Google Custom Search

Saturday, January 06, 2007


FLASH!! Louisiana politician David Duke, a member of the Klu Klux Klan, has been sworn into office using a Franklin Delano Roosevelt's copy of Hitler's 'Mein Kampf.'

The controversial decision of the Klansman to use Hitler's work which outlines his views on Nazism, white supremacy, and the degradation of Jews was offset by the fact that the particular copy Duke used in the ceremony belonged to FDR.

After all, if it was good enough for FDR, it is good enough for Duke.

Ok, so none of this happened. But I hope you get my point.

Muslim Keith Ellison owes the nation an apology for desecrating the memory of Thomas Jefferson. The fact that Jefferson had a copy of the Koran is no more an indication of a his views than the fact that FDR had a copy of Mein Kampf indicates that the former President was a Nazi sympathizer.

The 'logic' of the entire thing defies rationality.

Ellison, Pelosi, and Jefferson's Koran

A picture is truly worth a thousand words.

This, of course, is Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison taking his ceremonial oath of office on Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran, as a beaming Nancy Pelosi looks on.

Ellison's shameful display is tantamount to a British lawmaker taking an oath of office on a copy of Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' that belonged to Winston Churchill. Ellison has desecrated the memory of our country's most eloquent defender of liberty.

I sure hope no one in posterity judges me by some of the books found in my library.

Pelosi/Reid Advise President Against More Troops

U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wasted no time in attempting to alter the course of the President's foreign policy. In spite of her initial promises of bipartisanship and cooperation, Pelosi drafted a letter along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, urging the President to immediately lay plans for a troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Feeling their oats from their recent ascendancy to the dual thrones of Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader, the two Democrats also warned the President not to send more troops to Iraq as planned. This is in spite of bipartisan support for the phased-in increase in troop levels in order to stabilize Baghdad. Democrats Carl Levin and Joe Lieberman among others support the President's plan to increase troop levels. This plan also has the backing of key members of the President's own party, such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Yet Pelosi has promises to keep and debts to pay. Extremists have a vested interest in her present position of power. They are the ones who elected her in San Francisco. They are the ones who finance her campaigns. And now that she is in a position to return the many favors extremists have performed on her behalf, she can hardly turn a deaf ear to their demands.

And they are demanding an immediate, unconditional troop withdrawal from Iraq.

It is no accident that Cindy Sheehan disrupted the Democrats' news conference on the day of the opening of the 110th Congress. She and her anti-war extremists wished to make a point. They are the ones who supported the Democrats' rise to power, and they expect major concessions in return. Sheehan and others like her will accept nothing less than a complete and immediate withdrawal, no matter what the consequences in the region.

Sheehan wished to remind the Democrats from whence comes their power.

Thus, Pelosi and Reid have forsaken their carefully crafted overtures of cooperation with the President in order to appease the ones backing them--the cut-and-run anti-war activists who represent the extreme leftwing of the Party. Instead of courageously putting country before politics as Levin and Lieberman have done, they cow-tow to some of the most subversive, yellow-bellied, America-hating vermin that exists in the nation.

At the confirmation hearing for Bush Secretary of Defense nominee Robert Gates, Senators grilled Gates extensively concerning his views on the present situation in Iraq. Gates repeatedly answered that a wide array of options would be considered and that he would only make up his mind after a careful consideration of the facts and consultation with the troops and their commanders on the ground.

This careful, reasoned approach was well-received by Senators on both sides of the aisle.

Not surprisingly, therefore, it is Gates who is recommending that the President increase troop levels. If the Senators who voted in favor of Gates, many of whom are Democrats, believe in the sincerity and wisdom of the plan outlined by the Secretary of Defense, then now is no time to change tactics simply because a recommendation has come forth that may not be everyone's cup of tea. The Bush-Gates plan for troop increases has some extensive support from both Democrats and Republicans. Pelosi and Reid are merely paying homage to the extremists who consistently vote for them.

MUSIC! Talley Trio Presents Top Quality Singing

The Talley Trio has gradually taken Gospel Music by storm, not by sensationalism or mindless media ploys, but by the sheer quality of their singing. Roger and Debra Talley, along with their super-talented daughter Lauren Talley, consistently present concerts that are tasteful, professional, impressive, worshipful, and fun.

It is clear that this unusual family absolutely loves what they do.

Each year the major performers of professional Southern Gospel Music gather in Louisville, Kentucky for the annual 'granddaddy of them all,' the National Quartet Convention. The week-long gathering draws tens of thousands of fans from all over the world. Over the last few years, the fans at the Convention have been totally enamored by the energy, talent, and sincerity of the Talley Trio. They are definitely a big hit at a venue that can be relentless in its incredibly high standards of quality. Nobody gets to sing here unless they are the best of the best.

The Talley Trio has passed that test with flying colors.

The husband-and-wife team of Roger and Debra Talley first burst onto the national Gospel stage during the 1980s when they teamed up with Roger's brother, Kirk, to form 'The Talleys.' Kirk had achieved phenomenal success as the tenor for the famed Cathedral Quartet from 1979 until 1983. It was at this point that Kirk joined his brother and sister-in-law to form that pace-setting trio whose tenure in the business would be relatively shortlived.

Kirk went solo, and Roger and Debra took a sabbatical from the road to focus on family life, including raising their daughter, Lauren. Lauren had been homeschooled by Debra when The Talleys were on the road so that mother and daughter would not be separated by the group's extensive travels.

A few years later Roger and Debra would re-emerge onto the Gospel scene as 'The Talley Trio,' but this time their group would include the astounding vocals of daughter Lauren Talley, who had come of age. The group has been busy winning new fans ever since.

Led by the tantalizing lead/high alto vocals of Lauren, the Talley Trio produces a unique sound that exhibits tight harmonies, haunting melodies that grip the heart, and endings that are at once exhilarating, thrilling, and heartwarming. Experiencing this group on CD, DVD, or a live concert is a rare experience that leaves one wanting more.

While Lauren's powerful voice is the driving force of this trio, this in no way minimizes the talent of Debra and Roger. Industry insiders are unanimous in giving the nod to Debra Talley as one of the finest alto vocalists ever to grace a stage. Her tones are velvety, rich, and pitch-perfect as she supplies the lower alto just under Lauren's higher lead. Roger is a terribly underrated singer, supplying a difficult-to-sustain tenor harmony just under Debra's alto, which he does admirably. Roger's role in the trio is much more difficult than it looks. Unless the tenor can sing every single note dead-on pitch, the harmony falls apart. And this group had never turned in anything but a stellar harmonic performance.

The group's charting action is one indication of the their success. Consistently achieving Number One Singles and Top Ten Singles, the group is a favorite of Gospel DJs. Two of their top songs are the hauntingly gripping 'I Love the Lord,' which is enough to melt a heart of stone, and the wildly successful 'His Life For Mine,' a stunning performance featuring Lauren Talley's unfolding of the Gospel story of Christ's sacrificial death for His people.

In short, if you have never heard of The Talley Trio, familiarize yourself with them. If you have never listened to them, buy one of their CDs or DVDs. And if you are within 150 miles of one of their concerts, go. You will have the musical experience of a lifetime.

Friday, January 05, 2007

Berger/Clinton Scandal Much Worse Than Watergate

The Bill Clinton/Sandy Berger scandal of stealing and destroying classified documents is much worse than anything that happened during Watergate. But the media virtually gives Clinton and Berger a pass. Why?

Alan Nathan of Front Page Magazine has the following expose'. A link to Front Page Magazine can be found in the 'links' section of The Liberty Sphere.

Worse than Watergate -- But Invisible in the Media
By Alan Nathan | January 5, 2007

President Clinton’s Former National Security Advisor was caught stealing and destroying classified documents from the National Archives (before the 9/11 Commission could read them), but his actions have garnered less media attention than a fly breaking wind.

Sandy Berger illegally removed four documents, hid them under a construction trailer for later retrieval, then cut three of the four with scissors upon returning to his office. He admitted to lying about it when first questioned by their officials, according to a December 20, 2006, report by Inspector General Paul Brachfeld.

We already knew that in September of 2005, Berger was sentenced to pay a $50,000 fine and complete 100 hours of community service for taking and destroying documents never meant to leave the Archives in October 2003. However, at the time of his plea bargain, much of this story was never reported, and most of us were unaware of just how premeditated had been his cloak and dagger exercises.

Well, now we know, but little of it is making the headlines or the airwaves. Why? Why is it that secret material failing to reach the 9/11 Commission never ignited explosions of press inquiry? He was chosen by Clinton to provide these after-action reports of the 2000 millennium terror plot to the Commission investigating the state of our intelligence on terror before the September 11, 2001 attacks. Wasn’t that beyond a conflict of interest? Why didn’t the Commission send someone not connected to the investigation?

And don’t embarrass yourself by even imagining that Berger, his attorney, and all of his apologists are to be taken seriously when they contend that the documents still exist in their entirety and were submitted to the Commission. As Virginia Republican Representative Tom Davis accurately pointed out when commenting to the Associated Press, “Working papers of National Security Council staff members are not inventoried by the Archives.” He added, “Consequently, there is no way to ever know if the 9/11 Commission received all required materials.”

Nobody on the Commission (or on the planet) can assert to have the full accounting of an original tally never known. Why?

Because if it wasn’t inventories, you have no beginning number!

