Charles M. Sherrod, husband of the now-famous Shirley Sherrod, was born in Petersburg, Virginia.   He went to college at Virginia Union University (B.A., 1958, B.D., 1961) and attended Union Theological Seminary in New York, receiving a master’s in sacred theology in 1967. From 1961 to 1967 Sherrod was Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee field secretary in Albany, Georgia.  He also directed the Southwest Georgia Project for Community Education (1961-87) and New Communities, Inc., a cooperative farming project, from 1969 to 1985.   He served on Albany City Commission from 1976 to 1990 and in 1996, he ran unsuccessfully for Georgia state senate.  Sherrod currently works as chaplain at Georgia State Prison, Homerville, Georgia.

You may have heard of the SNCC before.

As a prime example of student activism in the 1960s, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC, popularly called Snick) was a prime force behind major initiatives in the civil rights movement. At the forefront of integration efforts, SNCC volunteers had the spotlight focused on them for their lunch counter sit-ins at whites-only businesses, and later for being involved in historic demonstrations that helped pave the way for the passage of landmark federal civil rights legislation in 1964 and 1965. SNCC made significant gains in voter registration for blacks in the South, where it also ran schools and health clinics.

Charles Sherrod was sent in 1961 with other members of the SNCC to organize the black population in Albany, NY. 

This protest did not receive support from local NAACP  and other civil rights leaders as they saw SNCC as troublemakers.

Albany’s bus center was targeted. The law forbade segregation in interstate travel services; however, segregation still existed and this is what forced the students to protest. Hundreds were arrested. Albany’s city authorities refused to desegregate the bus station despite pressure from the Attorney-General, Robert Kennedy.

Someone in the Albany civil rights movement invited Martin Luther King to join the protest. This angered SNCC who wanted the protest to stay led by locals.

King led one protest march and got arrested.  Charles Sherrod later wrote a paper about his experience in Albany.  Here’s an excerpt:

Charles Sherrod – Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (1961)

The Albany we found in October when we came down as SNCC field workers was quite different from the Albany we now know. Naturally, though, many things remain the same. The swift flowing, cool waters of the Flint River still cut off the east side of the city from the west. The paved streets remind visitors that civilization may be thought to exist in the area while the many dusty, sandy roadways in residential areas cause one to wonder where tax money goes. Beautiful homes against green backgrounds with lawns rolling up and down hills and around corners held up by the deep roots of palm and pine trees untouched by years of nature’s movement, sunny days with moonlit nights–this was the Albany we had been introduced to in October. But this was not the real Albany; the real Albany was seen much later.

Albany is known by its people to be “liberal.” Located in the center of such infamous counties as “Terrible Terrell,” “Dogging Douglas,” “Unmitigated Mitchell,” “Lamentable Lee,” “Unbearable Baker,” and the “Unworthy Worth County.” It stands out as the only metropolitan area of any prominence in Southwest Georgia. It is the crossroads of rural people in villages and towns within a radius of ninety miles. It was principally because of its location that Albany was chosen as the beachhead for Democracy in DEEP Southwest Georgia.

Initially, we met with every obstacle possible. We had come down with the idea of setting up office in Albany and moving on shortly to Terrell County. This idea was short-lived. We found that it would take more time than we thought to present this city of 23,000 Negroes with the idea that freedom is worth sacrifice. . . .

The first obstacle to remove . . . was the mental block in the minds of those who wanted to move but were unable for fear that we were not who we said we were. But when people began to hear us in churches, social meetings, on the streets, in the poolhalls, lunchrooms, nightclubs, and other places where people gather, they began to open up a bit. We would tell them of how it feels to be in prison, what it means to be behind bars, in jail for the cause. We explained to them that we had stopped school because we felt compelled to do so since so many of us were in chains. We explained further that there were worse chains than jail and prison. We referred to the system that imprisons men’s minds and robs them of creativity. We mocked the systems that teaches men to be good Negroes instead of good men. We gave an account of the many resistances of injustice in the courts, in employment, registration, and voting. The people knew that such evils existed but when we pointed them out time and time again and emphasized the need for concerted action against them, the people began to think. At this point, we started to illustrate what had happened in Montgomery, Macon, Nashville, Charlotte, Atlanta, Savannah, Richmond, Petersburg, and many other cities where people came together and protested against an evil
system. . . .

The term “Black Power” came to prominence when Stokely Carmichael became the leader of the organization.  During his leadership, which began in 1966, SNCC started its’ decline as an organization.  

Along with the new rhetoric came new policies.   SNCC kicked out the white members from its organization, declaring that they should work to rid their own communities of racism. When SNCC members began carrying guns, Carmichael explained that his philosophy was different from past leaders:

We are not King or SCLC. They don’t do the kind of work we do nor do they live in the same areas we live in.

The organization subsequently deepened this division by pulling out of the White House Conference on Civil Rights.

By the way, during this turbulent time, Carmichael’s leadership  was supported by his friend and Chicago SNCC and Weather Underground member “Bomber” Bill Ayers.  In 2005, Ayers wrote a paragraph for the inside dust cover of Carmichael’s book, “Road to Revolution”. 

Sherrod stayed for a year after Carmichael became chairman of the SNCC, leaving in 1967.

