MIni Eagle Freedom Links -- 9-13-11 -- Remembering 9/11 Edition

Allied Liberty News - BHO's Cop Killer Connections! (more than you knew!) 

Barking Spider - Identified:The UAF "Comedian" Who Thinks that Beating Up Women is Funny 

Barracuda Brigade 2012 - Ten Years Ago by Sarah Palin 

Bad Catholic - The Secret About Morality 

Black Or White Is A Choice - A Few Moments of Silence 

Catholic Moms For Santorum - Santorum On Dignity And Poverty 



Common Cents - Video: Todd Beamer - The First Hero of 9/11 

Creative Minority Report - 9/11. A Prayer

Fuzzy Logic - 9/11: Ten Years Later 

Generational Dysfunction - Bill Clinton Address To The Flight 93 Memorial 

Hack Wilson - September 11th Must See 

Laughing Conservative - Hey, Hey, EPA, How Many Jobs Did You Kill Today? 



Lisa Graas - The Dangers Of Using Terms Like "Homophobia" 

Logan's Warning - UK: IslamoPUNK Choudary and his Muslim Mob Burn US Flag on 911!~Video 

NoOneOfAnyImport - The Matrix Does Not Have Us 

Pathetically Incorrect - Why We Remember 

Proof Positive - The New York Times and Me*

QuickWit - God Bless America...

Self Evident Truths - Bill Whittle: Afterburner: The Truth Is Out There

Woman Honor Thyself - Sept 11, 2001... Forever in our Hearts 

Western Hero - Bring The GWOT Home 

TOTUS - The Arab Spring and Israel 

The Wisdom of Soloman - Tea Party Zombies Must Die - The Video Game 

That Mr. G Guy's Blog - Krugman Shames Himself 

Vitriolic Rhetoric by WHICH Party and Against WHICH President?

Before I begin the main part of this post I am again sending my condolences to the loved ones of the victims who were killed in this violent massacre.  My thoughts and prayers go out to all the victims who were hurt and their families as they recover from this horrific tragedy. 


It is truly sickening in our country when politics enters into a national tragedy, and the Left tries to capitalize on a bloody situation to further their political gain.  For the Left to make false accusations and try to make the connection between either symbols or fiery debate on issues and this shooting is extremely disturbing and unwarranted.  The main reason I am writing this post is to correct misinformation by the Left. 


The NY Times is one news outlet that is trying to connect opposition to the President's policies and fiery rhetoric as a cause for the shooting or playing a role in some way in this shooting.   First, Jared Lee Loughner, the shooter,  was NUTS!!! .... mentally unstable and to say that politics or fiery rhetoric made him do this evil act is journalistic malpractice in my opinion.  Second, his political leanings were of a liberal anarchist and to try to connect the Tea Party, conservative commentators, or any conservatives to either him or this incident is absurd.  Brian Lilley of Lilley's Pad points out that it is truly sick for people to try and connect this shooting with Sarah Palin when it is solely the lone gunman's responsibility for his committing this heinous act.  
He also points out the spin being played by the liberal media.  Just because I point out that Loughner has liberal leanings doesn't mean that that is that I'm attributing his actions to his politics.  Brian Lilley shows two targeted maps of districts one used by Republicans and the other by Democrats.  So, for Democrats and the liberal media to act as if Democrats have never done anything remotely similar to Sarah Palin while denouncing her political map and casting aspersions is despicable and hypocritical.  


The New York Times article states: "But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge.  Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats."  The NY Times provides NO PROOF to back up their accusation.  Does the NY Times have proof that a Tea Party member, or a conservative who listens to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or other conservative media played a role in any of the violent acts which took place right after the health care law was passed?  Heck, it could have been a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad or simply a nut.  So, I say to these liberal Commie journalists either prove it or retract a most irresponsible and unproven allegation.  