This all screams the question, “Why has the media allocated so little focus on this?” The normal order of things would suggest that we learn from our predecessors. While that remains true for most professions, the same cannot be said of the journalism community.

When debating a judicial nominee’s state of neutrality, one requisite is paramount: Does he have a greater allegiance to his vocation than he does his politics? When judges are meeting such standards, then both the liberal and conservative judge shall rule far more similarly to one another than would two fellow liberals or two fellow conservatives not meeting that requisite.

The average reporter also once had a stronger loyalty to his craft than his biases – perhaps the path to the good old days is through the future, and current journalism majors can lead us back to excellence.

Today however, the media’s five-to-one ratio of liberals to conservatives (as was reported by the Pew Foundation in 2004) is having a deleterious impact on us all in that we’re only fully protected when the GOP commit the offense.

Don’t get me wrong, as a centrist I’m delighted with the media exposing Republican criminality. But why should citizens be more vulnerable to other charlatans simply because they are Democrats receiving less scrutiny from their brethren in the Fourth Estate?

Every once in a while a story of great magnitude arises in a way that provokes such little initial coverage that it effectively hides in plain sight. When this occurs, it’s either because the original news worthiness appears to be at a lower level of importance, or because those with direct and indirect vested interests have enough aggregate influence so as to play down the story in question.

The Watergate scandal is an example of the first; Sandy Berger removing and extinguishing protected records of national security exemplifies the second.

In the Watergate burglary fiasco that revealed President Nixon covering up his campaign’s attempt to steal papers from the Democrats, there were political operatives wielding their influence to conceal the event. Thankfully, those operatives were far outweighed by a press more interested in journalism than anyone else’s political agenda. Consequently, what was originally reported as a garden-variety breaking-and-entry would later be understood as a grotesque violation of public trust.

What happened to that kind of passionate investigative journalism? Sandy Berger stealing and destroying classified documents is a story with so many startling facts already in evidence, even the layman newshound should think to ask, “What else is being hidden and what are the motives?”

Why is robbing national security documents less important than robbing campaign documents?

America's Last Days

From we find the following most intriguing eye-opener:

“America’s Last Days”
By Douglas MacKinnon

With two, just published, major magazine pieces on my new novel entitled “America’s Last Days,” there seems to be some degree of controversy brewing. As such, I was asked if I might want to use this space to explain my motivation as well as the motivation of my fictional super-militia — which seeks to foster a revolution from within, and is headed up by the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the former Director of the FBI.

Just yesterday (as I write this), I received a call from a former high level government official who has read parts of the book, as well as the two magazine pieces (U.S. News & World Report and Publishers Weekly) and said, “You had better watch your back. The U.S. government may try to come after you over this book. It’s making people nervous.”

I fully understand that some may see this as spin from an author trying to sell books. It is not. While clearly, I do want to sell books, it was not my intention to write this column as a vehicle to do so. I was asked to provide excerpts that frame the motivation.

My motivation is simple. To try and tell a good story that encompasses much of the turmoil of our everyday lives. The motivation of the leaders of my fictional militia is a bit more complicated. They believe the United States of America is in a death spiral from which it can’t recover. As such, they believe it is their duty to act.

This first excerpt takes place between the former Director of the FBI and the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

““How did we get this way, John? Why are they forcing us to do this terrible thing?”

“Why did the Roman Empire crumble, sir? Complacency, ignorance and lack of a moral compass. They lost it all because they took the things that really count for granted. They became fat, lazy, and sinful. They were overcome by lust, greed and a gradual lowering of standards. The United States of today is exactly the same. We have lost our moral compass. Our country has become more classist, elitist and separatist. Political correctness prevents us from targeting the enemy within our own borders who harbor the very Al Qaida terrorists who attacked us. We can’t protect our own borders with Mexico and Canada. In a country that is over eighty-five percent Christian, those very same Christians can no longer say ‘Merry Christmas,’ and can barely celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. We’re on the verge of a race war, our inner-cities are on the brink of collapse, our educational system is a joke, teachers are not held accountable, affirmative action has destroyed trust and self-esteem, the growing rich are walling themselves off from the ninety-five percent of other Americans, our politicians are all corrupt, stupid, taking bribes, or shunned by the few honest ones. Our Armed Forces have been weakened by a succession of short-sighted Presidents…We’re still killing the unborn at record numbers, the nation is about to elect yet another liberal President. Liberal messages in television, the movies, the news, and on CDs are polluting the minds of our young people. So much so, that they have no respect for themselves, tradition, what’s right, or their elders. Illegal immigrants by the hundreds of thousands protest in our streets for rights they have not earned, and then boycott honest businesses…””

This second excerpt is from much later in the novel and is a conversation that takes place at the White House between the former Director of the FBI and the President of the United States:

““Thank you, Mr. President. While I fully understand that my presence here today, and what I’m about to tell you, is very surreal, let me assure you that myself and General Bates could not be more serious. Quite frankly, we believe the United States of America is broken beyond all repair. We believe that the liberals in our government, in the media, and in our schools and universities, have made things so twisted, that what was once the United States of America, no longer exists…we believe…that a new nation must be formed. A nation that will be imbued with all that our Founding Fathers dreamed would be the bedrock of the United States of America. We believe that when you have over fifty thousand college professors and tens of thousands of high school teachers all across this nation, brainwashing our young people with the sick notion that all that is wrong with the world is the fault of the United States, and that our way of life is the enemy, then all is lost. We believe that when thousands of violent street gangs kill, rape, and deal drugs with impunity on our nation’s streets, then there is no more law and order. And to rectify that omission, a new order must be created…We believe that the terrorists of the world will continue to target our once great nation. After September 11, 2001, we had a long grace period where they didn’t hit us. Then two years ago, we lost twenty thousand people in Chicago. Last year, another ten thousand in Los Angeles…Not only has our country changed for the worse, but the world is, I think, quite literally, going to Hell. Pakistan and Turkey have elected Islamic fundamentalists to rule their countries. Through Pakistan, the fundamentalists now have nuclear weapons. India is preparing for an all out nuclear war with Pakistan, and Iran, even after a joint attack years ago from Israel and the United States, has still managed to develop nuclear weapons and mate them with short range ballistic missiles. Chaos and twisted ideology are now the norm in many parts of the world. Most European nations are waving the white flag in the face of the existing and growing threats within their borders. As these threats to America have multiplied, the leadership of The 1776 Command [The name of the militia in the novel] patiently looked at the Congress of the United States, and waited for them to lead. Tragically, we saw nothing but a morally bankrupt institution that spews more partisan hate and pork with each passing day. The vast majority of Members have long since stopped representing the best interests of their constituents, to focus on their own self-indulgence. Rome was lucky, Mr. President. They only had one Nero to stand by and fiddle as the city and the culture burned to the ground. We in the United States, have 535.””

Again, this is a work of fiction. I want the reader to decide if the members of this militia are patriots or traitors. To decide if what they are contemplating is High Treason, or saving a nation from itself. And, if such a super-militia did exist, how would the United States of today deal with it?

As an author, I am just trying to tell a story, make people think, and create conversation. In no way am I advocating a revolution from within.

That said, if the United States of our parents and grandparents is in a death spiral, how do we, in real life, reverse it before it’s too late? While in my novel, my characters have a fictional option – as crazy as it may sound – to stop the onslaught of political correctness, stem the erosion of morals, and revitalize the dream of our Founding Fathers, those of us in the real world who care about these things, seem to be running out of options.

Beware the Revolution.

Douglas MacKinnon was press secretary for former Senator Bob Dole and is the author of America’s Last Days . He is also a former White House and Pentagon official.

Ellison's Shameful Public Relations Ploy

I am surprised that Thomas Jefferson has not risen from his grave to forcefully denounce a recent action by a Muslim congressman who invoked his name in his oath of office. In a shameful public relations ploy, Congressman Keith Ellison, D-MI, took his ceremonial oath of office on a copy of the Koran that had once belonged to Thomas Jefferson.

As if to say symbolically that Americans have nothing to fear since Jefferson owned a copy of the Koran, Ellison hoped that such a display would help to restore his dubious reputation. After all, how can one argue with Jefferson?

The problem is that there is no argument with Jefferson. The argument is with Ellison.

Jefferson never took his oath of office with his hand on the Koran, as everyone knows. And owning a book is no indication that the reader concurs with the opinions expressed in that book. I own a copy of the Koran. And, as everyone should know by now, I detest the book and agree with Salmon Rushdie's assessment of the verses therein. Yet I have the book in my possession. I own lots of books that espouse views that I deplore for the simple reason that knowledge is power. It is vitally important to know what our enemies are saying.

Thinking people normally have hundreds of books in their personal libraries. Jefferson was a thinking man. And as such it is no surprise that one would find a copy of the Koran in his collection.

But Thomas Jefferson was not a Muslim.

I even have a copy of Hitler's 'Mein Kampf.' I deplore every word of Hitler's ideology. Thus, for someone in posterity to seize my copy of Mein Kampf to use for their oath of office, claiming they are justified in doing so, since, after all, D. Martyn Lloyd-Morgan owned this book, would be a shameful travesty of truth, not to mention a desecration of my memory.

For one thing, I deplore Adolf Hitler. The fact that I had the book means nothing other than I wanted to become knowledgeable concerning every bit of rubbish the book represents. In addition, I certainly would not support ANYONE at ANYTIME using Hitler's book in their oath of office.