Interesting side note:  In his book, “Dreams of my Father”, President Barak Hussein Obama wrote about attending a speech by Stokely Carmichael while attending Columbia University:

In search of some inspiration, I went to hear Kwame Toure, formerly Stokely Carmichael of SNCC and Black Power fame, speak at Columbia. At the entrance to the auditorium, two women, one black, one Asian, were selling Marxist literature and arguing with each other about Trotsky’s place in history. Inside, Toure was proposing a program to establish ties between Africa and Harlem that would circumvent white capitalist imperialism. At the end of his remarks, a thin young woman with glasses asked if such a program was practical given the state of African economies and the immediate needs facing black Americans. Toure cut her off midsentence. “It’s only the brainwashing that you’ve received that makes it impractical, sister,” he said. His eyes glowed inward as he spoke, the eyes of a madman or a saint. The woman remained standing for several minutes while she was upbraided for her bourgeois attitudes. People began to file out. Outside the auditorium, the two Marxists were now shouting at the top of their lungs.

“Stalinist pig!”

“Reformist bi#@*!”

It was like a bad dream. I wandered down Broadway, imagining myself standing on the edge of the Lincoln Memorial and looking out over an empty pavilion, debris scattering in the wind. The movement had died years ago, shattered into a thousand fragments. Every path to change was well-trodden, every strategy exhausted. And with each defeat, even those with the best intentions could end up further and further removed from the struggles of those they purported to serve.

Charles Sherrod is now a prison chaplain and probably, at this moment, one of the most famous husbands in America.  I hope that he, like his wife has claimed about herself, has moved beyond any narrow-mindedness of the past. 

Just a thought…the number of “ex” and current radicals associated with this administration is mind-blowing, isn’t it?

Sources:  primarysource.edu, loa.org, answers.com, learningsite.co.uk, weeklystandard.com, abcnews.go.com

Rural Development Leadership Network Graduate and Board Vice Chair Shirley Sherrod was appointed Georgia Director for Rural Development by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack on July 25.  Only days earlier, she had learned that New Communities, a group she founded with her husband and other families, had won a thirteen million dollar settlement in the minority farmers law suit Pigford vs Vilsack.

In announcing the appointment of Shirley and other new officials, Secretary Vilsack said:

These individuals will be important advocates on behalf of rural communities in states throughout the country and help administer the valuable programs and services provided by the USDA that can enhance their economic success.

Shirley was a graduate in the first group of RDLN Leaders and served as Vice Chair of their Board of Directors.  She served as Georgia leader for both the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund and the Southern Rural Black Women’s Initiative (SRBWI).

New Communities, Inc. was the land trust that Shirley and Charles Sherrod established, with other black farm families in the 1960’s.  At the time, with holdings of almost 6,000 acres, this was the largest tract of black-owned land in the country.  

In 1969, New Communities received a planning grant from the Office of Economic Opportunity and was “encouraged” to expect a bunch of funding for implementation, but Governor Lester Maddox blocked further funds for the group to come into the state. 

Even without the funding, New Communities built up farming operations to help retain the land.  They had highway frontage where they had a farmers market to sell their crops.  They raised hogs and had their own smokehouse that they built on the highway where they sold meat.  Their sugar cane mill on that same highway also attracted customers.  They raised eight acres of Muscatine grapes, which are now widely grown in the area.  They also had 1,500 acres of row crops, including corn, peanuts and soybeans.

New Communities claimed that over the years, USDA refused to provide loans for farming or irrigation and would not allow New Communities to restructure its loans.  Gradually, the group had to fight just to hold on to the land and finally had to wind down operations. 

In 1985, Shirley entered the RDLN program. She got a master’s degree, helped orient all succeeding groups of RDLN Leaders, and became vice chair of RDLN’s Board of Directors.  She  also chaired the board of the Farmers Legal Action Group.  New Communities received approximately $13 million ($8,247,560 for loss of land and $4,241,602 for loss of income; plus $150,000 each to Shirley and Charles for pain and suffering).  There was also an unspecified amount in forgiveness of debt. This was the largest award in the minority farmers law suit (Pigford vs Vilsack).

Yesterday, Shirley Sherrod lost her government job.  All because C-Span cameras were at a speech she gave to the NAACP in March.  

Andrew Breitbart released an excerpt from this speech on Monday.  The video showed Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, making a speech at an NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia.  Ms Sherrod was relating a story about providing only minimal help to a white farmer who came to her for help.

Tuesday, Sherrod told CNN that the video was taken out of context.  She said that a video of her entire speech would show that she described the 24 year old incident as a turning point in her life.   Ms Sherrod said that was the point where she learned it was not all about race, it was about poverty. (Share the wealth!)  She says that she eventually helped that white farmer to keep his farm and even became friends with the farmer and his wife. 

Shortly after Shirley Sherrod  resigned, the NAACP President Ben Jealous (What a great name.  How long have you been jealous, Ben?  And what are you jealous of?) released a statement condemning her:

We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers.  Her actions were shameful.  While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.

The NAACP changed their mind Tuesday afternoon.

NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous issued a statement saying that they were “snookered” into believing that USDA employee Shirley Sherrod expressed racist sentiments at a local NAACP meeting in Georgia earlier this year. Jealous accused conservative activist Andrew Breitbart of deceiving millions of people by releasing only partial clips. He said the full video makes clear that Sherrod was telling a story of racial unity:

The tape of Ms. Sherrod’s speech at an NAACP banquet was deliberately edited to create a false impression of racial bias, and to create a controversy where none existed.  This just shows the lengths to which extremist elements will go to discredit legitimate opposition.

Sure.

Meanwhile, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C., Agriculture Department spokesman Chris Mather said Sherrod was “let go” because of what she said in March, not due to her actions in regard to the farmer two decades ago:

She was asked to resign because of the comment she made when she was a political appointee. It’s not what happened decades ago. It’s the comments she made in March.

Mather also claimed that the White House played no part in Sherrod’s resignation. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack asked for her resignation and he accepted it when Sherrod gave it, Mather said:

This is the Secretary’s decision. There was no pressure from the White House.