When an administration's spending is way out of control, and government takes over health care,  car companies, student loans, banks, Obama uses the EPA to bypass Congress and institute his Cap & Trade policies, he uses unconstitutional Czars to implement unconstitutional regulations, conservatives had/have every right to express anger.  When DHS labels opponents of the Left's ideology as "right-wing extremists" how the heck are we supposed to respond?  By heating up the rhetoric and stating the absurd - labeling conservatives "right-wing extremists" - those in the Obama administration have effectively made themselves enemies of half of the country.  But, that was done on the Obama administration's own volition.  And, these libs wonder why conservatives might get a little angry, expressing our righteous anger against this indignant, ignorant and radical administration. These libs are so clueless.  I guess the temperature of the rhetoric should have been lowered during the Bush years and activists against both wars needed to stop using their freedom of speech to promote hatred, vile acts, and should have just fallen in line and been alright with all of the Bush administration's policies.  Of course not, because the New York Times and the rest of the liberal media ONLY care about liberals freedom of speech.  Here are some examples of the heated rhetoric by the anti-war Left which was directed toward President Bush.  The ignorant, illegitimate Left wing Media were silent as a Church mouse when there was heated rhetoric under Bush. I am against THREATS TO ALL POLITICAL FIGURES. 


FROM ZOMBLOG: 

A protester with a sign saying “Kill Bush” and advocating that the White House be bombed, at the March 18, 2007 anti-war rally in San Francisco.

Unfortunately place and time weren't documented.

“Save Mother Earth, Kill Bush” says this sign from a November 20, 2003 protest.

Original source unknown.

A recommendation that Bush should hang, from an October 27, 2007 protest in Los Angeles.

"Bush is the disease, Death is the cure,” says this protester at an anti-war rally in San Francisco.

This man calls for “Death to...Bush” at the March 18, 2007 anti-war rally in San Francisco.

A sign saying "Bush — the only dope worth shooting,” at the March 15, 2008 anti-war rally in Los Angeles.

Bush being burned in effigy, at a November 3, 2004 post-election anti-Bush rally in San Francisco.

Bush being beheaded by a guillotine, at an Obama campaign rally, Denver, October 26, 2008.

An effigy of Bush being killed, at the April 10, 2004 anti-war rally in San Francisco.

The anti-Israel conspiracy site nogw.com hosts this pdf file which describes a mock trial and execution of George Bush for a bizarre litany of purported crimes; included in the document is this image of Bush being hanged at the trial. 

Then Sen John Kerry responded in such a way to Bill Maher in October of 2006 on the HBO show Real Time which could have been construed as a threat: 

Maher: You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.

Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.

Full transcript here. 

The we have Kilborn: 

On August 4, 2000, when Bush won the Republican nomination (but before he was president), Craig Kilborn on CBS’s The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn ran a graphic of the words “SNIPERS WANTED” under George Bush as he gave his acceptance speech. Although CBS belatedly apologized five days later, Kilborn was never investigated, questioned or punished, and continued to host the show for four more years.

Now the progressives or liberals reaction to this horrible tragedy is to take away even more of our rights.  TCL has posted information on Congressman Brady's plan to introduce a bill against inflammatory language. Who decides what is considered inflammatory speech?  What is considered inflammatory to one person may not be considered inflammatory to another person. Matt of Conservative Hideout exposes Leftist hate.  Maggie at Maggie's notebook has posted on Blaming the Tea Party and Sarah Palin for Giffords shootings. 

Bill Lilley  says that: 

"We can’t let the acts of what appears to be a crazed gunman, one described by classmates as crazy and a left-wing pot-head not a right wing Tea Partier, change the way we speak to each other.

Should any of us seriously be talking about blowing away our enemies? No."
   

The gunmen is a 9/11 Truther. 

It seems like a greater number of threats and violent acts occur during economic downturns.  If there are indeed more threats happening under Obama than under Bush it may have something to do with the fact that under most of Bush's presidency the unemployment rate was around 5.5 % and the unemployment rate now is presently at 9.4% and this brings the nut jobs out.  

