The UN Production of the Flim Flam Man

A scarred reputation from the oil for food program, the failing Millennium Development Goals, another lame example of international intervention featured prominently in Burma as well as the abuses of sex scandals and general corruption now lay the back drop for a budget increase at the United Nations.

By Patrick Worsnip Thu Oct 25 UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon proposed on Thursday a rise in the U.N. budget for the next two years, seeking extra funding to head off conflicts and promote human rights amid new demands on the world body.

By EDITH M. LEDERER, AP Thu Oct 25 UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Secretary-General proposed a two-year budget of $4.2 billion on Thursday, saying the small increase isn't much in light of the growing demands on the United Nations to address a range of diplomatic and security challenges. What a preposterous notion noted in the two news reports. Ban Ki-Moon apparently cites heading off conflicts, growing demands and addressing diplomatic, security and human rights issues as reasons for a budget increase. In the private sector, bottom line and key performance measures commonly dictate funding parameters for future allocation of resources. Not unlike most governments, public sector organizations in general draw no attention to the fact that no budget decisions reflect the effectiveness of the entity seeking more money. School boards and other local government bodies as well as state and federal governments routinely raise budgets without the corresponding justification of successful past performance. In the UN's case, the Millennium Development Goals alone are sufficient cause to deny budget increases. The little that will prove successful over a minimum of two decades demonstrates clearly that the UN has never possessed the ability to be effective. Certainly there are numerous other examples of the organizations futility but the MDG have special significance. The initiative was to benefit all people of the world who suffer from common deficiencies related to poverty, hunger, disease and similar difficulties not related to the benefit of any particular country or group. So even programs that remove any suggestion of favoritism are beyond the UN's ability to achieve success.

"That is not much, considering the demands upon us," he said, naming conflicts and potential crisis areas as well as longer-term challenges of alleviating poverty, providing humanitarian aid and fighting climate change and HIV/AIDS.

Listening over and over again to the identical sounds of each United Nations pronouncement.... last year .... $3.8 Billion. Price of allowing this scam to continue..... limitless. Let's see Mastercard do an ad on this. There are many voices echoing the call for an end to the United Nations and it is not limited to any one website. Whether campaign rhetoric or not, several US Presidential candidates have made equivalent statements. It may be necessary to engage in the typical demeaning activities characterized by radical public protests. Thoughtful communication focusing attention toward the flaws of the United Nations may already having the needed impact, one post at a time. One last note on the words of Ban Ki Moon. An example of his budget increase justification specified an amount for an extremely vague purpose. $18 Million dollars to 'strengthen the Department of Political Affairs.' How about using at least that much money to do some good for the people you are charged with serving, e.g., helping. And by that it is not meant that the money should be given to those within the United Nations organization. That is the biggest problem. All that money that never gets to a legitimate destination. Stanford Matthews MoreWhat.com

Pandemic Risk vs Pandemic Apathy

October 16, 2007 14:24 PM Bird Flu Takes Another Life In Indonesia, Toll Now 88 (source:http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v3/news.php?id=290179)JAKARTA, Oct 16 (Bernama) -- A 12-year-old boy at Ceger village in Tangerang district in Banten province near here died of the H5N1 virus over the weekend, bringing to 88 the death toll in bird flu cases in Indonesia, a health official reported. The boy was brought to a local midwife on Oct 3 after suffering from fever for three days, said head of the communicable disease control and prevention section at the Tangerang district health office, Dr Yuliah Iskandar.

Among the critical issues facing this planet is H5N1 and the threat of a worldwide pandemic. While the other major issues such as terrorism, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, increasing tensions over nuclear technology and weapons proliferation, whether a dirty bomb in a suitcase or a trend of more nations joining 'the club', matters involving critical health issues seem to take a back seat.

Please turn the page »