Vilsack said in an earlier statement:

Our policy is clear.  There is zero tolerance for discrimination at USDA and we strongly condemn any act of discrimination against any person. We have a duty to ensure that when we provide services to the American people we do so in an equitable manner. But equally important is our duty to instill confidence in the American people that we are fair service providers. 

A White House official claimed that President Barack Obama was briefed after Vilsack made the decision on Sherrod and that the decision was Vilsack’s alone but that the White House backed the decision.

This official also said the White House, contrary to what Sherrod is telling everyone who will listen, did not pressure the Agriculture Department to fire her.

In her CNN interview, Sherrod said she received “at least three calls telling me the White House wanted me to resign… and the last one asked me to pull over to the side of the road and do it.”  According to Shirley, the administration was afraid that Ms. Sherrod was going to be seen on Fox News’ Glenn Beck Program.

And now, just as I am about to publish this article, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said this morning he will reconsider the department’s decision to fire Sherrod:

The NAACP showed a serious lack of judgement when they issued their resolution condemning the Tea Party Movement as racist.  While it is clearly evident that the Far Left leaders of the Democratic Party had a hand in pushing the presentation of this resolution, I do not believe that they realized the intensity of the response that they would receive.   The Liberals exist in an isolated world, divorced from the realities that face average Americans.   I guess they thought that Americans were going to believe their propaganda.  Guess again.  The “If you don’t support Obama, you’re a Racist” message does not work, Libs.  In fact, it never did.

Sources:  rural development.org, biggovernment.com, msn.com, daily caller.com

As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) desperately attempts to clear the schedule in order to try to ram cap-and-trade down Americans’ throats, Senate and House Democrats are not helping him by threatening to fight with each other this week over funding for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

They’re squabbling over $22.8 billion House appropriators added to the supplemental bill.   House lawmakers point out that it’s fully paid for with offsets, such as $11.7 billion in rescissions to government programs that no longer need funding.

The problem for Senate Democratic leaders is that the House bill may not be able to pass with the extra spending, including $10 billion for an Education Jobs Fund to supposedly save 140,000 school jobs over the next year.

President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) has further complicated passage by the Senate with threatening to veto the bill.  Scooter does not like the House idea to pay for the education fund by rescinding money for the administration’s “Race to the Top” initiative, which rewards academically improved schools with grants.

A Senate Democratic aide said leaders are still going to go ahead and schedule a vote on the House legislation. If it fails, the aide said, “we’ll have to figure out what to do.”

Senate sources say Reid is scheduling the vote to prove to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) it can’t pass the Senate.   Reid would then ask the House to accept the Senate version, which costs $58.8 billion and provides $33 billion for the troops.

According to Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Senate Republicans on Tuesday that if Congress didn’t come up with the money by month’s end, he could not pay the troops.

Senate Democrats have to work on unemployment benefits and small-business legislation before they can even address the military funds situation.
Carte Goodwin will take the oath of office to replace the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) this afternoon, giving Democrats 59 Senate seats.  The Senate will then move to end a Republican filibuster of legislation to extend jobless benefits through November. The legislation will also extend, by three months, the filing deadline for the homebuyers tax credit, a proposal sponsored by Reid.  I’m shocked.

The deadline to claim the tax credit was June 30, but many homebuyers with contracts missed it because of a backlog in paperwork.  The problem is especially bad in states with high foreclosure rates, such as Nevada.  Harry’s trying to get re-elected.

Democratic leaders expect to have 60 votes to file cloture and advance the bill once Goodwin joins them. Reid scheduled a vote on a similar measure before the July 4 recess. It fell one vote short after Republican turncoats Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Olympia Snowe (Maine) voted for it.

Republicans could insist on using the full 30 hours of post-cloture time mandated by Senate rules if they have the intestinal fortitude to wreck the Democrats’ carefully planned schedule.   However, Dinghy Harry believes he can work out an agreement with the BeltwayRepublicans (over cocktails) to move quickly to the small-business and supplemental bills.

 Reid bragged to colleagues late last week:

The Republican leader and I are working on a way to move forward on small business.  I think we have a pretty good path of what we’re going to do on that. After we finish that, it’s my intention to move to the supplemental appropriations bill.

Reid said he would need to file another motion to stop a filibuster of the military spending bill, but added, “I think we can work out the time on that so it doesn’t take an inordinate amount of time.”

Time is Reid’s biggest enemy.  He has promised to start the cap-and-trade debate the week of July 26.   That would allot the Democrats just two weeks to pass energy reform and confirm Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan by the August recess, scheduled to begin Aug. 6.

Reid has threatened to cut a week off the Senate recess if the Senators do not kick it into gear.

Reid told colleagues, referring to the work period that began on July 12:

As everyone knows here, we’re going to be here four or five weeks.  The two leaders, Democrat and Republican, were betting on four weeks rather than five weeks, but we’ll need a little cooperation to get that done.

What’s the rush?  The Mid-term Elections aren’t until November.

Mark Halperin in his Time.com article espouses a theory:

Under pressure, the Democrats are cracking. On both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, there is a realization that Nancy Pelosi’s hold on the speakership is in true jeopardy; that losing control of the Senate is not out of the question; and that time, once the Democrats’ best friend, is now their mortal enemy. Since January, when Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts Senate seat, the President’s party has tried to downplay in public what its pollsters have been saying in private: that Obama’s alienation of independents and white voters, along with the enthusiasm gap between the right and the left, means that Republicans are on a trajectory to pick up massive numbers of House and Senate seats, perhaps even to regain control of Congress.

…What has kept the easily panicked denizens of Capitol Hill from open revolt until now was a shared confidence that there was still plenty of time to turn things around, and that the White House had a strategy to do just that. 