Freedom of speech is precious and is a right afforded to we the people by the Constitution and we cannot let progressives use one horrific tragedy to limit our first amendment right to free speech.  

Simply Tell the Truth ABC, CBS, NBC, & the New York Times

The Media Research Center has started a campaign called Tell The Truth,  which has trucks that say “Stop the Liberal Bias, Tell the Truth!” circling the Manhattan headquarters of ABC, CBS, NBC, and the New York Times.  This is great! A loud and clear message needs to be sent to these liberal propagandists who claim to be running news organizations.  Hooray for Brent Bozell!!! News organizations need to simply tell us the news without giving us their biased opinions in favor of this administration's policies.  They simply need to relay the facts to the viewers and then let the viewers decide what to believe, instead of trying to persuade the viewer to agree with their opinions on the various topics and controversies.

 The billboard trucks in Manhattan says: “Hey CBS, Stop the Liberal Bias, Tell the Truth!”  and the back of the truck says, “Honk If You Don’t Believe The Liberal Media.”  The other trucks bear the same message but directed at ABC, NBC, and the New York Times.

"Similar trucks also are operating in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, passing the offices of the broadcast networks, the Washington Post, CNN, the Newseum, the National Press Club and Politico, and ads about the campaign are running on numerous Web sites and on conservative talk radio programs."

'L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Media Research Center (MRC), the parent organization of CNSNews.com, said the goal of this 2010 “Tell the Truth!” campaign “is simple: to force the liberals in the media to stop pushing an agenda and just tell the truth.”'


'The “liberal media news networks” need to report the facts about “massive growth in government and its control over our lives, and about spending, deficits and debt,” he told CNSNews.com. “They also need to tell the truth about the efforts to turn our country into a European-style Socialist state.”'



Here is Brent Bozell on the Tell The Truth Campaign:



H/T CNS

Culture War Links 7-7

Indonesian Muslims Call for Halt to 'Christianization'

Here is A Bishop's Perspective on Independence Day

Here are the Black Panthers 'Cracker' Bashing

Here is an excellent summary of the New York Times and all the News that is UNFIT to Print

Abortions in healthcare law and conscience protections out.

Elena Kagan's Revealing Commerce Clause Evasion

Setting a Liberal Straight About the Tea Party Movement

In this article, the author made assertions about the Tea Party movement that were both nonsensical and fallacious. Then he tries to backtrack here. The author, J.M. Bernstein, states this:


"It would be comforting if a clear political diagnosis of the Tea Party movement were available — if we knew precisely what political events had inspired the fierce anger that pervades its meetings and rallies, what policy proposals its backers advocate, and, most obviously, what political ideals and values are orienting its members."

It is clear that he makes no effort or very little effort to understand the Tea Party movement, and the reasons for the participants' anger because if he really wanted to find out the movement's core princples all he had to do was perform a simple google search and he would have located multiple sites which state the basic political philosphy and/or the core princples of the Tea Party movement.

On TeaPartyPatriots.org one can easily find out that the three core principles of the Tea Party movement are: fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets. At TeaParty.org, the movement also calls awareness to any issue that challenges the security, sovereignty, or domestic tranquility of our nation, the United States of America. In addition, the TeaPartyPatriots.org website clearly states that the Tea Party movement adheres to principles of personal responsibility, national sovereignty, and The Rule of Law. The site also shows Glenn Beck's 9 Principles and 12 values to follow for the 9-12 movement which were created to help guide the Tea Party movement.

