uncommon. These are among the high-profile instances in contemporaneous news stories: a Sacramento bishop told Gray Davis not to take Communion when he was Democratic governor of California in 2003; in 2004, then-Gov. James McGreevey, of New Jersey, complied with the admonitions of three of the state’s bishops that he not take Communion.

Scholar Reese said the bishops have debated in previous years the issue of whether they should step beyond such appeals to the individual Catholic’s conscience. The context for the debate was the 2004 presidential candidacy of Sen. John F. Kerry, a Catholic Democrat from Massachusetts who supports abortion rights. Father Reese said fewer than 20 bishops supported a policy of denying Communion to such officials.

Early in that presidential campaign, Burke, who had become archbishop of St. Louis, told reporters that if Kerry were to approach him at a Mass in Missouri, “I would have to admonish him not to present himself for Communion.”

Last month, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Archbishop Burke to the Vatican’s Congregation of Bishops, a powerful body that helps the pontiff to select the world’s bishops. He also sits on the highest court of Catholic canon law.

According to the National Catholic Reporter, Cardinal Sean O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston, once urged Catholic officials who support abortion rights to refrain from Communion. But the newspaper said Cardinal O’Malley did not order Boston priests to deny them the sacrament. Kerry and the late Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Patrick Kennedy’s father and another supporter of abortion rights) both received Communion at Cardinal O’Malley’s installation as archbishop in 2003.

In 2004, a large majority of bishops “tried to persuade the minority not to do this — using Communion as a weapon,” Father Reese said, but the conference could not come to a consensus view on the issue.

Father Reese stressed that withholding Communion is not as grave a penalty as excommunication, which separates a Catholic from all the sacraments. If a bishop denies Communion to a Catholic, he or she “is still a Catholic,” Father Reese said. Indeed, he said “it would take a canon lawyer” to say whether a Catholic denied Communion in his own diocese would be free to receive Communion elsewhere.

 
Read more >>

The Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Show Trial Comes To Broadway

 

Well it is obvious that my innocent client could never receive a fair trial within the United States. I move to dismiss all charges.

J.J. Jackson

As an extremely limited engagement, the latest show coming to Broadway is sure to sellout quickly.  Trying to get tickets will be nigh impossible.  So get your camping gear ready and stake out your place in line now!

Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States and the same man who pushed hard for the pardon of the FALN terrorists under former President Clinton, has once again proven to be the best friend a terrorist can have.  With his announcement that he was moving forward with a civilian court trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a decision he claimed to have made on his very own in order to shield President Obama, Mr. Holder has once again shown America how dangerous liberals are and why they should be absolutely nowhere near our government and our liberties.  He has given every terrorist a glimpse of how to attack us in the future. Do not fight us on the battlefield where you will get a military tribunal but rather come to our shores and start attacking our citizens and we will give you a cushy cell and a platform for you to denounce the infidels of the west.

Forget the possibility that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed might not be found guilty by a bunch of people, as the saying goes, too stupid to avoid jury duty.  Liberals poo poo the thought.  Not like anyone that was clearly guilty has ever been set free right?  The fact that our government is even taking this risk when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has already pleaded guilty in a military court is baffling.  But no more baffling than why liberals think that policies where government takes over key aspects of the lives of their citizenry and tried over and over in China, the former Soviet Union, NAZI Germany, France, Great Britain, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea will work this time around simply because they are in charge.

Yeah, I know, liberals get all upset when each and every week I expose how their policies are absolutely horrendous and failures.  And I know you liberals that find my columns each week are really upset by the truth.  However once again we have yet further proof that liberals are indeed like their fellow travelers from Hitler to Stalin to Mao to Chavez to Castro.  In a remarkable move this week President Obama basically declared that the entire trial process of Mr. Mohammed is a show trial.

Yes, that's right, just like the show trials of the Soviets, the NAZIs and any other of the numerous far left regimes that have plagued this planet for centuries.  Oh, but do not take my word for it!  Take President Obama's own words where he all but declares that KSM is guilty and will be put to death.

Speaking to NBC's Chuck Todd President Obama proclaimed, "I don't think it will be offensive at all when [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is] convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."

Yep, you heard right.  KSM is guilty by decree of President Obama.  Just like Stalin, Hitler and others have all proclaimed others that they wanted dead, guilty during their own reigns.  Of course this lunatic is guilty.  But to have the President running around declaring him that after his administration just awarded him a trial by jury?