The two-part scheme was pretty straightforward. First, Democrats planned a number of steps to head off, or at least soften, the anti-Washington, anti-incumbent, anti-Obama sentiment that cost them the Massachusetts seat. Pass health care, and other measures to demonstrate that Democrats could get things done for the middle class; continue to foster those fabled green shoots on the economy, harvesting the positive impact of the massive economic stimulus bill passed early in the Administration; heighten the contrast between the two parties by delivering on Wall Street reform and a campaign-funding law to counteract January’s controversial Supreme Court decision. Use all of those elements to contrast the Democrats’ policies under Obama with the Republicans’ policies under Bush, rather than allow the midterms to be a referendum on the incumbent party.

The second strand of the Democrats’ plan was more prosaic and mechanical. Recruit strong candidates for open seats. Leverage the White House and congressional majorities to raise more money than the other side. Make mischief by playing up the divisions between the Tea Party and the more traditional elements of the Republican Party, in part to increase the chances that more extreme, less electable candidates edge out moderates in GOP primary battles. Do extensive opposition research and targeted messaging in the fall to delegitimize Republican candidates in the minds of centrist voters. Coordinate below the radar with labor unions, environmentalists and other allies on get-out-the-vote efforts, focusing on young, nonwhite and first-time voters who came out for Obama in 2008.

The problem the Democrats face is a big one.  The sleeping giant has awakened and he’s in a foul mood.  And unless the Beltway Elitist Republicans starting legislating like they remember who elected them, they’ll have a lot in common with their Democrat colleagues:  funemployment.

Sources:  drudgereport.com, thehill.com, time.com

Before America’s Congressional cowards passed the abomination now known as Obamacare in March of 2010, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the American people that we would have to let them pass Obamacare so “that we will know what is in it”.  Here are three lies that the president boldly told us before they passed Obamacare and the truth uncovered about these three lies since then:

1)  LIE:  Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) said in an address to a joint session of Congress, to sell health care reform, in September 2009:

One more misunderstanding I want to clear up — under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

And then:

Whitehouse.blogs.com 3/21/10 – Today, the President announced that he will be issuing an executive order after the passage of the health insurance reform law that will reaffirm its consistency with longstanding restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion.

While the legislation as written maintains current law, the executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation’s restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented.

The President has said from the start that this health insurance reform should not be the forum to upset longstanding precedent. The health care legislation and this executive order are consistent with this principle.

The President is grateful for the tireless efforts of leaders on both sides of this issue to craft a consensus approach that allows the bill to move forward.

TRUTH:  Last week, news leaked out that The Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million for the establishment of a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.

 2) LIE:   Also in September of 2009, Obama gave an interview to George Stephanopoulos, former member of the Clinton administration and now an anchor for ABC News.  Here is an excerpt from that interview:

By the way, was that a lateral career move?  But I digress…

STEPHANOPOULOS:  …during the campaign.  Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?

OBAMA:  Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening.  You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care.  Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that.  That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances.  And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…

OBAMA:  No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase.  Any…

STEPHANOPOULOS:  Here’s the…

OBAMA:  What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

TRUTH:  Under Obamacare, signed into law by Obama in March, the majority of Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to assist in paying their premiums.

In a brief defending the law, the Department Of Justice says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Scooter would not acknowledge that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.

 3)  LIE:  At a town hall event Aug. 15 in Grand Junction, Colo., Obama said:

[i]f you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health care plan. If you like your doctor, you keep seeing your doctor. I don’t want government bureaucrats meddling in your health care. But the point is, I don’t want insurance company bureaucrats meddling in your health care either.

And he also said:

I expect that after reform passes, the vast majority of Americans are still going to be getting their insurance from private insurers.

TRUTH:  As the deadline for Obamacare’s launch nears, the country’s biggest insurers have started promoting less expensive plans with reduced premiums that will force participants to choose from a narrower selection of doctors or hospitals.

The plans, being tested in places like San Diego, New York and Chicago, will be very popular among small businesses that already provide insurance to their employees, but are concerned about the insurance costs skyrocketing.

Large employers, as well, are starting to pay attention. Insurers and consultants believe that, over time, businesses of all sizes will gravitate toward these plans in an effort to stay in the black.

Companies may be able to reduce their premiums by as much as 15 percent, by offering the more limited plans.

More Americans will be paying higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they are outside the new networks.  Obama told Americans over and over again that consumers would retain a variety of health-care choices.

Y’know, I’ve always heard that there are 3 kinds of lies:

a.  Little white lies

b.  Bold-faced lies

c.  Statistics

It seems to me that we should add a new category to those:

d.  Obamacare lies

Because there sure were some whoppers told about this legislation in order to get it passed.

Sources:  abcnews.com, nytimes.com, factcheck.org, foxnews.com

On Friday, the Prince and his Royal entourage left the confines of their Royal palace on the Potomac and traveled on two separate winged steed (one to carry the Royal canine) to the far-off place of Bar Harbor, Maine.  Upon  their arrival Friday afternoon, the Royal family “took the air” and amused themselves by biking, hiking and boating their way around Mount Desert Island, the third-largest island on the Eastern Seaboard and home to the 47,000-acre Acadia National Park.

After they disembarked from their winged steeds  on Friday, the Royal family exuberantly participated in  90-minute bike ride on the verdant wooded trails surrounding Witch Hole Pond at the northern end of the island.   Then they proceeded to enjoy a leisurely stroll on Cadillac Mountain, at 1,530 feet the highest peak on the East Coast.  This was followed by a stop for ice cream  in downtown Bar Harbor, where the Prince graciously took a momentary break from his coconut ice cream cone to be photographed with the local gentry.