A Perfect Storm of Evil

Jim Simpson The Bible talks a great deal about sin, the popular notion being that through God’s vengeance we will burn for an eternity of Hell lest we repent and change. But I believe in the notion that we are punished not so much for our sins, but rather, by our sins. The ugly nature of politics today, and its probable outcome, provides an apt demonstration. Few would argue, at least among those of us who believe there is such a thing as “morality,” that today’s popular culture is markedly degenerate. We glorify women who dress like tramps and lionize rap stars who treat them as though they were tramps. The magazine racks are obsessed with Brad and Angelina and their latest out-of-wedlock adoption. T.V. news shows showed more interest in Anna Nicole Smith’s sagas than the war in Iraq. Respect for authority has been replaced by demands for ever-increasing public services, while fewer and fewer adults are willing to take responsibility for themselves and their families. The principled leader – always a scarce commodity – is today on the verge of extinction. Politics has degenerated to little more than a vote auction for promised public giveaways. There have always been charlatans in politics, but in today’s culture, being a liar is “smart.” The media are in awe of politicians adept at “crafting a message” that will “resonate” with voters. They discuss without irony how this or that candidate has to “moderate” his/her position to appeal to this or that group. They focus exclusively on image – and seem not to understand that there is no relying on someone whose word is not reliable. But if you don’t stand for something you’ll fall for anything. As this moral degeneracy has spread throughout the population, a political party has arisen that both helped to create and concurrently take advantage of it: the Democrat Party. And hiding within that party for many years has been a malevolent, organized underground that has used it as a pathway to power. In the 1950s, it was called the communist party, and it was responsible for some of the most reprehensible acts of treason in our nation’s history. And while Democrats like Harry Truman fought communism on the world stage, both the FDR and Truman administrations were littered with imbedded Soviet agents. Most notorious were Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White. Hiss helped write the UN Charter. Is it any wonder that an organization designed by a Soviet agent would wind up routinely hampering U.S. foreign policy and advancing the cause of totalitarian dictatorships? Its fundamental structure has given an undeserved legitimacy to tin pot dictatorships the world over. Hiss advised FDR at the Yalta Conference, where the U.S. surrendered postwar Eastern Europe to the Soviets, plunging those hapless countries into decades of indescribable misery. And we wonder how so many foreign policy decisions have come back to haunt us? Hiss did time for perjury, White was instrumental in creating the World Bank, a cash cow for the world’s despots, and was appointed to lead the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which he also helped create. While Hiss is the more notorious, White was equally destructive. According to Conservapedia:

White used his position in the Treasury Department to develop a hostile U.S. policy toward Japan. The reason was to distract Japan from their plans to attack the Soviet Union and draw the U.S. into the war as an ally with the Soviet Union. White was the author of an extreme ultimatum that Japan could not comply with in the days just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. White delayed financial support mandated by law to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Chinese government causing the triumph of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese government.