Gee, it is reassuring to know that Obama is so confident that after everything from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession to all information obtained during his detention is thrown out of civilian court because he was never read his Miranda Rights that this terrorist looser will still be found guilty.

And here is a question for you Mr. Obama.  Now that you have publicly declared KSM guilty before his trial haven't you just given him another golden opportunity to make a mockery of America?

I can see this now.

Judge: "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, how do you plead?"

KSM: "Not guilty your honor and my lawyer, Lynn Stewart, would like to make a motion …"

Lynn, the terrorist lover, Stewart (from her jail cell via video conference): "Your honor, due to President Obama's remarks declaring my client guilty, when he is clearly an innocent man being persecuted by the evil United States, I would like to bring before the court a motion for a change of venue.  Obviously my client can no longer receive a fair trial here based on such egregious statements!"

Judge: "Hmmm … I am inclined to grant this motion.  Where would you like to propose for a change of venue?"

Lynn, the terrorist lover, Stewart: "We feel that the only place where my client can receive a fair trial is in Iran."

Judge: "I don't think that I have the authority to move this court to that location.  You need to pick a place within the United States."

Lynn, the terrorist lover, Stewart: "Well it is obvious that my innocent client could never receive a fair trial within the United States.  I move to dismiss all charges."

Judge: "Reluctantly I agree.  The jury pool is clearly tainted.  All charges against Mr. Mohammed are summarily dismissed.  He is free to go.  Bailiff, return Mr. Mohammed's things including his bomb making materials and his list of CIA operatives operating abroad."

Oh, yeah, it is all a big joke right?  Again, nothing like this could EVER happen in a court of law, right?

O.J. call your office.

Read more >>

Deep Into Saturday Night's Health Care Vote

 

Deep Into Saturday Night's Health Care Vote

The Senate bill taxes gold-plated insurance companies, in addition to raising Medicare taxes for individuals making over $200,000 and couples making over $250,000.

Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's vote in favor of Obamacare was purchased for $300 million on Saturday, giving Democrats the 60-vote supermajority that will, barring a miracle, pass health care reform that will possibly include a public option and abortion coverage.

The $300 million comes from a 2-page earmark inserted into the bill specifically for Louisiana, though the wording of the earmark didn't specifically name Louisiana as the recipient. It simply designated victims of national disasters within the last 7 years as eligible for certain federal funds — and the only citizens who that applies to are Katrina victims in Louisiana.

It's something Landrieu says they're entitled to.

"Our state is as poor as it was if not poorer, and I am not going to be defensive about asking for help in this situation," she said on the Senate floor.

Landrieu went as far as loudly correcting lower estimates on how much the special earmark would bring her state. Early on Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office said brought her $100 million, but in fact, it was three times that.

“I’m proud to have asked for it and I’m proud to have fought for it and I will continue to," Landrieu said on the Senate floor. In the same breath, she insisted that the earmark was not why she was voting for the bill.

"That is not the reason I am moving to debate," she said.

Landrieu was the second-to-last hold-out on the bill, the last being Sen. Blanche Lincoln, who, like Landrieu, emphasized that she would not vote for the bill if it contained some version of the public option.

"I'm prepared to vote against moving to the next stage of consideration as long as a public option is included," said Lincoln.

But Democratic leaders will undoubtedly massage the public option provision to meet the requirements of these moderate Democrats, which could mean that the the so-called "state opt-out" provision in the public option will be included. If that's the case, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that over a third of states will simply decline to accept the public option, leaving less than 4 million Americans covered by it. That's at a cost of almost $3 trillion, according to some independent analysts.

There are several other noteworthy provisions that are included in both bills and might be passed. First, "exchange marketplaces" will be introduced, with the possible government option as one of the plans Americans can pick from if they are self-employed, unemployed, uninsured, or part of a small business. In the exchange marketplace, the government will dictate what are acceptable standards for coverage for all of the insurance plans.

Second, language in the Senate bill still enables the coverage of abortion. Specifically, the bill states that within the exchange marketplace, one plan must offer abortion coverage and another plan must not. Analysts say that the inclusion of the much-heralded Stupak Amendment, ostensibly preventing the coverage of abortion in any forthcoming health care legislation, does nothing to reverse this.

Third, exactly how the bill will be paid for is still in question. The Senate bill taxes gold-plated insurance companies, in addition to raising Medicare taxes for individuals making over $200,000 and couples making over $250,000. The House bill simply adds income taxes on high-earning Americans. Other fees will probably imposed on insurance carriers, medical devices, cosmetic surgery and prescription drugs.

Read more >>