Their first day of their Royal vacation ended with a National Park Service boat ride on Frenchman Bay and a waterfront dinner at Stewman’s Lobster Pound.    Deciding to sup outdoors,  The Royal family, who arrived at the restaurant via boat, sat at a table on a pier overlooking the bay.  The Prince and Princess dined on lobster, while their daughters shared a shrimp basket, according to restaurant manager Jeff Buffington, who also noted that the Prince “shook hands with everybody” and was “very friendly” to the surprised diners on the pier. 

 How lovely for them.

On Saturday, the Royal Family kept up their pursuit of the outdoor life with a morning of tennis at the Bar Harbor Club, an elegant compound constructed by J.P. Morgan in 1929.  In the afternoon, they sojourned to Southwest Harbor, where they grabbed a spot of lunch at the waterfront Claremont Hotel before inspecting the Bass Harbor Head lighthouse, which sits atop a rocky precipice on the southern tip of the island.

The Royal canine, Bo, joined in at the next stop, an afternoon stroll along the rocky Ship Harbor trail. The Royal family sauntered for about an hour, taking breaks to skip rocks along the water, play with Bo and chat with the families of the local gentry, according to Katie McCormick-Lelyveld, her Majesty’s press secretary.

This Royal Holiday Tour follows one the Royal family took last summer to Yellowstone National Park and Grand Canyon National Park, where whitewater rafting and peach-picking were among the activities they engaged in to show their connection with the common people.

The Royal family’s other recent holiday travels included Martha’s Vineyard, Hawaii and a brief Memorial Day trip to Chicago.  In all, the Royal Family has gone on holiday 7 times since that tawdry affair in the Gulf of Mexico began in April.

Meanwhile, humble fishermen in the fiefdom of  Mississippi are upset that under the terms of BP’s $20 billion oil spill fund, money they earn doing the mundane chore of clean-up will be subtracted from their claim against British Petroleum.

These common fishermen reacted in such a manner after Lord Kenneth Feinberg, His Majesty’s official in charge of administering the compensation fund, announced the decision at a town hall meeting with the serfs in Biloxi on Friday.

Some of the common people walked out of the meeting, protesting that it was pointless to work under the Vessels of Opportunity program, established by BP to help clean up the damage from the tawdry affair in the Gulf of Mexico.  Oil stopped flowing from the leak on Thursday.

Tuget Nguyen, who works with family members as a fisherman in the royal hamlet of Pass Christian, Mississippi proclaimed:

I am furious about this.  If he takes away the money we are making from BP when we get our claims, then nobody is going to work for BP to clean up this oil and we will not rent our boats to BP either. It is not fair.

Thousands of the common people who toil as fishermen in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, are out of work because His Majesty’s minions have closed much of the Gulf to fishing.  instead, these serfs are working for the Vessels of Opportunity program, skimming oil from the water and protecting coastlines.

Lord Feinberg told the meeting of the rabble:

Vessels of Opportunity workers can file a claim, but we will subtract the amount they are paid from BP from their claim. That is how it has to work …. Of course you can file a claim. You must file a claim, but you cannot get paid twice.

Fishermen garner between $1,000 and $3,000 a day renting their boats under the program and individuals can earn upward of $1,400 a day. Charter boat captains can make even more.

The figures represent less than what could be earned at the peak of a shrimping season, curtailed because of the spill, but more than fishermen who have claimed against BP for economic losses have been paid.

Because of this, the program has created division in some communities between those serfs lucky enough to be working in the program and others still without a job.  Fishermen from this hamlet also complain that outsiders have profited from the program at the expense of those who have lost their livelihood.

Larry Dossett, a commoner from the hamlet of Biloxi said.

This (Lord Feinberg’s ruling) means I am actually losing money because I have to pay my crew out of the money BP is paying me to clean up this oil.  If he only pays me the difference, I am in the hole. We are financially dead already.

Have no fear, lowly serf.  His Lordship, Barack Hussein Obama, (Peace be unto him)  may graciously visit your hamlet soon.  Perhaps while there, he will squat his royal personage down to humbly pick up and play with tar balls.  And you will profit by him simply being near as those in Maine have this weekend.  Won’t that be simply lovely?

Sources:  drudgereport.com, washingtonpost.com, yahoo.com

NBC and CBS have refused to broadcast this 60 second spot, sponsored by the National Republican Trust, a conservative organization that promotes American values and supports candidates running for government positions. 

As of Thursday afternoon, “Kill the Ground Zero Mosque,” has gotten more than 134,000 hits on YouTube . The ad, which pulls no punches, presents graphic footage of the September 11 attacks, including a clip of one of the hijacked planes crashing into one of the Twin Towers and one of the victims plunging to his death.  It also dares to show Islamic militants. 

The advertisement asks Americans to join the fight to “kill the Ground Zero mosque.”  

Part of the narrative of the ad reads as follows:

On September 11, they declared war against us and to celebrate that murder of 3,000 Americans, they want to build a monstrous thirteen-story mosque at ground zero.  Where we weep, they rejoice. That mosque is a monument to their victory and an invitation for war. A mosque at ground zero must not stand. 

NBC Universal advertising standards manager Jennifer Riley claims the use of the word “they” is open for misinterpretation.  She wrote in a letter:

An ad questioning the wisdom of building a mosque at ground zero would meet our issues of public controversy advertising criteria.  However, this ad, which ambiguously defines ‘they’ as referenced in the spot, makes it unclear as to whether the reference is to terrorists or to the Islamic religious organization that is sponsoring the building of the mosque. Consequently the ad is not acceptable under our guidelines for broadcast.