The mere fact that Ellison seems to think that this shameful, dishonest display would help mend his reputation only points to how cynical he is about the intelligence of most Americans. Maybe those who voted for him are that stupid, but not the rest of us.

I can almost imagine Jefferson reaching up from the grave and indignantly snatching the book from the hands of Ellison and hitting him over the head with it. The Congressman has desecrated the memory of one of our country's founding patriots.

Why Raising Minimum Wage Will Hurt Most Americans

Columnist George Will has written an excellent piece on the proposal by Congressional Democrats to raise the minimum wage. The proposal has that 'touchy-feely' quality about it that causes unsuspecting citizens to nod in approval, failing to consider the broad picture.

As Will describes below, raising the minimum wage will actually HURT rather than help the average worker. A link to the Jewish World Review, which published the article, is found in the 'links' section of The Liberty Sphere. George Will is one of their featured columnists.

Federal minimum wage unneeded

By George Will | A federal minimum wage is an idea whose time came in 1938, when public confidence in markets was at a nadir and the federal government's confidence in itself was at an apogee. This, in spite of the fact that, with the 19 percent unemployment and the economy contracting by 6.2 percent in 1938, the New Deal's frenetic attempts had failed to end, and perhaps had prolonged, the Depression.

Today, raising the federal minimum wage is a bad idea whose time has come, for two reasons, the first of which is that some Democrats have a chronic and evidently incurable disease — New Deal Nostalgia. Witness Nancy Pelosi's "100 hours" agenda, a genuflection to FDR's 100 Days.

Perhaps this nostalgia resonates with the 5 percent of Americans who remember the 1930s.

Second, the President has endorsed raising the hourly minimum from $5.15 to $7.25 by the spring of 2009. The Democratic Congress will favor that, and he may reason that vetoing this minor episode of moral grandstanding would not be worth the predictable uproar — Washington uproar often is inversely proportional to the importance of occasion for it. Besides, there would be something disproportionate about the President vetoing this feel-good bit of legislative fluff after not vetoing the absurdly expensive 2002 farm bill, or the 2005 highway bill larded with 6,371 earmarks, or the anti-constitutional McCain-Feingold speech-rationing bill.

Democrats consider the minimum wage increase a signature issue. So, consider what it says about them: Most of the working poor earn more than the minimum wage, and most of the 0.6 percent (479,000 in 2005) of America's wage workers earning the minimum wage are not poor. Only one in five workers earning the federal minimum live in families with household earnings below the poverty line.

Sixty percent work part-time and their average household income is well over $40,000. (The average and median household incomes are $63,344 and $46,326 respectively.)

Forty percent of American workers are salaried. Of the 75.6 million paid by the hour, 1.9 million earn the federal minimum or less, and of these, more than half are under 25 and more than a quarter are between 16 and 19. Many are students or other part-time workers. Sixty percent of those earning the federal minimum or less work in restaurants and bars and are earning tips — often untaxed, perhaps — in addition to their wages.

Two-thirds of those earning the federal minimum today will, a year from now, have been promoted and be earning 10 percent more. Raising the minimum wage predictably makes work more attractive relative to school for some teenagers, and raises the dropout rate. Two scholars report that in states that allow persons to leave school before 18, a 10 percent increase in the state minimum wage caused teenage school enrollment to drop 2 percent.

The federal minimum wage has not been raised since 1997, so 29 states with 70 percent of the nation's work force have set minimum wages of between $6.15 and $7.93 an hour. Because aging liberals, clinging to the moral clarities of their youth, also have Sixties Nostalgia, they are suspicious of states' rights. But regarding minimum wages, many have become Brandeisians, invoking Justice Louis Brandeis' thought about states being laboratories of democracy.

But wait. Ronald Blackwell, the AFL-CIO's chief economist, tells The New York Times that state minimum wage differences entice companies to shift jobs to lower-wage states. So: states' rights are bad, after all, at least concerning — let's use liberalism's highest encomium — diversity of economic policies.

The problem is that demand for almost everything is elastic: When the price of something goes up, demand for it goes down. Obviously were the minimum wage to jump to, say, $15 an hour, that would cause significant unemployment among persons just reaching for the bottom rung of the ladder of upward mobility. But suppose those scholars are correct who say that when the minimum wage is low and is increased slowly — proposed legislation would take it to $7.25 in three steps — the negative impact on employment is negligible. Still, because there are large differences among states' costs of living, and the nature of their economies, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., sensibly suggests that each state should be allowed to set a lower minimum.

But the minimum wage should be the same everywhere: $0. Labor is a commodity; governments make messes when they decree commodities' prices.

Washington, which has its hands full delivering the mail and defending the shores, should let the market do well what Washington does poorly. But that is a good idea whose time will never come again.

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Dems Show True Colors, Elect Extremist Liberal as Speaker

Washington, DC (TLS). The votes are in. Democrats have shown to the nation their true colors by electing extremist San Francisco Liberal Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

Gun Owners of America had warned lawmakers that anyone who votes for Pelosi would automatically earn a rating of 'F' from the group. Pelosi's consistent anti-Second Amendment views are so far outside Constitutional law that the GOA designated the vote for Speaker as a ratings vote, i.e., a vote for Pelosi is a vote against firearms rights.

Thus, many of the so-called 'Blue Dog' Democrats who ran on a conservative platform but voted in favor of Pelosi will automatically receive a rating of 'F' from the GOA when it comes to gun rights.

This is hardly the way for such conservative Democrats to begin their freshman year in Congress. It was hoped that they would exhibit more backbone and courage in voting their conscience, that is, provided they truly believe the rhetoric they fed to voters during the campaign.

At this point at least, it appears that rhetoric was simply empty talk.

As I have warned you before on The Liberty Sphere, my friends, it is time for gun owners to beware. The next two years are going to be very difficult for those who believe in Constitutional rights. We MUST be on guard at all times. This is not a time for complacency.

Stay alert...stay very alert.


U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is working with a leftist oganization, 'Public Citizen,' to silence free speech. Convinced that grassroots citizens groups are a threat to her power, Pelosi is working with the leftist lobbying group to push through legislation that will effectively muzzle smaller, grassroots citizens groups, while allowing large labor unions, corporations, and even foreign interests to lobby Congress freely.

In the name of 'lobbying reform,' Pelosi and her Demeocrat comrades will seek to end the ability of private citizens to band together to influence the legislative process--a clear violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Susan Jones of Cybercast News Service has the complete story below (a link to CNS News is found in the 'links' section of The Liberty Sphere).

Pelosi 'Muzzling Free Speech,' Conservatives Warn
By Susan Jones Senior Editor
January 04, 2007

( - Tyranny! social conservatives are crying on Thursday, as "San Francisco radical" Nancy Pelosi becomes speaker of the House.

The Traditional Values Coalition warned that Pelosi is beginning her "tyrannical reign" with an aggressive plan to "muzzle" conservative groups through lobby reform.

According to TVC, Pelosi plans to attack the First Amendment right of conservative groups to freely lobby Members of Congress. Her plan is part of the Democrats' "lobby reform" legislation that she hopes to push through Congress within a few weeks.

"Rep. Pelosi, a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-military legislator, is working with the leftist Public Citizen group to craft a bill that specifically targets conservative groups -- but leaves labor unions, corporations, and even foreign interests to freely lobby Congress," the Rev. Louis Sheldon, TVC chairman, said in a message to supporters.

"The legislation will be a serious violation of the Constitution by undermining free speech and placing incredible time and financial burdens on grassroots organizations. This will infringe upon the right of the people to petition their government," he warned.

TVC said the "draconian" legislation will require all groups that communicate with the grassroots -- even as few as 500 supporters -- to fill out "onerous" government reporting forms detailing the group's expenditures, the issues the group is focusing on, and the federal officials who are targeted for lobbying.

A separate disclosure report would be required for each policy issue that the group is advocating.

The legislation would impose severe civil and potentially criminal penalties against groups that fail to register, report or omit some required information in their reports, TVC said.

Conservatives see the legislation as a "thinly veiled" attempt to muzzle them, since the bill "cleverly exempts" trade unions and corporations from reporting when and what they communicate with their members

"If this Public Citizen/Pelosi legislation is passed, it will be a serious threat to freedom of speech and the right of citizens to lobbying their representatives and senators -- yet will protect corporations and labor unions," Sheldon warned.

He said the legislation will increase TVC's financial burden -- "and force our overworked staff to spend endless hours filling out government forms that can eventually be used to punish us -- if we make a mistake in the paperwork!"

TVC is urging its supporters to contact their senators and representatives: "Ask them to vote against any Pelosi legislation that targets grassroots organizations," the group said.

"If we can't get good legislation passed during the next two years, we can at least stop bad legislation from being passed or vetoed," Sheldon added.

"We're in for a rough two years under these radical liberals."

Copyright 1998-2006 Cybercast News Service

A Rational Suggestion to Blue Dog Democrats

During the November 2006 midterm elections, many Democrats across the country ran on platforms that were decidedly more conservative than the official stance of Democrat Party as a whole. In some cases these candidates were more conservative than their Republican counterparts.