He clearly believes in a metaphysical collectivism and has an infatuation with the collective. He believes in handing over more power to the federal government, and is willing to cede individuals' decision-making abilities and indivdual responsibilities to the government, and is willing to give up individual freedom and liberty so that we can be indebted to an all knowing God-like central government. Tea Partiers believe in the opposite. Tea Party members want to return a more decentralized government, curb the spending, reduce the deficit, and to have more individual freedom and liberty and not rely on the government to make certain decisions for us. We believe in the right to bear arms and protect ourselves from harm whereas big government types who rely on laws and the police, rely on an institution to protect them, meanwhile calling 911 may not be enough to save a life or lives. We do not believe in restrictive laws that give the state even more power over our lives. We believe in common sense laws and returning a sense of morality back to our society. Without God their can be no return to a civil moral society.

I am inclined to believe that this author is for the health care law and having the government decide what medical procedures are necessary or not, rationing in order to save costs while Tea Party folks would rather keep our health care between us and our doctors, leave the decision making as to what is medically necessary up to our doctors, and we would rather spend more for quality health care and have much less rationing than occurs under centralized governents or with socialist health care. Liberals seem to think having 350 million people on socialist government health care is going to be the same as having 100 million on medicare, medicaid, other federal programs for our military and federal employees. In addition, many individuals on medicare have an extra private supplemental insurance because government insurance (medicare) is not enough to cover certain procedures and the costs of medical care. Big government policies and rampant corruption within Fannie and Freddie caused the financial crisis. Liberal compassion consisted of forcing the Community Reinvestment Act down the bankers' throats to hand out loans to people who evidently couldn't afford to pay their mortgages which is what caused this financial crisis. Government trying to enforce compassion via legislation is what causes persons insurmountable heartache and ruins lives.

Would this guy be upset if he asked his spouse to fix something, his spouse ignored him repeateedly, the problem worsened over a period of several months, then refused to fix the issue, and purposefully made the issue worse since she disagreed with how to solve the issue?

If you replace the spouse with the government and the guy with the American people, replace several months with 20 years and that explains and justifies the Tea Party's anger. Tea Party is directed at how the government has ignored citizens' concerns for many years. There has been an expansion of government control, and our government has exacerbated problems over the years while citizens' concerns have fallen on deaf years, and politicians have even blasted full speed ahead in the opposite direction than we the people consent to so we have every right to be angry.

The three branches of the government have undergone a metamorphosis and morphed into far reaching tentacles that has spread like a horrible disease infecting the United States. Liberals want our government to mirror European-style socialist government while our Founders instituted a Constitutional Republic to avoid a centralized government type of government like that of Europe that would greatly reduce citizens' freedom. Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence which proclaims that all men are equal in rights, regardless of birth, wealth, or status, and that the government is the servant, not the master, of the people. The problem is that Today liberals are trying to make the government our servant instead of it being the other way around. This author thinks that Jefferson wouldn't have been agreed with the way citizens acted at townhall meetings but I believe that Jefferson would have been proud of these people who are standing up for individual citizens against the enslavement of the government. Townhall attendees and Tea Party participants have been displaying righteous anger in the face of an out of control government. I believe that Thomas Jefferson would have been appalled at how our politicians are mistreating citizens and the likes of SEIU members who threaten, are violent and beat up individuals like Kenneth Gladney, a black conservative who was selling patriotic merchandise outside a townhall meeting.

New York Times=Anti-Catholic= Journalistic Malpractice

The New York Times is a bed of anti-religious smutt, only seeking to destroy moral absolutism and further the cause and destruction of Christianity, and in particular the Catholic Church.  Their  legs  paper is spread wide open promoting the secular, liberal agenda, anything goes policies (as long as it pertains to liberals), that are against a core set of moral beliefs.  They defend Roman Polanski and his sexual deviancy and are a bunch of hypocrites for distorting the facts lying as to the cases of sex abuse within the Catholic Church. The New York Times REFUSED TO POST an article/letter written telling the truth about the sex abuse cases. Here is the article:

"Like many other people, I have felt in recent weeks that some news outlets have unfairly targeted Pope Benedict XVI in connection with sexual abuse by priests.


In part this is a question of emphasis, with daily coverage of what may or may not have been minor mistakes in judgment decades ago and almost no attention to the major efforts Pope Benedict has made to remedy what is undeniably a horrible situation.