What are the motives of  “the Islamic Religious Organization” that is behind the Cordoba initiative, lead by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf ?  Here is some revealing information, from militantislammonitor.org:

The American Society for the Advancement of Muslims proclaims their Islamism by name. ASMA promotes jihad through da’wa and the Islamization of the West by grooming “Muslim Leaders of tomorrow”.   At the Saudi backed 2006 MLT conference in Denmark “moderate”Islamists discussions of how to increase Muslim political and social influence were euphemistically termed “bridge building”.

The Cordoba Initiative /Islamic Dialogue is led by ASMA and is also headed by the Imam of the New York Masjid Al Farah. Together with his wife Daisy Khan, they are trying to put a yuppie face on Islamism.   ASMA can be viewed as an American version of Hizb ut Tahrir after an “extremist makeover” where the khalifate idea has been couched in kumbaya.  ASMA’s young and contemporary facade makes their radical ideology harder to detect, which poses more of a threat then an overtly aggressive organisation which refers to non-Muslims as kuffars. In reality, ASMA members share the same hard-line as the radicals and their use of legal and stealth Islamist strategies makes it difficult to thwart their da’wa attempts which are made under the guise of interfaith and tolerance but are actually pushing Islam as the only true religion . An ASMA Q&A reveals the Islamist view that the “perfection” of Judaism and Christianity is found only in Islam and is another example of the concept of all non-Muslims “reverting” back to what is presented as the origins of their religions.

Although CBS did not issue an official statement, a spokesperson told The Washington Times that the ad “did not meet broadcast standards.”  Weasels.

Plans to build the $100 million, 13-story Islamic center near the site of the September 11 attacks have been in the news since May.  A vast majority of Americans believe it would be inappropriate and insensitive to families who lost loved ones during the attacks. 

More than half of New York voters oppose building the mosque, a  Quinnipiac University poll published July 1st, found.

A solid 52% of voters in the five boroughs don’t want the mosque to be built-in lower Manhattan, and just 31% support it.

Manhattan voters are the most supportive of the mosque, with 46% in favor.  More Liberals live there.

The strongest opposition came from Staten Island, where 73% of voters are dead set against it.

Community Board 1, representing lower Manhattan, voted in favor of building the mosque in May. Most politicians who represent the area have thrown their support behind it.

Those for and against the proposed mosque almost got violent during a passionate three-hour hearing of New York’s Landmarks Preservation Commission Tuesday night.

The hearing was supposed to be a forum for testimony on whether the building at 45-47 Park Place, near Ground Zero, is worth preserving.  The structure dates back to the late 1850s. Preservation Commission spokeswoman Elisabeth de Bourbon said the building housed the headquarters of the Merck pharmaceutical company in the 1920s and in more recent years served as a discount clothing store.  She said she was not sure what the current owner, the Muslim outreach group the Cordoba Initiative, has been up to in the building, but people there at Tuesday night’s meeting said it was being used for prayer services.

The commission is scheduled to vote in August on whether to grant the structure landmark status, even though the Community Board of lower Manhattan, in a vote that was apparently pre-determined before they even showed up, proclaimed earlier this month that the building wasn’t architecturally significant enough to merit landmark status.

De Bourbon said just being declared a landmark would not prevent the Cordoba Initiative from making alterations to the existing structure or making it into an Islamic cultural center (mosque).  Landmark status is designed to preserve the exterior appearance of a building in New York.  It does not restrict the use of a building, nor does it prevent a property owner from adding on floors, she said.

Even if the proposed site for the mosque on Park Place is declared a landmark, “changes can be made to a landmark building with approval from the Landmark Preservation Commission,” de Bourbon said.

What happened at the hearing was fairly expected, because if the commission rules that the building doesn’t deserve the landmark status, the Muslims won’t need any additional city permission to demolish the old building and move ahead with the mosque construction.

New York residents against the building of the mosque took over the hearing.

One woman said:

It would be a terrible mistake to destroy a 154-year-old building in order to build a monument to terrorism.

Some of those at the hearing, including Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio, expressed their concerns over the suspicious nature of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the head of the Cordoba Initiative.   Feisal just happened to be out of the country and did not attend the hearing.

Lazio called for an investigation into the funding of the mosque.

Per Lazio:

We’re asking for a delay in the process to get some answers.

Given the perceived rush by New York City Government officials and the way they have bent over backwards for Imam Rauf and the Cordoba Initiative, answers would be very welcome in this appalling mess.

Sources:   you tube,washingtontimes.com, cnn.com, militantislammonitor.org

Whitehouse.blogs.com 3/21/10 – Today, the President announced that he will be issuing an executive order after the passage of the health insurance reform law that will reaffirm its consistency with longstanding restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion.

While the legislation as written maintains current law, the executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation’s restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented.

The President has said from the start that this health insurance reform should not be the forum to upset longstanding precedent. The health care legislation and this executive order are consistent with this principle.

The President is grateful for the tireless efforts of leaders on both sides of this issue to craft a consensus approach that allows the bill to move forward.

 

Evidently, that Executive Order and Obama’s word aren’t worth a hill of beans.

The Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million for the establishment of a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.
 
Republican House of Representatives Leader John Boehner said Tuesday:

The fact that the high-risk pool insurance program in Pennsylvania will use federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is unconscionable.  Just last month at the White House, I asked President Obama to provide the American people with a progress report on the implementation of his Executive Order, which purports to ban taxpayer-funding of abortions. Unfortunately, the President provided no information, and the American people are still waiting for answers.

 
President Obama told Congress and the American people that, under his health care plan, “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”  
 
Boehner sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on May 13th,  asking if her department had given the states instructions on how to carry out the president’s Executive Order on abortion funding.   Boehner also asked Sebelius if  abortion coverage was excluded from the new federal high-risk pools. 
 
He says his questions remain unanswered.

Boehner wrote to Sebelius:
 
Millions of Americans care deeply about this aspect of the new law and its implementation, and no progress report is complete without detailed information about it.