Wikipedia quotes a Senate Internal Security Subcommittee Report: "The concentration of Communist sympathizers in the Treasury Department, and particularly the Division of Monetary Research, is now a matter of record. White was the first director of that division; those who succeeded him in the directorship were Frank Coe and Harold Glasser. Also attached to the Division of Monetary Research were William Ludwig Ullman, Irving Kaplan, and Victor Perlo. White, Coe, Glasser, Kaplan, and Perlo were all identified as participants in the Communist conspiracy ..." It goes on to describe White’s assistance to Harold Glasser in greater detail: White assisted [Glasser], a Treasury executive and NKVD spy, “in obtaining posts and promotions at Treasury while aware of his Communist ties.” Because of White’s backing, Glasser survived an FBI background check. In December 1941 the Secret Service forwarded a report to Harry White indicating that it had evidence Glasser was involved in Communist activities. White never acted on the report. Glasser continued to serve in the Treasury Department, and soon began recruiting other agents and preparing briefing reports on Treasury personnel and other potential espionage agents for the NKVD. After America became involved in World War II, Glasser received appointments to several higher-level positions in the government on White's approval.[ This is only a sampling. I have left out the notorious atomic spies, the Rosenbergs and Klaus Fuchs. There were more, but even these were only the tip of the iceberg. Many doubtless went on undiscovered. After the 1950s however, many Leftists disassociated themselves with formal membership in the Party. The New Left of the 1960s, for example, was created mainly by children of American communists, the so-called “Red-Diaper Babies.” Most of these never joined the Party, although they remained in sympathy with its goals, if not all its methods. These people formed the nucleus of the 1960s anti-war movement and it is now an old story that many went on to professorships at colleges and universities, while others made careers in journalism and government. By the 1970s and 80s, their impact was increasingly visible: radicalism was becoming mainstream. A great read on how this was reflected in Congress is National Review’s 1987 article, “Congress’s Red Army.” Its impact is aptly reflected in the following passage: In 1979 [American Communist Party leader Gus] Hall addressed the national convention of the Communist Party and exulted in the party's new success in forming coalitions with nonmembers. He noted "a decrease in expressions of anti-Communism.' Communists, he observed, "do not have to fight to participate in these movements. In fact, we not only do not have to fight to participate, in most cases we are asked to join and help out.' (Emphasis mine.) He said with satisfaction that Teddy Kennedy "is a lightning rod for the rising current of political independence.' Since then, the line between formal members of the communist party and fellow travelers of the hard left has become increasingly blurred and the hard left now exerts a virtually vice-grip control of the Democrat Party. And while the goals and tactics of the hard left are virtually indistinguishable from communists, this group has, until now, managed to avoid the still-pejorative label. In a recent series of brilliant American Thinker articles, James Lewis did us all an enormous favor by defying the PC police and giving these people a fitting moniker: Neocommunists. The goals and tactics of the international communist movement have never changed. But now the movement is peopled to a great extent by Neocommunists who disavow membership in the party, while still working actively to accomplish its goals. George Soros is a major player in that movement, and his organizations and money have been behind much of the Democrats’ outrageous initiatives in recent years: the horrid immigration bill defeated last spring, the national network of vote registration organizations (that have been convicted of voter fraud – including massive fake registrations, voter intimidation and destruction of republican vote registrations,) the “Global Warming” scam, the anti-war movement and so many others. Bill and Hillary Clinton are also willing participants in that movement. Democrat legislators, like Henry Waxman, Barbara Boxer, Patrick Leahy, Charles Schumer and many more, are “Democrat” in name only. They wouldn’t know the “mainstream” if they were drowning in it. These people have nothing, repeat, nothing to recommend them but they all have one thing in common: an ego so titanic they believe they are entitled to do literally anything. People view the increasing radicalism of our elected leaders with blasé indifference. As a society we have lost our moral anchors. Thus we cannot see the treachery ahead. A perfect storm is building. Republicans can’t fight off the relentless attacks being waged by the Democrats’ media allies. The American people have become too complacent and ill-informed to see that, while some Republicans certainly are no saints, the Democrats are institutionally corrupt. As Tom Delay told Matt Lauer of NBC “There are scandals that need to be addressed. Republicans address them, Democrats re-elect them.” Hillary Clinton’s college senior thesis was written about the methods of radical organizer Saul Alinsky, who said: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." Sound familiar? How about the tactics in evidence these past few days against Rush Limbaugh on the “phony soldiers” issue? What about Ken Starr? Remember Linda Tripp? Robert Bork? Clarence Thomas? The list is endless. That one quote encapsulates the electoral strategy of the national Democrat party. However Hillary didn’t agree with Alinsky that changes could only come from outside the system. She saw working within the system as more effective. Hmmm… What I find more telling is her internship for Robert Treuhaft, longtime prominent member of the American Communist Party. You don’t get those kinds of jobs by being a polite Republican sorority sister. From there she then went on to leadership positions in some of the most notorious Leftist organizations in the United States. Okay, so I can’t point to her name on the membership roster of the American Communist Party as proof. Nevermind. As a Neocommunist, she fits the bill exactly. People have said that 2008 may be the most important election in our nation’s history. That is an understatement. If Democrats sweep both houses with large majorities, as it appears they might, while Hillary Clinton takes the presidency, what are the likely consequences for our constitutional republic? Will we have to rely on Congressional Democrats to reign her in? Are you kidding? Given the Clintons’ treacherous legacy, do you think she, or her institutionally corrupt Party, is above anything? I don’t. Like Marx, Hillary’s “morality” is clearly only that which furthers her cause. Her opportunistic flipflops, her vicious attacks on Clinton opponents and even unfortunate friends, all mark her as someone who cares for nothing but power. She uses the hard left to flex her political muscle now. Would taking the reins of power as President moderate her? Republican political optimists hope that Hillary’s high negatives in the polls will spell her doom come election time. They are whistling in the dark. They assume: 1. that Hillary will play by the rules and that 2. The mass media won’t help her turn those negatives around. The assumption that serial criminals like the Clintons would suddenly play fair defies the verdict of our decades long experience with them. In addition to the massive support she will get from Soros-funded ACORN, Project Vote and others, in recruiting both legal and illegal new voters – dead and alive, I do not believe Hillary is even depending upon a majority vote in the general election. She is counting on the recruitment of a third-party candidate to split the republican vote, exactly as her husband did, TWICE. That candidate could be Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City. It might even be Ron Paul. Like Ross Perot before him, he is a Texan. Like Ross Perot before him, he dislikes mainstream Republicans and may be as shortsighted, ignorant and vindictive as Perot was in purposefully assisting a hardcore leftist win the Presidency. I wouldn’t rely on the media to reveal her machinations either. The only reason both Clintons are not today a defunct historical footnote is the protection and stature they have been accorded by the press to this point. People don’t “love” the Clintons, as the press likes to claim, people adore the wholly fallacious image the press has created for them. She has relied on media support repeatedly to help remake her image and overcome her “negatives.” The fact that they still haven’t completely succeeded bears testament to just how “negative” she really is. The implications of such deeprooted media corruption are truly frightening – but very real. But we haven’t seen anything yet. In the final runup to the election they will pull out all the stops to improve her chances. They want her to win, and can smell victory. We are at a crossroads. Our national conscience has degenerated to the point that we only dimly recognize our predicament. Finally, and too late, the horrible ramifications of our apathy will be revealed. We will indeed be punished by our various sins of self-absorbed narcissism, of foolish pride – of worshipping false idols. We are not all guilty of these sins, of course. But Burke said: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Lenin said that the organized minority will beat the disorganized majority every time. The Left is very organized, as we have seen repeatedly. Unfortunately, unless we get our collective act together, the Neocommunists who define American political and popular culture will take the rest of us down with them. The Left will prove once again that you don’t need good ideas, just good organization and a ruthless willingness to do whatever is necessary to win. People who believe in the United States of America, people who believe in real justice, in real freedom, We The People, must organize to defeat them. And we must do it NOW. We may not have another chance. Jim Simpson is a freelance writer and former White House economist/budget analyst.