Designated as 'Blue Dog Democrats' these candidates stood for easing gun control, reigning in federal spending, and a few even stated they were against Roe v. Wade and gay marriage. Thus, many of these freshmen Democrats were elected based upon a decidedly conservative agenda that pits them in direct opposition to Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Harry Reid, and Diane Feinstein.

Republicans had hoped that they could forge a coalition with these 'blue dogs' to thwart some of the extremist legislation planned by the Party elite. This would only make sense since these particular Democrats distanced themselves from the national Party and its leadership during the campaign. Voters in their districts, therefore, are expecting them to follow through with their campaign promises.

However, several days ago some of the freshmen Democrats who are being sworn in today stated that Republicans were counting their chickens before they hatch if they believe that any such coalition can occur. The Blue Dog Demos who spoke to the press indicated that they had no intention of aligning with Republicans to thwart any legislation proposed by the Democrat Party leadership.

Here again, campaign rhetoric appears to be flying out the window even before the oaths of office are taken.

The problem with the Blue Dogs, however, is that back home they will be held accountable for their votes. They promised bipartisan cooperation and a conservative agenda, and the voters will be looking for it.

Sensing the growing problem, Nancy Pelosi put together a strategy to help the Blue Dogs. She stated that they would not be expected to tow the party line in all of the legislation that is proposed; that she understood that they were accountable to the voters back home; and therefore, the Blue Dogs were free to vote as they see fit, even if it flies in the face of the Party leadership.

This is the mark of a shrewd politician...if she had actually meant it.

Something happened between the time the Blue Dogs were elected in November and the opening session of the 110th Congress. We know, for example, that all freshmen Congressmen are given a complete orientation session by their respective Parties during which subtle and not-so-subtle expectations are communicated.

You figure it out. The independent, conservative-minded Blue Dog Democrats changed their tune in a hurry once they got to Washington. Despite assurances from Pelosi that they were free to vote in a manner that would garner them the most votes back home, the unspoken message was conveyed to them, obviously, that they had better march in lockstep during the first 100 hours or else.

It is no accident that Pelosi gave to many of the Blue Dogs some key committee appointments. Was this in exchange for their full, complete, unwavering loyalty during the first 100 hours?

This is certainly the impression one gets from observing this scenario as it plays out.

My suggestion to the Blue Dogs is simply this--do not forget where you came from and who put you into office. Do not forget what you promised those who put you into office. And remember, if you fail them in any way whatsoever, you will not get elected again. Two years will be it.

So, show that you have some political savvy by forming cooperative alliances with Republicans who share your conservative philosophy. Pelosi is not worth your unswerving loyalty. Your values are the ONLY thing that matters.

Clock Ticks on 'First 100 Hours'

As of today, the clock is ticking on the so-called 'first 100 hours' of the 110th Congress. Democrats take the helm in both houses of Congress with the promise they will 'restore openness and integrity' to the fine institution of the U.S. Congress, which in their view has been so shamefully soiled by Republican graft.

They convinced most Americans who voted that they were sincere in their promises.

However, today Congress will go behind closed doors to supposedly 'consult on how best to work together.' No cameras, no news reporters, no C-Span will be allowed. Republicans will not be allowed any input into the legislation that is proposed during the first 100 hours.

Thus, openness, cooperation, and bipartisanship are gone as soon as the session opens.

Now on to the integrity portion of their campaign promises.

John Conyers, who broke the law and House rules, will become Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. This shining example of high morals and integrity will be the point man on one of the most powerful and influential committees in Congress, in spite of the fact that he broke federal law and should by all accounts be expelled.

Conyers has also vowed to tear the country apart by opening impeachment proceedings against President Bush during wartime.

Patrick 'Leaky' Leahy is set to become Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in spite of the fact that he was once forced to resign from the Senate Intelligence Committee over leaks of classified information to the press.

It certainly gives one a great sense of security knowing the Blabbermouth will be in charge of a key Senate committee.

And then there is Nancy Pelosi's support for Congressman Hastings who was convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors. Hastings was her first choice for a key committee chairmanship but changed her mind when bloggers and critics screamed to high heaven.

Now we come to Harry Reid. Reid was under investigation for illegal campaign contributions. Stating that he was sorry about it, he gave the money back after he had been caught. This seemed to completely satisfy his colleagues as now he will be Top Dog Demo Number One in the Senate.

And thus, with sleaze dripping all over Washington, news backouts, and the banning of Republicans from input in legislation during their infamous 'first 100 hours,' the saintly Demos will take control of Congress today bright and early.

Don't forget that if Nancy Pelosi gets her way, this blog and others will be forbidden from encouraging readers to contact their representatives in Congress without Congressional permission.


Perhaps this is why Pelosi and Reid have implemented the news blackout of the opening session.

When the lights go out and the windows are closed, vermin crawls out of the woodwork to infest the area with disease-spreading germs. This particular disease, however, will be enough to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic.

Wednesday, January 03, 2007


Ask most any typical fan who has followed the Gold City Quartet for the past 25 years what they think about the present group lineup and sound, and you will hear raving reviews. Words such as 'pace-setters,' 'standard-bearers,' the 'best in the business' are likely to proceed from those who follow the famed gospel group.

A recent concert in December provided ample reason as to why the fans describe the group in such glowing terms.

The addition of young bass vocalist Aaron McCune is one of the main reasons for the group's continued smashing success. Gold City had set the bar very high for bass vocalists in its 25 year history. Group owner and manager Tim Riley was also the bass for the group for most of its history--until his recent retirement. Riley's claim to fame are the mega-deep notes that he nails with ease. On any given night during a Gold City performance, Riley would thrill the crowd with his double-octave slides that would rumble the rafters.

Amazingly, these notes were not growled or faked by the old trick of blowing into the microphone, giving less-than-astute listeners the impression that exceptionally low notes were being sung. Riley had what people in the music business refer to as 'good cut,' that is, there was nothing fake or contrived in his voice. His tones were sharp, deep, and resonant, especially in the lower register where most men only dream of going.

When Riley retired the Gold City faithful remained true, but many secretly admitted that the bass position suffered from a lack of the trademark mega-bass...that is, until Aaron McCune joined the group last year. McCune had already made a name for himself with the Palmetto State Quartet from Greenville, South Carolina. This young bass possesses that 'star quality' that at one time was standard with gospel quartets, such as Hovie Lister and the Statesmen from the 50s. Not only that, but McCune is one of the few bass vocalists that can admirably fill the bass position, Gold City style.

While this amazing young bass has his own style and sound, his tones and depth are consistent with the sound for which Gold City has been known for 25 years. During this particular concert in December McCune proved that he could stand his ground with the lowest and best of bass vocalists. His double-octave endings were clean and blended well with the other vocalists. The lead, baritone, and tenor vocalists all provided stellar performances on songs where they were featured, but the blend the quartet has achieved is the thing that sets them apart. Very few gospel quartets have the ability to forge out a tight, balanced sound that exhibits a professional polish that only the best of singers can attain. Gold City is definitely in that elite group of artists along with the Florida Boys, the Dove Brothers, the Gaither Vocal Band, and Signature Sound.

Tim Riley must surely be proud of his new bass.

The Gold City Quartet travels out of Gadsden, Alabama, and consists of the following vocalists--Aaron McCune on bass, Danny Riley on baritone, Jonathan Wilburn on lead, and Steve Ladd on tenor. The group is accompanied by pianist Josh Simpson.

There is not a weak link in this chain. Each is an accomplished vocalist and musician.

Gold City has amassed a legion of faithful fans through the years. The faithful are known to travel hundreds of miles to see the group in person. A typical Gold City concert is a sell-out, and that includes such widely diverse areas of the country as the Deep South, the Midwest, the Northeast, and the West Coast. In addition to winning multiple fan awards through the years, the group has a ton of number one singles under its belt. Cashbox Magazine has named Gold City as the southern gospel group of the year more than once. They have also appeared many times on Bill Gaither's concerts and multi-platinum videos.

After all of these years it is clear that Gold City is still packin' 'em in and raisin' the roof. The fans love 'em and turn out to see them in droves. And the quartet never disappoints. They 'raise the roof' with their unique brand of quartet singing.

More Fallout Spreads from State Dept. Cover-Up of Arafat Murders

The following article is from the Jewish World Review (a link is found in the 'links' section of The Liberty Sphere), written by Jonathan Tobin. The fallout continues to spread over the 33-year State Department and News Media cover-up of Arafat's murder of 2 U.S. diplomats.

Ancient Lies No Basis for a Policy

By Jonathan Tobin

Saddam's words and Arafat document illustrate the distorted visions of a region | Two seemingly unrelated events in the waning days and hours of 2006 pretty much summed up everything you need to know about the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Their meaning can be characterized simply: The Arab world's obsession with eradicating the State of Israel and the West's willingness to deceive itself about the character of Arab leaders and their intentions both are based on lies.

The more famous of the two events was the hanging of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. In his final moments before he got his just desserts, the doomed Iraqi once again played the card that he and other Arab despots have always used with impunity: Israel.

Thus, among his final comments on the gallows came this declaration: "Palestine is Arab!"

Why invoke this cause with his last breath? Because even at that moment he still thought it worth a try to deflect discussion of his comeuppance to that of the conflict with Israel.

The Arab world has used the fight against Zionism as an excuse for every problem that exists within their societies. Whether it is the domination of tyrants like Saddam or the lack of economic progress and the rest of the standards by which they lag behind the West, the answer is always the same: It would be different if only there were no Israel.