With some frequency, however, I have observed what strikes me as deliberate distortion of the facts in order to put Pope Benedict in a bad light. I would like to call your attention to what seems to me a clear example of this sort of partisan journalism: Laurie Goodstein and Michael Luo’s article “Pope Put Off Move to Punish Abusive Priest” published on the front page of the New York Times on April 10, 2010. The story is so wrong that it is hard to believe it is not animated by the anti-Catholic animus that the New York Times and other media outlets deny harboring.

Canonical procedure punishes priests who have violated Church law in serious ways by “suspending” them from exercising their ministry. This is sometimes referred to as “defrocking.” (According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary to “defrock” is to deprive of the right to exercise the functions of an office. )

A priest who has been suspended may request that he be released from his vows of celibacy and other obligations as a priest. If granted, this petition to be “laicized” would leave the former priest free to marry. Laicization (which is altogether different from defrocking and which may apply to a priest who has committed no crime but simply wishes to leave the priesthood) is not further punishment. It is something a priest who has already been punished by being suspended might well desire, as do some priests who have committed no crime and who have not been suspended..

The priest who is the subject of the article had already been punished by being suspended long before his case reached Rome. He asked to be laicized. Cardinal Ratzinger delayed his laicization not his “defrocking” as the article incorrectly says. He had been defrocked years earlier when he was suspended from the ministry. All of this is clear without reference to outside sources to anyone who knows something about Church procedure and reads the article with sufficient care. It is anything but clear, however, to a normal reader.

My complaint here is not that the article misuses the word “defrock” but rather that by so doing it strongly suggests to readers that Cardinal Ratzinger delayed the priest’s removal from the ministry. Delaying laicization had nothing to do with allowing him to continue exercising the ministry, from which he had already been suspended.

Not only does the article fail to make these distinctions, it positively misstate the facts. Its title is “Pope Put off Move to Punish Abusive Priest.” [italics added] It describes Cardinal Ratzinger’s decision as involving whether the abusive priest “should be forced from the priesthood” [italics added]. Even a moderately careful journalist would have to notice that all of this is incompatible with the fact (reported in the second paragraph of the article) that the priest himself had asked for what Cardinal Ratziner delayed.

Had the facts been reported accurately, the article would have said that the priest was promptly punished by being removed from the ministry for his crimes, but that when he asked to be reduced to the lay state, which would have given him the right to marry within the Church, Cardinal Ratzinger delayed granting the petition. That, of course, would hardly have merited front page treatment, much less a headline accusing the Pope of “Putt[ing] off Move to Punish Abusive Priest.”

The second half of the article reports that the priest later worked as a volunteer in the youth ministry of his former parish. This is obviously regrettable and should not have happened, but he was not acting as a priest (youth ministers are laymen, not priests).

A careful reader who was not misled by the inaccuracies in the first part of the article would, of course, realize that his volunteering as a youth minister had no factual or legal connection with Cardinal Ratzinger’s delaying the grant of laicization. The article does not say in so many words that it did, but an average reader might well conclude that there was some connection when he is told that “while the bishop was pressing Cardinal Ratzinger to defrock Mr. Kiesle, the priest began volunteering in the youth ministry of one of his former parishes.”

Any one of these errors might be due to carelessness, but their cumulative effect, coupled with the decision to make this front page news accompanied by a two column photo of Cardinal Raztinger’s signature, strongly suggests to me that something worse than carelessness is involved. I urge you to look into whether some major news outlets have indeed been engaged in a campaign to vilify the Pope and into whether their desire to do so has caused them to slip below minimum standards of professional journalism"

John Coverdale is Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law

H/T MercatorNet B16

An Amazingly Respectful & Compelling Pro-Life New York Times Article

Its AMAZING!! An honest article on the pro-life movement, on the front page of the New York Times!!!!!! The New York Times has actually written a fair characterization of pro-life activists and activism. And pleasantly surprised, pro-lifers are portrayed as smart, convicted, and compelling. This a very respectful story of pro-lifers and the pro-life movement.