Move America Forward is going to Berkeley

Listen up California Patriots.

Remember recently when we showed you the illiterate Code Pinko's, the little darlings of the left, defacing a recruiters office, in Berkeley?



Can't even spell when defacing things...sheeeesh.

Well, Move America Forward remembers and they are stepping up to the plate and taking action again.

Snagged from Melanie Morgan, chairman of Move America Forward's, website. (With full permission of course, thank you Melanie)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Mary Pearson, Deputy Executive Director, Move America ForwardTel: (916) 441-6197 or Email: info@MoveAmericaForward.org

Wednesday, October 17th – Noon:

SHOWDOWN IN BERKELEY:

Move America Forward Organizes Pro-Troop Demonstration to Counter Code Pink Protests & Harassment at Berkeley U.S. Marine Recruiting Office

(SAN FRANCISCO) -- In response to ongoing efforts by the liberal organization, Code Pink, to harass, intimidate and ultimately chase the U.S. military out of the greater San Francisco Bay Area, a patriotic, pro-troop counter demonstration will take place next Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 12:00 Noon at the U.S. Marine Recruiting Center in Berkeley, California (located at 64 Shattuck Sq. in Berkeley, CA).

The pro-troop rally is being organized by the northern California-based non-profit group, Move America Forward (website: www.MoveAmericaForward.org), which has grown to become the nation’s largest pro-troop organization.

“We’re sick and tired of the constant attacks against our military personnel here in the San Francisco Bay Area, and we’re going to take action to defend the honor and integrity of this nation’s military men and women” said Melanie Morgan, Chairman of Move America Forward.

The anti-war and anti-military group, Code Pink: Women for Peace, has been conducting weekly vigil-protests in front of the U.S. Marine Corps recruiting station in Berkeley, CA.

Controversy over the protests came to a head last week when Code Pink protesters took it upon themselves to deface the building and attempt to interfere with Marine Corps recruiters and their ability to do their jobs. Code Pink’s objective is ‘chase’ the Marine Corps, and the military out of Berkeley completely.

In recent media reports, Code Pink advocates are quoted as saying they were “shocked and horrified” that the Marine Corps has a presence in Berkeley and inferring that the Marines prey on children.

Code Pink activists have been caught on video calling Military recruiters ‘traitors’ and harassing Marine Corps Captain Richard Lund while he was just trying to do his job.

Now, Move America Forward and other patriotic Americans from the Bay Area are organizing to defend the integrity of Captain Lund and say THANK YOU to all our brave soldiers who are fighting to protect our freedoms in Iraq and other theatres in the War on Terror.

“Those who have been harassing our men and women in uniform do not even realize that they are attacking that which gives them freedom, security and liberty,” said Melanie Morgan.

Complete Details Online: www.MoveAmericaForward.org

Of course, the left, not liking the fact that patriotic Americans, like Melanie and Move America Forward are stepping up to show our Military the support they deserve are trying their age old tactic of lying, smearing and misrepresenting this counterprotest as well as the last one.

Remember the last event Move America sponsored was a 3,000+ mile trip across the country with 27 rally stops along the way, where not one person on the pro-support the troops side, was arrested versus over 200 anti-war protesters being arrested.

Slander Alert! The Left pulling another 'Phony Soldier' campaign.

Folks,

Move America Forward has been alerted to the anonymous blogger who calls himself 'Spockos Brain" --the same coward who began an advertiser boycott against KSFO Radio in San Francisco, myself, Lee Rodgers, and Brian Sussman over a year ago. He is now posting about how I 'incited violence' at the GOE/EaglesUp/VetsforFreedom rally in Washington, D.C. and how I am "calling for violence" at the counter-demonstration against CodePink at the Berkeley Marine Recruiting Center next Wednesday.

This crackpot with a keyboard is fueling the same folks (Media Matters) who attacked Rush Limbaugh over the 'phony soldiers' story two weeks ago.

http://www.spockosbrain.com/2007/10/what-happens-day-after-they-spill-blood

Deborah Johns, a Blue Star Mom whose son William is standing by for his fourth deployment to Iraq, was defending herself in Washington, D.C.

It is telling that the left continues to back the idea that nobody should protect herself: not America and not a woman attacked by peace protesters with a punch.

Apparently, the Left only feels it is appropriate to strike first, as Al Qaida did on Sept. 11 and as this woman did to Deborah.