That this thesis is nonsense has been no deterrent to its frequent use. This diversionary tactic is so deeply ingrained in the culture of the Arab world that it is routinely repeated not just by spokesmen for the regimes that run roughshod over their own people but also by their intellectuals and would-be reformers who ought to know better.

By focusing on the external enemy — and a state ruled by a despised minority of dhimmi Jews at that — the Arabs have given themselves as well as their leaders a ready-made excuse for all of their failures.

Though he spent his career terrorizing his own people, Saddam was always careful to pose as a pan-Arab anti-Zionist. When his troops were evicted from Kuwait in 1991 with little resistance on the part of his army, it was no surprise that he used his SCUD missiles to attack Israel. Though Israel had nothing to do with Saddam's looting of Kuwait and was excluded from the international coalition organized to oppose him by the first President Bush, it was imperative for him to make it appear as if Israel was actually a belligerent in that war.

This earned him the cheers of Palestinians, who took to their rooftops to cheer the missiles headed for Tel Aviv. He reinforced that impression with his subsequent payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

But this was, like everything else he did, a lie. Like the rest of the Arab world, Iraq did nothing useful for the Palestinians other than to encourage them to continue in a pointless war. But by doing so, he deflected criticism from Muslims who still prefer to embrace canards about the Jews rather than to examine their own faults. And by saying "Palestine" before the trap door opened, Saddam gave Arabs another excuse to ignore the truth about the campaign to remove his regime.

All this also helps to feed the fallacy — still widely believed in the West — that the Arab-Israeli dispute is the source of all the region's problems. But as Saddam's life and death proved, intra-Arab warfare and atrocities have little to do with the Jews.

Another event that was received with far less fanfare took place only days before Hussein's death. It was the release of a 33-year-old classified document by the United States State Department. It confirmed what had long been rumored: that the late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat personally ordered the murders of two kidnapped American diplomats in March 1973.

Members of a PLO-front group called "Black September gunned down the two, Cleo Noel, U.S. ambassador to Sudan, and the embassy's Charge d'Affaires George Moore, along with Guy Eid, a Belgian envoy, in cold blood." The supposed separate identity of the group — which was also responsible for the 1972 massacre of 11 Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich — from that of Arafat's Fatah was a cover story intended to separate the Palestinian mainstream from its more egregious crimes.

Arafat denied any role in these murders to the day of his own death in 2004. Though he was the godfather of modern terror, he sought to burnish his mythical image as a statesman to the West. But this was nothing compared to the self-deception of Western governments who knew better, particularly the employers of Noel and Moore, the United States State Department.

Though the Sudan murders were invoked by critics of America's policy of engagement of Arafat throughout the era of the Oslo peace process, the State Department always denied there was any proof of Arafat's direct involvement. But, as the document released late last month proved, this denial was as brazen a falsehood as any ever uttered by the Palestinians. In fact, the National Security Agency had intercepted a transmission from Arafat's headquarters in Beirut to Khartoum, Sudan, ordering the murders of the Americans.

Thus, even though the United States had in its possession direct evidence of his responsibility for the murder of two its diplomats, Arafat not only was never charged with these crimes but also enjoyed the hospitality of the White House more than any other foreign leader during the Clinton administration.

Yet with Arafat now as dead as Noel and Moore, is there any point in rehearsing this sorry chapter of history? Yes, because the State Department cover-up of this crime (a whitewash that ought to have prompted at least a fraction of the outrage that the contemporaneous Watergate cover-up did) was an act of policy.

It was important to generations of American diplomats and their political masters not to publish the truth about Arafat because they believed making deals with him was more important than combating terror. Their subversion of justice was for a cause they thought to be nobler than justice for slain Americans — peace. And in the name of this illusion a long list of cabinet secretaries and a president of the United States willfully ignored not only the lies that Arafat told during peace talks but abandoned their duty to apprehend and punish a terrorist.

Hussein's last words and the Arafat transcript both illustrate how lies told by Arab despots have been abetted by the lies of their willing dupes. Those willing to embrace future deceptions, whether on the part of "moderates" such as Mahmoud Abbas (Arafat's longtime deputy) or his "extremist" Hamas rivals, would do well to study both incidents and realize that a peace will never be built upon falsehoods.

JWR contributor Jonathan S. Tobin is executive editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent.

© 2005, Jonathan Tobin

Blabbermouth Leahy Set to Become Judiciary Chair

The incoming chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee is well-known in Washington for his tendency to leak classified information to the press. Senator Patrick 'Leaky' Leahy was forced to resign from the Senate Intelligence Committee during the 80s because of such leaks.

In the article below from CNS News you will find the complete scoop on The Blabbermouth and his incessant whine about the Bush administration.

To their credit, if I were in the Bush Administration I wouldn't want classified info in the hands of Leaky Leahy either. It just may wind up on the front page of the New York Times.

'( - Sen. Patrick Leahy, the incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is grumbling about the Justice Department's refusal to release documents on the Bush administration's interrogation and detention policy for terrorism suspects, the Washington Times reported. The Vermont Democrat (nicknamed "Leaky Leahy" for spilling national secrets in the past) has promised that as Judiciary chairman he will target the "unprecedented" efforts by the Bush administration to "hide its own activities from the public." Leahy specifically wants to look at documents concerning CIA interrogation methods. "I have advised the attorney general that I plan to pursue this matter further at the committee's first oversight hearing of the Department of Justice," the Washington Times quoted him as saying. "The department's decision to brush off my request for information about the administration's troubling interrogation policies is not the constructive step toward bipartisanship that I had hoped for, given President Bush's promise to work with us," he said. In the 1980s, Leahy was forced to resign from the Senate Intelligence Committee after he was caught leaking secret information about the Iran-Contra scandal to a reporter. And that's just one of several "loose lips" incidents involving the Vermont Democrat.'

Remember, my fellow Americans, the fact that 'loose lips' will now be a powerful Chairman of an important Senate committee is directly attributable to the misguided choices voters made in November.


Caroline Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. She is a contributing columnist for The Jewish World Review and is known throughout the world as a brilliant journalist and expert on Middle East policy.

In the following article reprinted from the Jewish World Review, Glick makes public a 33-year-old secret that the U.S. government sat on until last week. This explosive story shows how the U.S. State Department, AND the American news media, covered for Yasir Arafat's murder of two U.S. diplomats in 1973.

My friends, this is some of the most explosive news I have read in a LONG time! We have been duped for 33 years by Arab/Muslim apologists!

Jewish World Review Jan. 2, 2007 / 12 Teves, 5766

With the quiet release of a 33-year-old US State Department cable, a good chunk of the edifice of the longest-running big lie was destroyed

By Caroline B. Glick

Time for world to admit it was duped to the tune of billions of dollars | Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Yasser Arafat was a master of the big lie. Since he invented global terrorism with the founding of the Fatah terror organization in 1959, Arafat successfully portrayed himself as a freedom fighter while introducing the world to passenger jet hijackings, schoolhouse massacres and embassy takeovers.

To cultivate the myth of his innocence Arafat ordered his Fatah terror cells to operate under pseudonyms. In the early 1970's he renamed several Fatah murder squads the Black September Organization while publicly claiming that they were "breakaway" units completely unrelated to Fatah or to himself.

In 2000, as he launched the current Palestinian jihad, he repeated the process by renaming Fatah terror cells the Aksa Martyr Brigades and then claiming that they were completely unrelated to Fatah or to himself. This fiction too, has been successful in spite of the fact that all Aksa Martyr Brigades terrorists are members of Fatah and most are members of Palestinian Authority official militias who receive their salaries, guns and marching orders from Fatah.

Last week, with the quiet release of a 33-year-old US State Department cable, a good chunk of the edifice of his great lie was destroyed.

ON MARCH 1, 1973, eight Fatah terrorists, operating under the Black September banner stormed the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan during a farewell party for the US Embassy's Charges d'Affaires George Curtis Moore. The terrorists took Moore, US ambassador Cleo Noel, Belgian Charges d'Affairs Guy Eid and two Arab diplomats hostage. They demanded that the US, Israel, Jordan and Germany release PLO and Baader-Meinhof Gang terrorists, including Robert F. Kennedy's Palestinian assassin Sirhan Sirhan and Black September commander Muhammed Awadh (Abu Daud), from prison in exchange for the hostages' release.

The next evening, the Palestinians brutally murdered Noel, Moore, and Eid. They released their other hostages on March 4.

Arafat denied any involvement in the attack. The US officially accepted his denial. Yet, as he later publicly revealed, James Welsh, who served at the time of the attack as an analyst at the National Security Agency, intercepted a communication from Arafat, then headquartered in Beirut to his terror agents in Khartoum ordering the attack.

In 1986, as evidence of Arafat's involvement in the operation became more widely known, more and more voices began calling for Arafat to be investigated for murder. As the New York Sun's online blog recalled last week, during that period, Britain's Sunday Times reported that 44 US senators sent a letter to then US attorney-general Edwin Meese, "urging the American government to charge the PLO chief with plotting the murders of two American diplomats in 1973."

The article went on to note that the Justice Department's interest in pursuing the matter was making senior State Department officials uneasy: "State Department diplomats, worried that murder charges against Arafat would anger the United States' friends in the Arab world, are urging the Justice Department to drop the investigation."