  
The Family Research Council reports that the $160 million in taxpayer funds that Pennsylvania will receive is the first known instance of direct federal funding of abortions through the new high-risk insurance pools.

Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the Family Research Council’s political action committee said:

The abortion funding for pool participants validates the arguments pro-life groups made throughout the health care debate – that taxpayer dollars will fund abortions.
 
For our efforts to remove the bill’s abortion funding, we were called ‘deceivers’ by President Obama and ‘liars’ by his allies. Now we know who the true deceivers and liars really are. 

This action by the Obama Administration also exposes the worthlessness of President Obama’s Executive Order that supposedly would prevent federal funding of abortion, but which both sides, including Planned Parenthood, agreed was unenforceable.
 
While the American people deserve an apology from President Obama for his deception, we should only be satisfied when this Pennsylvania abortion funding is rescinded and the health care law repealed.

Per McClusky, the new health care law also includes $12.5 billion for community health centers, and $6 billion for CO-OPS, both of which can fund abortions.  There are even tax credits available in Obamacare to help women pay for plans that cover abortion.

Before we move along, allow me to tell you what a co-op is.  This description is from a study of Obamacare commissioned by Health Insurance Brokers and prepared by attorneys: 

A Co-OP initiative would be established to foster the creation of non-profit, member-run health insurance companies in all 50 states and District of Columbia to offer qualified health plans.

A grant or loan would not be awarded unless the following conditions are met to be a qualified health insurance issuer:  an organization must not be an existing health insurer or sponsored by a state or local government, substantially all of its activities must consist of the issuance of qualified health benefits plans in each state in which it is licensed, governance of the organization must be subject to a majority vote of its members, must operate with a strong consumer focus, and any profits must be used to lower premiums, improve benefits, or improve the quality of health care delivered to its members.Any profits made would be used to lower premiums, improve benefits, or to otherwise improve the quality of health care delivered to its members.

The cooperative would coordinate with the implementation of state insurance reforms required by this bill.

$6 billion would be appropriated to finance the program and award loans and grants to establish CO-OPS by 7/1/2013.

Translation:  Each state will have a bunch of political hacks deciding which health insurance companies will be allowed to do business there.  It’s the current State Health Insurance Commissioner system on steroids.

 McClusky said:
 
Even before it’s fully implemented, the Democrats’ health care plan “is already being exposed as a high-taxing, poorly thought-out, and taxpayer-funding-of-abortion monstrosity.

Republican leader Boehner says House Republicans plan to codify the Hyde amendment, thereby prohibiting all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion.  Any health plan that includes abortion coverage would not receive federal funds under the Republican plan.

I, like the majority of Americans, am firmly against the use of our taxes to pay for ending an innocent life.  This action by Obama and his administration clearly demonstrates why this president faces a credibility crisis.  The great disconnect between him and the American people is not going to heal any time soon.

 Sources:  drudgereport.com, cnsnews.com

San Fran Nan Pelosi is torqued off at Baghdad Bob Gibbs, White House Press Secretary for daring to speak the truth:  The Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives in November.   But wait, there’s more!

Much to the Liberals’ chagrin,  Democratic control of the Senate may also become a fond memory.   While President Barack Hussein Obama’s (mm mmm mmmm) approval ratings continue to tank, and now hover at dangerously close to 40 per cent according an ABC-Washington Post poll published on Tuesday, the future of his former colleagues in the Senate is in even worse shape.

Within the last week, polls have shown Republican challengers taking the lead over Democratic incumbents, such as Barbara Boxer in California and Russ Feingold in Wisconsin.  In fact, pundits are now prognosticating that the Republicans could win the Senate seats formerly held by both President Obama in Illinois, and Joe Biden, vice-president, in Delaware.

Also possibly added to the Trophy Wall for the Republicans is Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic majority leader, in Nevada, whose seat may be won by  Sharron Angle, Tea Party supporter.   So, it now looks like the republicans have a legitimate shot at controlling both houses of Congress. What’s even sweeter is the fact, that, due to the American public’s awakening as to the true nature of President Obama, he is a liability on the campaign trail, not an asset. 

So, to break it down for those of y’all in Ripley, Mississippi:  There ain’t squat Scooter can do about it!

Bill Galston, a former Clinton official,  has been saying for months the Democrats could lose the House.  His opinion?

If you ask me where the silver lining is for President Obama, I have to say I cannot see one.  Just as BP’s failure to cap the well has been so damaging, Obama’s failure to cap unemployment will be his undoing. There is nothing he can do to affect the jobless rate before November.

Obama’s ship of state has hit an iceberg. 

Stanley Greenberg,  liberal pollster and close friend of Rahm “Rahmbo” Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, a majority of US citizens see Mr Obama as “too liberal”.   Greenberg runs Democracy Corps, which per their website is:

…an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to making the government of the United States more responsive to the American people.  The organization was born out of outrage over the impeachment of President Bill Clinton when the leadership in Congress preferred radical partisanship to addressing the issues which really matter to American families.

The secret is out.   55 per cent of citizens think Mr Obama is a “socialist” as opposed to only 39 per cent who refuse to believe the truth. The same poll shows 48 per cent support for Republicans against just 42 per cent for Democrats.  The numbers are reminiscent to 2006, except that it was George W. Bush and the Republicans who were on the receiving end four years ago.

Rob Shapiro, former Clinton official and Obama supporter, opines:

The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership.  He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.

What are Scooter’s supporters telling him behind closed doors?