Warmest Regards,
Melanie Morgan
KSFO Radio
Chairman, Move America Forward

Keep up with the Details at the Move America Forward website.

Show up, show our military some support and show these Code Pinko's that they will not be allowed to attack out military without true patriots being there to defend them.

If you are near there or are planning to travel there to join in on the 17th, please remember...I WANT PICTURES AND UPDATES DURING THE DAY DAMMIT. (Hint hint Melanie)

(Additional note: Although Move America Forward is not asking for donations, you can help this and other pro-support efforts by donating, if you do not have the means to donate, you can be there, if you cannot be there you can cross post this message and if you do not have a website or blog you can leave it in comment sections to help spread the word to those that can be there--- there is always a way to show your support for our fine, brave military---Susan Duclos)

(Note from Melanie- from email)

Spree's website is the best place for activism news that gets spread around the blogosphere, that's why I am so honored she is posting news about our counter-demonstration against the Code Pink Pepto-Dismal crowd.

The same people who call our troops 'traitors and assassins' are the same people who lie about me over and over again.

I'm a big girl --I can handle it.

But what makes me truly unhinged is when the honor and integrity of the fine young men and women is impugned.

That's why hundreds of people are planning to join up and send a clear message across America and to our troops overseas ---No Blood Slander Of Our Troops! We support you AND your mission!

Thank-you Spree and your readers for getting out the news.
Melanie Morgan

Okay folks...what are we waiting for? Lets get this message out.

Cross posted from Wake up America



.

Good News Isn't News, Bad News Is Bad News and No News Is Good News: UPDATED with Wright's Response

[Update below with Robin Wright's [Wapo] response to my email from her contact form which is linked below] The new rules of Journalism, admitted by Robin Wright from Wapo and Barbara Starr from CNN to Howard Kurtz. (Video below) I am SO glad we now know those new rules and how Wapo and CNN determine what is and what is not appropriate to tell American viewers. (Although we already knew that CNN much prefers to report things that they have, admittedly, obtained from terrorist) Huge hat tip to NewsBusters. Increasing casualties: news. Declining casualties: not news. From NewsBusters:

To Kurtz's obvious frustration, his guests - Robin Wright of the Washington Post and Barbara Starr of CNN - both supported the press burying this extremely positive announcement. [...] Alas, not seeing the stupidity in this position, Starr, with a straight-face nonetheless, agreed with Wright:

But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.

Hmmm. So, I guess a "very positive step on that potential road to progress" isn't newsworthy, huh Barbara? Even Kurtz recognized the hypocrisy here, which led to the following:

KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages. STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress? We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.

Hmmm. So, a shocking increase in deaths would have "certainly" been newsworthy. However, for a decrease to be reported, skeptical journalists have to be more convinced that it's a lasting improvement.

Go read the rest of the transcript over at NewsBusters. Amazing. This leads us to the next, logical question which is: What is the reason that the good news from Iraq isn't being told to the American people, and is, in fact, deliberately being hidden from the American people? The Jawa Report shows one possible reason:

So only report the enemy's news, and not ours. It's not like we need to have a more complete and balanced picture of what's going on in Iraq, is it MSM? Gotta get those anti-war Democrats into the White House, after all!

Kudos to Kurtz for asking the questions and showing the reports of the progress in Iraq. Back to NewsBusters:

And when folks like this make dissemination decisions to not share information on something as important as American casualties of war due to their own personal skepticism, they have indeed abdicated their solemn responsibility to the public whose interest they regularly claim to serve.

Anyone still idiotic enough to try to deny liberal media bias now, from Wapo and CNN? It seems Robin Wright from Washington Post and Barbara Starr from CNN, both need a refresher course on Journalistic Ethics:

Preamble Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice. Seek Truth and Report It Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. Journalists should: — Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible. — Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing. — Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability. — Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises. — Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context. — Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations. — Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it. — Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story — Never plagiarize. — Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so. — Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others. — Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status. — Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant. — Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid. — Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context. — Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. — Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection. Minimize Harm Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect. Journalists should: — Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects. — Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief. — Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance. — Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy. — Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity. — Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes. — Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges. — Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed. Act Independently Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know. Journalists should: —Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. — Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility. — Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity. — Disclose unavoidable conflicts. — Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. — Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage. — Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news. Be Accountable Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other. Journalists should: — Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct. — Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media. — Admit mistakes and correct them promptly. — Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media. — Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others. The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months of study and debate among the Society's members. Sigma Delta Chi's first Code of Ethics was borrowed from the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926. In 1973, Sigma Delta Chi wrote its own code, which was revised in 1984, 1987 and 1996.