As late as 2002, in spite of President George W. Bush's pointed refusal to meet with Arafat, the State Department continued to protest his innocence. At the time, Scott Johnson, a Minneapolis attorney and one of the authors of the popular Powerlineblog weblog, inquired into the matter with the State Department's Near Eastern Affairs Bureau. In an emailed response from the bureau's deputy director of press affairs Gregory Sullivan, Johnson was told, "Evidence clearly points to the terrorist group Black September as having committed the assassinations of Amb. Noel and George Moore, and though Black September was a part of the Fatah movement, the linkage between Arafat and this group has never been established."

So it was that for 33 years, under seven consecutive presidential administrations, the State Department denied any knowledge of involvement by Arafat or Fatah in the execution of its own people.

Until last week.

THE CABLE released by the State Department's historian states, "The Khartoum operation was planned and carried out with the full knowledge and personal approval of Yasir Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, (PLO), and the head of Fatah. Fatah representatives based in Khartoum participated in the attack, using a Fatah vehicle to transport the terrorists to the Saudi Arabian Embassy."

Although clearly skilled in the art of deception, Arafat could never have succeeded in creating and prolonging his fictions and with them, his crimes, without the cooperation of the US government and the media.

In this vein, the release of the State Department cable raises two daunting questions. First, how is it possible that the belated admission of a massive 33 year cover-up of the murder of senior American diplomats spanning the course of seven consecutive presidential administrations has been ignored by the US media? A Google news search for Cleo Noel brought up but a handful of stories - none of which were reported by the major news networks or national newspapers.

On the face of it, the released cable, which calls into question the very foundation of US Middle East policy for the past generation is simply stunning. The cable concludes, "The Khartoum operation again demonstrated the ability of the BSO to strike where least expected. The open participation of Fatah representatives in Khartoum in the attack provides further evidence of the Fatah/BSO relationship. The emergence of the United States as a primary fedayeen target indicates a serious threat of further incidents similar to that which occurred in Khartoum."

The media's silence on the issue does not merely raise red flags abut their objectivity. By not availing the American public to the knowledge that Fatah and the PLO have been specifically targeting Americans for 33 years, the media has denied the American people basic knowledge of the world in which they live.

The media's abject refusal to cover the story raises an even more egregious aspect of the episode. Specifically, what does the fact that under seven consecutive administrations, the US government has covered up Arafat's direct responsibility for the murder of American diplomats while placing both Arafat and Fatah at the center of its Middle East policy, say about the basic rationale of US policy towards Israel and the Palestinians? What would US Middle East policy looked like, and what would have been the results for US, and international security as a whole, if rather than advancing a policy that made Arafat the most frequent foreign visitor to the White House during the Clinton administration, the US had demanded his extradition and tried him for murder?

How many lives would have been saved if the US had not been intent on upholding Arafat's big lie? How would such a US policy have impacted the subsequent development of sister terror organizations like Hizbullah, al-Qaida and Hamas, all of which were founded by members of Arafat's terror industry?

Sadly, the release of the cable did not in any way signal a change in the US policy of whitewashing Fatah. In contravention of US law, for the past 13 years, the State Department has been denying that Fatah, the PLO and the Palestinian Authority are terrorist organizations, and has been actively funding them with US taxpayer dollars.

This policy went on, unchanged even after Fatah gunmen murdered three US embassy employees in Gaza in October 2003. This policy continues, unchanged still today, as Fatah's current leader, Arafat's deputy of 40 years Mahmoud Abbas works to form a unity government with Hamas. Indeed, the central component of the US's policy towards the Palestinians today is the goal of strengthening Fatah by arming, training and funding its Force 17 terror militia.

In a November 14, 2006 interview on Palestinian television, Ahmed Hales Abu Maher who serves as Secretary of Fatah in Gaza, bragged of Fatah's role in the development of international terrorism. In his words, reported by Palestinian Media Watch, "Oh warrior brothers, this is a nation that will never be broken, it is a revolution that will never be defeated. This is a nation that gives an example every day that is imitated across the world. We gave the world the children of the RPG [Rocket Propelled Grenades], we gave the world the children stone [-throwers], and we gave the world the male and female Martyrdom-Seekers [suicide bombers]."

Imagine what the world would have looked like if, rather than clinging to Arafat's big lie that he and his Fatah terror organization were central components of Middle East peace, the US had captured and tried Arafat for murdering its diplomats and worked steadily to destroy Fatah.

Imagine how our future would look if rather than stealthily admitting the truth, while trusting the media not to take notice, the US government were to base its current policies on the truth, and the media were to reveal this truth to the world.

Every weekday publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free.


The following article was written by Craig A. Baker, a Texan who lives in the Houston area. Baker's family has been in the area for several generations. Recently a Muslim family moved next door. That is when Baker's troubles began. He is being threatened with the loss of his property due to the demands of Muslims who have just moved in.

Read this carefully. This is what is happening to America. You may want to take a dose of Dramamine to offset the nausea that is sure to result when you read what these Islamic bullies did to this man.

Take a Stand
by Craig A. Baker

On September 29,2006 at 11:30 AM, Mr. Yousuf N. Shaikh & Mr. Kamel H. Fotough came to my office to introduce themselves to me as the new neighbors. These two gentlemen informed me that they had purchased the adjacent house along with the 11-acre tract of land from the Sacco family on 09/22/06. They asked that I remove my cattle from this 11-acre tract & remove my electrical fence. They said they were going to use the existing house as a community center. Children would be coming to play on the grounds, and as an engineer, Mr. Fotough felt it was unsafe for them to be around the cattle. Since 1995 I had been leasing this property from the Sacco’s to run my Limousine cattle on.

The gentlemen were very friendly, but spoke with a heavy Middle Eastern accent. They told me how much they loved the United States and how they had such big plans for the land. They said that their children had grown up right here in America, and they said that their ultimate dream is to build a parking lot, a new community center, an athletic facility, a school, and a mosque. They felt that they were going to need a total of 25 acres to complete this project, which might take them as long as five years to complete. They went into great detail how they wanted to provide a complete atmosphere where their friends could bring their entire families to worship and to play, and they said they would even provide security for the entire site. They felt that there was no other place on the far west side of Houston that was able to handle their needs.

While I was walking these men out, I offered to give them some granite fill, free of charge for their new driveway that they had planned. Then Mr. Fotough said that it was probably a good idea for me to start thinking about packing up my business, along with my family and moving somewhere further out in the country. They felt that a mosque and a marble shop did not go well together. He told me he was from Egypt and his partner was from Pakistan, and that they were bringing many new families in from as far as 5,000 miles away. He went on to say that many of these new people that they would be bringing in would be unfamiliar with many of the local customs, and/or ways of doing things, and that most would not be able to speak English at first.

Before they left, they provided me with their cell phone numbers so that if I ever had a problem I would be able to get in touch with them. I of course reciprocated the gesture, but I did not say much of anything because I was simply trying to digest what I had heard. I must have had a look of total shock on my face.

When I returned to my office two of my employees asked what was wrong. I told them that the new neighbors had said I should start thinking about packing up and moving out, and I fully explained what was said and what my new neighbor's intentions were. On the following Wednesday, 10/04/06, a new collector's crystal wall clock was delivered to my office as a gift. The card attached said: To: Craig Baker From: New Neighbors .

I immediately typed up a nice thank you note and returned the clock that same day. I had planned on just letting the other matter die of natural causes right then and there.

Per my lease and the Texas Statutes I had the right to leave my cattle and the fence on the property for 180 days from the date I received written notice to remove them. However, I had my employees remove the cattle and the fences the next day.

Approximately a week later the previous owner's huge FOR SALE BY OWNER sign was covered with a brand new yellow banner announcing: COMING SOON KIA COMMUNITY CENTER. Immediately I started receiving calls from a nearby neighborhood asking if I knew what was about to be built on the property. I provided each concerned citizen as much information as I knew. Many of these neighbors asked if they could meet with me to discuss any possible options. I agreed for them to come over to my place of business on the following Thursday night. A total of fourteen people showed up at my office for this meeting, which began at 7:00 PM. I began by detailing my one and only meeting with these new owners. At the meeting there were a couple of lawyers, a president of one of the local Home Owners Association, several neighbors who lived down the street, and several other neighbors who's property backed up to the proposed site for the mosque. To say the least this group of people was extremely concerned. No one had ever heard of this group “KIA” prior to the sign going up. It was agreed that the best course of action was to get the entire community made aware of this group's plan to build.

The following Tuesday a public meeting was arranged at Pattison Elementary School so that the Harris County public officials could inform the public just what could and couldn't be built on the site. At this meeting, three different men from Harris County Commissioner Steve Raddick’s office took questions from the packed gymnasium. These questions pertained to possible problems caused by additional traffic, noise pollution, lights, sewer systems, & most importantly possible flooding. The county employees fielded questions for about an hour. Then these gentlemen left the building.

The program was then turned over to the President of a Home Owners Association (HOA), several were present. He began by stating “Well, we do have a bit of good news-- that being next years tax rate will decrease.” I figured that the remainder of the program was going to be about matters that affected the HOA so I left.