Abortion Foes Tell of Their Journey to the Streets:

Action means many things to abortion opponents. Lobbyists and fund-raisers fight for the cause in marble hallways; volunteers at crisis pregnancy centers try to dissuade the pregnant on cozy sofas. Then there are the protesters like James Pouillon, who was shot dead here last month while holding an anti-abortion sign outside a high school. A martyr to some, an irritant to others, Mr. Pouillon in death has become a blessing of sorts for the loosely acquainted activists who knew him as a friend: proof that abortion doctors are not the only ones under duress, proof that protests matter, and a spark for more action.

“Jim suffered the persecution for us,” said Dan Brewer, who recalls swearing at Mr. Pouillon during one of his one-man protests in the ’90s, only to join him later after becoming a born-again Christian. “Now we just have to go out and do it.” A national tribute is already planned. Anti-abortion groups are calling on protesters to stand outside schools with signs that depict abortion on Nov. 24 in 40 to 50 cities nationwide.

Some who plan to take part, like Chet Gallagher, a former Las Vegas police officer, have been answering such calls for decades; he first got involved in the ’80s, when every month seemed to bring a new “rescue,” another chance to lock arms with fellow Christians and block access to an abortion clinic.
Others have arrived at the cause after experiencing personal traumas — in the case of Deborah Anderson, an abusive childhood and then an unwanted pregnancy — while still more fell into it through personal connections.

Together, these street activists make up an assertive minority of a few thousand people within the larger anti-abortion movement. Neither the best financed nor largest element in the mix, they are nonetheless the only face of anti-abortion that many Americans see. Indeed, persistent provocation is their defining attribute: day after day on street corners from California to Massachusetts, they stand like town criers, calling to women walking into abortion clinics, or waving graphic signs as disturbing as they are impossible to ignore.
Their ranks are more infused with emotion — they would say commitment — than top-down discipline.

Ziad Munson, a sociologist at Lehigh University who has interviewed hundreds of abortion opponents, said street protesters rarely moved into other areas of the movement and tended to work alone or in smaller groups. Even in cases when they form large and influential organizations, it is sometimes difficult to get beyond the culture of passionate dispute.
To critics, like Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, these protesters look like bullies bent on harassment. Among those who share their views but not their tactics, street activists have been marginalized as attention hogs who prefer to attract outrage rather than inspiring compassion.

In the case of Mr. Pouillon, that outrage may have led to death. The police said the man charged in the killing, Harlan J. Drake, a local truck driver, was bothered by the signs Mr. Pouillon showed children as they came to school. The day he was shot, Mr. Pouillon was showing a mangled fetus, part of an almost daily effort to put abortion into the minds of his neighbors. “It’s all about the eyes,” he used to say to fellow demonstrators. “It’s all about the eyes.”
But as the personal stories of Mr. Gallagher, Mr. Brewer and Ms. Anderson suggest, the motivations of many protesters are more complicated. They see themselves as righteous curbside critics, prophets warning the world with what they describe as the horrific truth no one wants to see. They have endured insults, threats and even estrangement from their families because they have found what nearly every activist craves: conviction, camaraderie and conflict.

The Police Officer: From Civil Law to Biblical
Chet Gallagher did not plan to join the blockade at the abortion clinic in Atlanta when he traveled there 21 years ago. But when he saw the passion of so many Christians outside the clinic, he said, he could not resist: he ended up in jail for 11 days, with James Pouillon and 700 others.

CONTINUED

The NYT has actually printed pictures of abortion victims. Here are the pictures below. Forewarning: They are graphic.

Here is more Jill Stanek's website

THIS HOLOCAUST BEING COMMITTED AGAINST UNBORN BABIES MUST BE STOPPED!!!!!