If you would like to email Robin Wright from Washington Post a copy of these Journalistic Ethics, here is her email contact form. Feel free to send CNN an email so also with a copy of the Code of Ethics they are obviously ignoring using this contact form page. Perhaps mention to them that we would like all the news, not just the news they wish to cherry pick and that we do not appreciate them deliberately hiding the good news from Iraq. Thanks!!! [Update] I used those contact forms above and emailed CNN and Robin Wright from Wapo, letting them know that we, as Americans, would like to hear ALL the news coming from Iraq, not just the bad and not just the trends and CNN has not responded yet, but Ms. Wright did. Robin Wright's response:

Ms. Duclos - Thanks for your comments. The point I was trying to make on CNN is that two months do not make a permanent trend. As Gen. Odierno said last week, when he came to the Post, the numbers have been good the last couple of months but the US military has not yet reached the point of "irreversible momentum." When they do, it will certainly mean a different kind of reporting about the war in general. Unfortunately, all it will take is one or two really bad incidents and the numbers will start going up again. The numbers aren't the whole story either. The progress in Anbar has been widely covered in the US media -- and that in many ways tells us far more about both the war and the future than the death tolls. I also think we're all a little nervous about declaring victories before we're fully confident that they represent a long-term and enduring trend and are not just a favorable blip on the screen. With regards, Robin Wright Diplomatic Correspondent The Washington Post Telephone: 202 334-7443 Email: wrightr@washpost.com Fax: 202 496-3883

Now, I never mentioned "victory" in my original email to her, via her contact form", yet her claim that before she can report "differently" [good news from Iraq] depends on them reaching of "irreversible momentum" show her incredible bias as well as her complete ignorance of the Codes of Ethics journalists are supposed to use as their guidelines. This is what is called reporting now folks.... is it any wonder that the new media is often getting the "scoops" on the dinosaur media? My response to her email:

No one asked you to report a "trend" Ms. Wright, just a complete picture of the news. Good news IS news to Americans and as a journalist, your job is to bring us ALL the news and you have failed to do that because you are waiting for a irreversible "trend"? That is disgusting and I will be posting this on MY blog, others I contribute too and as well as that "excuse" you just emailed me. Americans expect better from our reporters and you have failed us miserably on this issue. Have a nice day, Susan Duclos

What are you folks waiting for... weigh in using her contact form and let her know whether waiting for the "irreversible momentum" is a good excuse for hiding the good news coming from Iraq, from you! Cross posted from Wake up America

The International Community Needs a Conscience

By Stanford Matthews Blog @ MoreWhat.com More than one month ago continued reports of trouble in Burma were in the press, Protesting Continues in Burma Despite Crackdown. About the same President Bush issued preliminary comments, Bush Urges Burma to Stop Intimidating Citizens , that may have served as a warning shot accross the bow. The next report, US, Indonesia Urge China, India to Press Burma , may have overdone the warning theme and similar to other nation's impotent responses suggest with or without the United Nations there is little in the way of peer pressure on the international stage. An almost unnoticed statement from the UN, UN Human Rights Chief Voices Concern About Violations In DRC, Iran and Burma , demonstrates the useless rhetoric that appears to be the norm in these situations and likewise the norm of those who warrant the verbal chastisement to ignore the warning. It all seems to choreographed as if all the participants share the guilt equally. The second and third week of September witnessed a dramatic decrease in world chatter over the worsening crisis in Burma. But in the third week with most officials having no excuse to be unaware of the problem a convenient event also provided no excuse for an organized response by the UN, World Leaders Address UN General Assembly. The members were already together for other business and it lasted until October 3rd, UN General Assembly Annual Debate Concludes , with over 100 heads of state ignoring the Burma problem as it continued to develop. ASEAN Under Pressure to Press Burma Against Violence, 'Burma's neighbors worried military's crackdown on protesters, which began Wednesday, could lead to massive bloodshed.' That was the 26th of September and as recently as late August it was not a secret that trouble was brewing in Burma that would probably require international intervention. The headlines below illuminate the days leading up to the military violence against Burmese citizens. Bush Announces New Sanctions on Burma US to Increase Sanctions Against Burma; Protests Continue in Rangoon Burma Threatens Action Against Protesting Monks Thousands of Burmese Join Monks in Massive Protest On the day the violence erupted, US, EU Ask UN to Consider New Burma Sanctions, while the response was, UN Security Council Urges Restraint Against Burmese Protesters. as if the crisis had just begun but the truth is, Burma Crackdown Condemned, but Not Unexpected. While the Bush Administration may be able to state they did something, US Condemns Burmese Military, Imposes Sanctions , most of the world's nations are guilty of adopting the common UN-like approach, Burma's Neighbors in SE Asia Express 'Revulsion' Over Crackdown. Expressing reactions or sentiments rather than taking decisive action capable of forcing an end to the violence is simply wrong. Long about the beginning of October, a senior envoy from the UN spends three or more days in Burma, gets snubbed by General Shwe, wastes time with photo ops with Burma's leading dissenter who has been under house arrest for a long time and then heads back to report to the UN. Then the US sends an envoy describing her style as a no nonsense approach. As of this writing the results of that effort are not known. What is known is the latest UN response to the Burmese crisis. UN Envoy Warns Burma of Serious International Consequences US Warns Of Sanctions If Burma Does Not Cooperate With International Community Global Protests Against Burma off to Slow Start, but Burma Shows Conciliatory Signs And as of October 7th, Crackdown Continues in Burma, Diplomatic Debate Rages Abroad How lame and predictable is all of this?