I was wrong, because shortly after I left, the subject returned to my new neighbors. A spokesman for the KIA got up and went to the podium and gave a short speech about what was planned on the site. He further informed the group that he was a Muslim. He said he was originally from Chicago, and had fought in the Vietnam War so that people would have the right to practice any religion they chose. It was clear to him as well as the other members present that the neighbors were against the building of the mosque simply cause they were Muslims. Among the many other people at the meeting were the KIA owners, along with several of their members. One of my friends stood up and asked why the owners told Craig Baker that he should consider packing up and leaving. The Muslim speaker said that they never would say something like that. My friend stood up to state that he has known me for many years, and if Craig Baker said something, then he knew it was true. On the tape recording that was being made of the meeting, you can hear “well then Craig Baker is an out right liar." I learned of this the following day.

Now, my family has deep roots here on Baker Rd. Houston, TX. As a matter of fact, a Baker has been living right on this land as far back as the early 1800’s. We are fast approaching 200 years being settled on this piece of land. The Baker family has not always found it easy living here. In the 1940's the Baker family lost most of its land to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers through a process known as eminent domain. The land was worth approximately $150.00 per acre, the Bakers received $3.00 per acre. Our government had to create a reservoir for the sprawling metropolis of Houston, which was some twenty miles away. This reservoir would allow part of the Buffalo Bayou to be dammed off in certain situations to prevent the flooding of the entire city.

Each of the family members was able to keep their immediate homesteads. One of the Bakers headed to Colorado, but most stayed on for many years. In 1979 I bought my first piece of Baker Rd. property. The piece I bought was only three quarters of an acre to move my brand new business onto. I bought the property from my grandparents, James Mayes Baker Jr. & his wife Anna H. Baker. Since then, as property in the area was put up for sale I have made every effort to purchase it. I have bought a total of eleven small tracts from remaining family members and others. This includes my grandmother's two acres and a small family cemetery that sits adjacent to my home. My grandmother was given a lifetime estate and still lives in the same home she has since 1949. With Houston pushing further outward the price of property has sky rocketed. The only land I have ever sold off was to my best friend Don. I cut off two acres next to my home so he could build his home, and of course he still lives there today. Although it is not a huge amount of land, I have tried to put the parcels back together and create a small farm like atmosphere for my children to grow up in. I have always kept thirty to forty head of cattle on my property.

Upon learning that I was called a liar I became determined to make a statement to everyone that I was not leaving. Not only that, I am taking a stand. I will use my property as I see fit. I went to a local printing shop and had a huge banner made up. The banner states “COMING SOON WEEKLY FRIDAY NIGHT PIG RACING.” I also put up some pig pens on the north east corner of my property, which just happens to be the closest point to my new Muslim neighbors. So far I have bought 24 pigs and put them in the pens. Additional pigs will be delivered soon, and the pig racetrack is under construction, as well as the starting gates.

I have sent two separate letters to Mr. Shaikh and Mr. Fotough to try to find a way to resolve this crisis -- one on 10/14/06 and the other on 11/28/06. I offered to act as a facilitator to assist in selling their property to the neighborhoods, which in turn would turn the vacant land into a public park. I did not receive a response until 12/01/06, which came in the form of a demand letter from their attorney Mathew Kornhauser. Kornhauser made the demand that I remove my pigs from my land immediately. Should I fail to do so his client will contact the appropriate authorities and take what ever measures necessary to protect their interest. Further Kornhauser demanded that I remove the website Since I have absolutely no control over this website, his demand is ridiculous and absurd. His threat to eradicate the website should I fail in his demand to remove it is laughable. He claims again that his clients did not state that I should move out, and that is “totally false." Now I have made the offer in writing, on the radio, and on TV that I will pay for three lie detector test. One for each of the owners, and one for me. The sole question to be asked is: Did they, on 09/29/06 tell me that I should consider packing up my business and my family and moving?

Then we will see who is lying and who is telling the truth.

My Moslem neighbors have decided to take their fight with me to the media, hoping that by making this fight public I will come off as a red neck racist from Texas. On 11/29/06, ABC Channel 13 News reporter Ted Oberg came out to check on a dispute between neighbors. Oberg sat in my office filming me for over two hours to produce a 3-minute segment. Since that time I have done two other TV interviews one with CBS Channel 11, and one with Fox Channel 26. I also gave interviews for the print media to the Houston Chronicle, the Katy Times, and the Associated Press. I have done one live radio interview for the Fox News Radio with Spencer Hughes. On Thursday 11/30/06 Rush Limbaugh made mention of this for almost three minutes, then again on 12/07/06 Rush brought the matter up again. The situation was talked about by Michael Savage on 11/30/06 and was found on his website.

Now, to be perfectly frank, I couldn't care less about all of that. My only objective here is to protect my property rights and the American values and traditions that the Baker family has enjoyed on Baker Road since the early 1800's.

It is high time that we as Americans “Take A Stand”


Craig A. Baker

For more information contact

All profits from the sale of merchandise will be donated to charity.

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Conyers Breaks Law, Will Become Judiciary Chairman

U.S. House Representative John Conyers, D-MI, broke the law when he forced his staffers to do personal errands for him, including working in his re-election campaign. An investigation ensued in 2003 by the House Ethics Committee. It was hoped that Democrats who are set to take control on Thursday would at the very least prevent Conyers from being rewarded a committee chairmanship, in light of the fact that he is clearly ethically-challenged.

Those hopes have been dashed.

Quietly, secretly, and without fanfare the investigation closed on Friday prior to the New Year's holiday weekend. This coincided with the Republicans relinquishing control over the House except for ceremonial duties. That session of Congress was officially adjourned before Christmas.

What this means for Conyers is that his sleazy activities will go unpunished since Democrats will now control the House. Not only that but he will be rewarded by becoming Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Pelosi's Congress will clearly be one of the most corrupt in recent memory, in spite of campaign promises. Look for more sleaze as the days go by.

Judge Upholds Enforcement of Greenville Smoking Ban

Greenville, SC (TLS). A circuit court Judge in Greenville, South Carolina today upheld enforcement of the new smoking ban enacted by Greenville elected officials. A group of restaurant and bar owners had sought an injunction to stop enforcement of the new law pending an appeal to the circuit court.

Greenville's strict anti-smoking law took effect at 12 noon on January 1, 2007. Smoking is forbidden in city restaurants, bars, public parks, and within 10 feet of the entrances of downtown businesses.

The Judge who heard the request for the injunction stated that while he would not approve the request of the business owners to stop enforcement of the law, he will hear the appeal that has been filed by said businesses who are seeking a court overturn of the smoking ban.

A ruling is expected to be issued within 10 days.

Worst Fears About Pelosi's New Congress Confirmed

Greenville, SC (TLS). As soon as the new year bell tolled, Nancy Pelosi revealed the real reason why she has proclaimed the opening session of the new Congress a 'closed door' session. My worst fears about Pelosi's new Congress have been confirmed.

According to sources close to the proceedings, some of whom are home in their districts for the holiday break, the closed door session is much more than simply to call attention to the much-ballyhoo'ed 'first 100 hours.' Pelosi and company plan to unleash on unsuspecting Americans an agenda of liberty-squelching measures that would cause the Founders to cringe and the neo-Nazis to do cartwheels.

First, House Democrats have decided not to allow any Republican input in the session's first 100 hours. In essence, Pelosi and her comrades will ban Republicans from attempting to alter the bills by using new House rules to keep them quiet.

This is in direct contradiction to what Pelosi had stated after the November elections. She made quite a big deal over 'bipartisanship,' 'working together,' and 'upgrading the tone' in Washington. As I have repeatedly reported to you on The Liberty Sphere this was never the game plan but empty promises, smoke and mirrors.

As soon as the day drew closer for the Democrats to take control, all talk of 'working together' flew out the window. Pelosi and the Democrats will pass new House rules to ban Republican input during the first 100 hours, in spite of the fact that the Democrats only have a razor-thin majority. So much for 'bipartisanship.'

But this is not the worst of the news. Pelosi will introduce a bill during the first 100 hours that will require anyone who asks citizens to contact their Congressmen concerning legislation to get special permission from Congress to do so, along with complete information about what they wish to say and who they encourage to take action.

My friends, this is the tactic of Nazis. Read your history. SIEG HEIL!

The proposed bill has exceptions. If you are a multi-million dollar operation like the ACLU or George Soro's gang of thugs at, you do not fall under the new rules. But individual citizens, such as bloggers, who urge their readers to contact Congress about pending legislation, will essentially need approval of Congress to do so.

This is nothing less than a clear violation of free speech and a flushing of the First Amendment down the toilet.

My friends, the scenario that is taking shape is ominous. Americans CANNOT allow neo-communists like Nancy Pelosi to ruin this Republic!

There are several things you can do.

First, contact your Republican Congressmen IMMEDIATELY and ask that they do all within their power to stop Pelosi's Gestapo from unleashing this usurping of citizen rights.

Second, ask that your Republican Congressmen thwart the attempt of Pelosi to silence her opposition.

Third, contact conservative Democrat Congressmen and ask them to vote AGAINST Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

Fourth, contact conservative Democrat Congressmen and ask them to thwart Pelosi's plan to exclude Republicans from having input in legislation that will effect the millions of citizens who voted for them, although they are now in a slight minority.

This is an outrage and a travesty of liberty. It is time the citizens to rise up and fight this scourge that has been unleashed on our nation.