 According to one, who wishes to remain anonymous, the US public’s loss of confidence in Mr Obama’s leadership is a factor above and beyond their dissatisfaction over the state of the real economy, which continues to slow as last year’s $787bn stimulus starts to run dry.  He admitted that the public did not know what Mr Obama really believed.   Examples include his lukewarm support last year for a public option in the healthcare bill and his equally lukewarm support today for a Senate bill that would extend unemployment insurance and aid state governments to keep teachers in their jobs. 

In other words, this numskull whines that Obama is not Liberal enough!  Spare me.

In both cases, Scooter has offered only token, negotiable, support.

Per this disillusioned sycophant:

I never thought I would say this, but even I’m unsure what President Obama really believes.  Instead of outsourcing decisions to Congress, he should spell out his bottom line. That is what leaders are for.

Yeah!  What happened to the unicorns we were promised?

Next week, Scooter is supposed to double down and sign an unwanted Wall Street re-regulation bill into law, just like he did with Obamacare. Even though polls show the American public opposes these socialist laws.

Per Obama’s heart-broken fan:

The longer this goes on, the more it looks like Obama wasted his first year on healthcare. It’s still the economy, stupid.

Well, Duuuuuh.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of voters now view President Obama’s handling of the economy as poor. This is the president’s highest negative rating in this area since he took office in January 2009.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for today shows that 24% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Scooter a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18.

Finally,a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey reports that 44% of Likely Voters would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate, while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. 

I hope you Democratic congresscritters and senators have some actual real-world skills you can fall back on after you’re booted out in November.

Welcome to “fun”employment!

 Sources:  drudgereport.com, ft.com, sourcewatch.org, rasmussenreports.com

First Lady Michelle Obama spoke to the NAACP Monday in Kansas City, Missouri. delivering the keynote speech at their annual convention.  Here’s an excerpt of what she said:

The past several days have seen an emphasis on racial issues in the headlines.  This renewed fire has seemingly been re-ignited by the civil rights commission’s ongoing investigation into the decision not to prosecute two members of The New Black Panther Party who were caught on camera intimidating with billy clubs and verbally harassing white voters at a voting precinct in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008.

As the days went along, previously unseen videos of King Shabazz surfaced.   One of the videos featured Shabazz ranting and raving to a gathering crowd on a street corner, advocating the murder of white babies.  Another, shown last night on Fox News, featured New Black Panther Party Leader Malik Shabazz making fun of the whole DOJ situation, bragging about the two members not being prosecuted.  Another video, from 2002, showed Shabazz asking the audience to applaud for Osama Bin Laden!  He refused to apologize for it on “Geraldo at Large” last Weekend when Geraldo asked him to.

That brings us to today, when the nation’s largest civil rights group is expected to condemn what it calls racist elements in the Tea Party movement.

According to the proposed resolution,  Tea Party members have used “racial epithets,” have verbally abused black members of Congress and threatened them, and protestors have engaged in “explicitly racist behavior” and “displayed signs and posters intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically”. 

NAACP spokeswoman Leila McDowell told ABC News:

We’re deeply concerned about elements that are trying to move the country back, trying to reverse progress that we’ve made.  We are asking that the law-abiding members of the Tea Party repudiate those racist elements, that they recognize the historic and present racist elements that are within the Tea Party movement.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, in coordination with 170 other groups, including labor unions, is planning a protest march in Washington, D.C., Oct. 10 in a futile attempt to build momentum against the Tea Party.

According to Ms. McDowell:

The “One Nation” march is designed as an antithesis to the Tea Party, and it’s about “pulling America together and back to work.

I wonder if this new organization is affiliated with another one I found by simply “Binging” “One Nation”?   This is from their website, onenationforall.org:

One Nation is a national philanthropic initiative that promotes pluralism and inclusion in America.

One Nation does this by developing strategies that help Americans connect on a person-to-person basis to highlight our shared values and aspirations as Americans. By bringing Americans together, regardless of faith or background, we seek to help change misperceptions about American Muslims, a minority group that has faced increased marginalization since 9/11.

We also sponsor resources, such as this site, that provide media professionals easy access to experts that can speak credibly about issues related to the American Muslim community and information that more accurately reflects the American Muslim experience.

I have no proof that the two groups are affiliated.  I just thought it was interesting that this new group did not do any research to see if that name was already out there.

Why is all this racial hatred making the headlines during an administration that was supposed to be post-racial?

Dr.  Thomas Sowell, distinguished Economist and senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, Calif., wrote these remarkable words in an article titled,”A Post-Racial President?”, on July 28, 2009:

Many people hoped that the election of a black President of the United States would mark our entering a “post-racial” era, when we could finally put some ugly aspects of our history behind us.

That is quite understandable. But it takes two to tango. Those of us who want to see racism on its way out need to realize that others benefit greatly from crying racism. They benefit politically, financially, and socially.

Barack Obama has been allied with such people for decades. He found it expedient to appeal to a wider electorate as a post-racial candidate, just as he has found it expedient to say a lot of other popular things, about campaign finance, about transparency in government, about not rushing legislation through Congress without having it first posted on the Internet long enough to be studied– all of which turned to be the direct opposite of what he actually did after getting elected.

…To think that someone who has spent years promoting grievance and polarization was going to bring us all together as president is a triumph of wishful thinking over reality.

Not only Barack Obama’s past, but his present, tell the same story. His appointment of an attorney general who called America “a nation of cowards” for not dialoguing about race was a foretaste of what to expect from Eric Holder.

The way Attorney General Holder has refused to prosecute young black thugs who gathered at a voting site with menacing clubs, in blatant violation of federal laws against intimidating voters, speaks louder than any words from him or his president.

Those actions are speaking to the American people, almost a year later, in a louder voice than ever.  And Americans do not appreciate its’ tone.

Sources:  drudgereport.com, abcnews.go.com, realclearpolitics.com, onenationforall.org