President's Radio Address Text : The SCHIP Veto

October 3, 2007, the president vetoed a new SCHIP bill sent to him by Congress. (Bill can be found here) I am going to show the radio address from this morning by the President and below that a little commentary.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. One important commitment of the Federal government is to help America's poorest children get access to health care. Most of these children are covered by Medicaid, which will spend more than $35 billion to help them this fiscal year. For children who do not qualify for Medicaid, but whose families are struggling, we have the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. Washington is now in the midst of an important debate over the future of this vital program. I strongly support SCHIP. My Administration has added more than 2 million children to SCHIP since 2001. And our 2008 budget increases SCHIP funding by 20 percent over five years. Unfortunately, more than 500,000 poor children who are eligible for SCHIP coverage are not enrolled in the program. At the same time, many States are spending SCHIP funds on adults. In fact, based on their own projections for this fiscal year, Minnesota, Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan, Rhode Island, and New Mexico will spend more SCHIP money on adults than they do on children. And that is not the purpose of the program. This week, congressional leaders sent me a deeply flawed bill that would move SCHIP even further from its original purpose. Here are some of the problems with Congress's plan: Under their plan, one out of every three children who moves onto government coverage would drop private insurance. In other words, millions of children would move out of private health insurance and onto a government program. Congress's plan would also transform a program for poor children into one that covers children in some households with incomes up to $83,000. Congress's plan would raise taxes on working people. And Congress's plan does not even fully fund all the new spending. If their plan becomes law, five years from now Congress would have to choose between throwing people off SCHIP -- or raising taxes a second time. Congress's SCHIP plan is an incremental step toward their goal of government-run health care for every American. Government-run health care would deprive Americans of the choice and competition that comes from the private market. It would cause huge increases in government spending. It would result in rationing, inefficiency, and long waiting lines. It would replace the doctor-patient relationship with dependency on bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. And it is the wrong direction for our country. Congress knew that I would veto this bill, yet they sent it anyway. So on Wednesday, I vetoed the SCHIP bill. And I asked Members of Congress to come together and work with me on a responsible bill that I can sign -- so we can keep this important program serving America's poor children. When it comes to SCHIP, we should be guided by a clear principle: Put poor children first. I urge Republicans and Democrats in Congress to support a bill that moves adults off this children's program -- and covers children who do not qualify for Medicaid, but whose families are struggling. If putting poor children first takes a little more than the 20 percent increase I have proposed in my budget for SCHIP, I am willing to work with leaders in Congress to find the additional money. Ultimately, our Nation's goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage -- not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage. By working together, Republicans and Democrats can strengthen SCHIP, ensure that it reaches the children who need it, and find ways to help more American families get the private health coverage they need. Thank you for listening. END

The portions I high lighted, especially that $83,000 income level number has been disputed by other politicians, which is completely intellectually dishonest because that exact figure is not in the actual bill and they count on the American public to be stupid enough not to be able do a little research and see how someone with a high income can be enrolled in a state funded insurance program. One example New Jersey: The Federal Poverty Level for a family of four is $20,650. Four hundred percent of $20,650 is $82,600. ("The 2007 HHS Poverty Guidelines," Accessed 9/20/07, Available At: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/07poverty.shtml) The Senate bill states: "(B) - Exception - Subparagraph (A) [the limitation of the matching rate to the Medicaid rate for children whose effective income exceeds 300 percent of the Federal poverty level] shall not apply to any State that, on the date of enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, has an approved State Plan Amendment or waiver to provide, or has enacted a State law to submit a State plan amendment to provide, expenditures described in such subparagraph under the State child health plan." The Senate SCHIP bill also grandfathers in New Jersey's program at 350 percent of the Federal poverty level, which includes children in families with incomes of $72,000 a year. Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ): "Corzine added that the state, which covers about 122,000 kids in its program, known as FamilyCare, 'will continue to provide health care to children in families with income up to 350 percent' of the federal poverty level – or $72,275 for a family of four. He also wrote that he is prepared to file a lawsuit challenging the new rules." (Christopher Lee, "N.J.'s Corzine to Defy New Health-Care Rules," The Washington Post, 9/14/07) More from that Washington Post article:

Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine informed President Bush this week that New Jersey will not obey federal rules that would make it harder to enroll middle-income kids for a popular government-subsidized health insurance program.