Anti-Smoking Laws Violate Private Property Rights

Today across the United States of America various municipalities have enacted stringent smoking bans in varying degrees of severity. Smokers are not allowed to light up in restaurants and hotels in some cities, while in other towns bars are included in the ban, and still in other areas smoking is outlawed everywhere in public, such as in Omaha, Nebraska, where citizens are urged to call emergency 9-1-1 if they spot a fellow citizen smoking in public.

In Greenville, South Carolina the ban extended to bars, restaurants, hotels, public parks, and within 10 feet of the entrances to businesses.

However, I am to be counted among those who sound the alarm about such bans. As much as non-smokers hate to admit it, this is really not about the rights of smokers or non-smokers at all. Yes, those rights are part of the problem, but they are not the core issue.

The core issue is private property rights.

Proprietors of businesses are afforded the very same private property rights that are extended to homeowners...or at least that was the time-honored tradition in America until recent years. It was assumed that just as homeowners get to decide if alcohol or cigarettes are allowed in their homes, business owners, who also have the rights to the property where their businesses are located, have the same right to make those decisions.

Thus, if I am an avid non-smoker, and I own a business, I can decide as a PROPERTY owner that no smoking will be allowed on the premises. And in today's society, such a stance, I would think, would be fairly popular.

On the other hand, if I don't really care about smoking one way or the other, but I own a bar, and most of my patrons are smokers, in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I have historically had the right to decide that smoking is allowed ON MY PROPERTY. No one is forced to patronize my business. No one goes to unsuspecting citizens, handcuffs them, and drags them inside my bar to inhale the heavy smoke. If you don't like what I offer, then go somewhere else.

This is the way we do things in the land of the FREE and the home of the brave.

Let me be quite frank with you here. If I owned a business in some of these towns that now think they can introduce socialism and the control of government over private property into our way of life, I would close, pack up my belongings, and take my business and the tax revenue it generates to a town that respects the private property rights of business owners.

And on my way out of the town that robbed me of my rights as a business owner, I would shake the dust off my boots as I crossed the city limits.

If I own a business, that means I am paying for the building to house it. If that property belongs to me, then government does NOT get to tell me what I can and cannot do within my own business, as long as I am running a clean operation within legal bounds.

This basic concept of private property rights is quickly being lost in America. With the rage of the environmentalist movement, eminent domain that is used to take private property to give to big business so that tax revenues increase, and smoking bans, we are quickly reaching a critical point in this country where property is not viewed as a sacred private entity that is controlled exclusively by the owners. This is a dangerous concept that forms the basis of ALL totalitarian governments, both communist and dictatorships.

When private property is viewed as one more area where government can insert itself, then the entire basis of a free society is lost.

And THIS is why I oppose smoking bans. It is not about smoking at all. It is about private property rights, the freedom of the individual, and the freedom of small business owners to make decisions that effect their businesses apart from the intrusive, snooping eye of Big Brother.

We should let the market determine whether or not smoking is allowed. If most of my customers are repulsed by the smell of cigarette smoke, then I owe it to them to ban smoking in my business. But if my clientele smokes, then I would be committing economic suicide by enforcing some Big Brother smoking ban.

Mark my words. If the smoking ban crowd wins here, they will come after smokers who light up inside their own homes next. And at that point, the Republic is lost.

British Journalist Blasts Carter, Blair, and Baker

From across the Atlantic come words of wisdom that are becoming a rarity in Europe. Melanie Phillips, a British journalist and author, provides some of the most insightful and sensible commentary that can be found anywhere on the news of the day.

The following article is found on Ms. Phillips' website at:

In this article Ms. Phillips takes to task Jimmy Carter, James Baker, Tony Blair, and others on the world stage who blindly promote the cause of Islam while back-slapping the Jews.

'The ultimate exit strategy' by Melanie Phillips
Jewish Chronicle

While the rulers of Iran hold a conference to deny the Shoah as a prelude to the second Holocaust they threaten daily to perpetrate, the Jewish world is being subjected to intellectual terrorism on both sides of the Atlantic.

In America recently, I was sickened to find in pride of place in Barnes and Noble bookshops shoulder-high piles of Jimmy Carter’s book. The very title of this seasonal tome, ‘Palestine Peace or Apartheid’ with its cover picture of Israel’s separation barrier, is itself a grotesque incitement to hatred.

As thus advertised, the book itself is an odious farrago of outright falsehoods, distortions, selective omissions and hate-fuelled propaganda.

In Carter’s virulently distorted universe, Israel is to blame for the war with the Arabs. Israel stole land and money from the Palestinians; the ‘imprisonment wall’ is not a desperate measure to prevent the further slaughter of Israelis by Palestinians but a malevolent act against them; Palestinian violence is merely the response to Israeli crimes.

So comprehensive is this calumny that, after 23 years as Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University, Professor Ken Stein has resigned in protest at a book which he has denounced as ‘replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments.’

In the Los Angeles Times, Carter dug himself even deeper into the hole. The attacks on his book merely proved the existence of a Jewish conspiracy to suppress debate about Israel. It would be almost politically suicidal, he claimed, for members of Congress to take a balanced position’ between Israel and Palestine.

Just how does one take a ‘balanced position’ between those who have waged a 60 year war of extermination and those who have tried to defend themselves against it?

But then, this is a man who actually writes of Israel’s behaviour that ‘in many ways, this is more oppressive than what blacks lived under in South Africa during apartheid’. He thus not only libels Israel with a demonstrable falsehood, but diminishes the actual horrors of real apartheid.

Among American Jews who overwhelmingly vote Democrat, there is widespread horror and embarrassment. Their quasi-religious belief in the Democratic Party as a bulwark against anti-Jewish bigotry has been exposed for the self-delusion that it is.

But almost simultaneously, something horrible crawled out of the Republican woodwork with the publication of the Iraq Study Group report chaired by James Baker III, a close adviser to President George W Bush’s father.

Baker, who is reported to have previously observed: ‘F*** the Jews: they don’t vote for us anyway,’ proposed a brilliant new wheeze for solving the pressing problem of what to do about Iraq.

This was to invite Iran and Syria, who are the instigators of much of the violence in Iraq, to discuss how they might care to help take it over altogether; and to whet the appetite of these vultures, Israel would be thrown at them like some kind of votive offering to the gods of war.

Only Israel was to be required to make any actual concession, by giving up the strategically sensitive Golan to its implacable enemy, Syria. The deal was therefore to be Iraqi ‘peace’ in exchange for Israel’s security.

And yet only Israel was to be excluded from a ’support’ network for Iraq that seemed to encompass most of the rest of the world. In the ISG universe, this world was clearly to be Jew-free; or at least, where the Jews would play one role only — that of global fall-guy.

This is because, to the ISG, Israel is apparently the core grievance driving the Islamic war against the west. Tony Blair says the same thing. Virtually every European government says it.

But it is completely ludicrous. What has Israel got to do with the war between Sunni and Shia raging in Iraq? Nothing. What has it got to do with al Qaeda’s atrocities in Malaysia, or the violence in Chechnya or Kashmir, or the Islamist genocide in the Sudan? Nothing.

Yet when Israel dares to protest, Peter Preston in the Guardian complains that Israel is getting away with ‘sabotaging’ the ‘wisdom’ on offer — because Israel is America’s ‘rogue 51st state’. While ‘floating on a sea of subsidy’ and twisting the US round its little finger, says this warped and twisted piece, Israel is killing the prospect of peace stone dead because all it really wants is more violence.

Ah, these wretched Jews. Even when they are being offered up as bait for their killers they have the gall to demur. Can’t they finally get it through their heads that their role in human history is to be the scapegoat of the world?

Now we know what the west’s Iraq exit strategy is to be. It’s Israel that will be making the exit.

Greenville Citizens Defy Ban, Businesses Go To Court Today

Greenville, SC (TLS). In the aftermath of the much-publicized smoking ban in Greenville, South Carolina--which went into effect at 12 noon on New Year's Day--it would seem that many citizens have chosen to openly defy the new law.

I heartily congratulate them!

This is the kind of resistance that is going to be necessary to prevent the march of Big Brother through the middle of this Republic, wreaking havoc in its wake and ripping to shreds the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Today and throughout the evening residents who patronized downtown businesses were seen smoking, in open defiance of the new law.

And that's not all. A group of downtown businesses have scheduled a hearing before a local Judge Tuesday afternoon, Jan. 2, at 2:30 PM, seeking an overturn of the new law. The business owners are up in arms about the real prospect of losing customers and revenue to places outside the city limits of Greenville.

If the Judge finds in favor of the businesses, then this could well be the most shortlived law ever passed in the history of the city...barely making 27 hours in duration.

Thus, the saga continues. We will know by late afternoon Tuesday as to whether or not business owners still have the freedom in this city to decide what happens within the walls of their establishments.

In America we are supposed to have that freedom. If I own a business and my patrons smoke, I am going to either allow smoking or move to a city where I have that freedom. Non-smokers can go to those businesses that enforce smoking bans, and they are many, even within Greenville. Thus, this has nothing at all to do with the rights of non-smokers. They already have the right to eat in establishments where there is no smoke.

The point is really the right of business owners to decide what will and will not happen within THEIR PROPERTY. Thus, the smoking ban issue is in actuality a property rights issue.

Check back with The Liberty Sphere later in the day for updates.