Everyone wants children to be covered, but a program that is set up to help low income families provide coverage for their children should not be hijacked by politicians trying to score political points by writing a bill in a way where individual states can ignore the basic concept of "low income families" and start taking from low income families so that middle income families that have private health insurance now can stop private coverage and put their children on state funded coverage. By grandfathering in some state programs, the politicians that wrote this bill thought they could get around the public understanding of what they were doing, so that when the bill got vetoed, as it should have, they could score political points off of it. Public statements: House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL): "If he vetoes the bill, it's a political victory for us." (Robert Pear, "Veto Risk Seen In Compromise On Child Health," The New York Times, 9/17/07) House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD): "With a bill on its way to the president's desk by the end of next week, Democrats will be safe in blaming the White House for allowing the program to expire, according to House Majority Leader Hoyer." (Fawn Johnson, "Negotiators Strike SCHIP Deal, Agree To Slightly Modified Senate Measure," National Journal's CongressDaily, 9/19/07) Couple facts from the Myth vs Fact sheet: FACT: Congress is irresponsibly waiting until just before SCHIP expires on September 30 to pass a final bill they know will be vetoed. Democrats have known for months that President Bush would veto a bill like the one they intend to send him. FACT: One of the Democrats' leaders has even said such a veto would be a "political victory." Members of Congress are putting health coverage for poor children at risk just so they can score political points in Washington.

“If the president signs the bill we present to him, it’s a major accomplishment,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “If he vetoes the bill, it’s a political victory for us. Public opinion polls show strong support for expanding kids’ health coverage.”

FACT: President Bush has called on Congress to pass a clean, temporary extension of the current SCHIP program that he can sign by September 30. The President does not believe health coverage for poor children should be held hostage while political ads are being made and new polls are being taken.

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The White House pressed lawmakers Tuesday to "at a minimum" pass a temporary extension of the State Children's Health Insurance Program before it expires on Sept. 30. In a statement of administration policy, the Office of Management and Budget repeated that President George W. Bush would veto a proposed $35 billion five-year expansion of SCHIP, which is due for a final House vote on Tuesday. SCHIP provides health insurance for the children of working families, but the White House says the legislation takes steps toward a federalized health care system and expands the program beyond poor children into the middle class. The White House also opposes the 61-cent per pack tax increase on cigarettes that would fund the SCHIP expansion. "It is urgent that Congress complete its work and send the president a bill he can sign before the program expires Sept. 30, 2007, or at a minimum to pass a clean, temporary extension of the current SCHIP program that he can sign by Sept. 30," OMB said.

FACT: The President has instructed HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt to work with states to mitigate the resulting damage if Congress allows SCHIP to lapse. In a piece that FaultLine USA wrote and cross posted here at Wake up America, she quotes Sweets & Light:

. . .Never mind that President Bush only vetoed a $35 billion dollar expansion of the SCHIP program. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this suddenly precious boondoggle (that most people had never even heard of before) will be eliminated. . . . . .But just look at this exercise in objective journalism. See if you can find any mention of any possible objections to the SCHIP program. . . Did ABC News speak to anyone except those who were benefiting from the taxpayers’ (unwitting) generosity? Did this reporter ask any hardworking families what they thought about paying for other peoples’ kids health insurance? . . . . . .Unfortunately, every day we are fed an endless stream of execrable, agenda-driven articles like this one, masquerading as news. Articles so blatant in their purpose they would have even made Hitler or Stalin’s minions at their respective ministries of propaganda blush. But because our watchdog media think they are serving such a noble purpose they are proud of their efforts rather than ashamed. Of course that is exactly what they believed in Hitler and Stalin’s ministries as well.

A note to the Republican politicians that allowed themselves to be emotionally blackmailed into voting for this piece of garbage (as it is written now), shame on you for assuming the American public was too stupid to do some research and find the links proving those myth vs facts to be correct...you were too scared of being accused of "being against children" to insist the bill not have language that was misleading, you allowed the thought of those accusations sway you into allowing higher income families to take from lower income families so that you did not have to explain terms like "grandfathered in", so instead of fighting for lower income families, you betrayed them. A note to the Democratic politicians: You assumed that if you wrote the bill in a way where the actual figures didn't get mentioned, people going through the bill would assume you didn't allow states with their own laws to bypass the "income levels" by simple grandfathering in pre-existing laws for those states and you could pretend that you were really trying to help lower income families--- YOU UNDERESTIMATED US, once again. A question for all the politicians, either party: Why did you not pass a temporary extension to protect the children while you idiots fought out the actual language? Shame on all of you. Allowing the poor children of our country to suffer so you could play some political game has got to be the lowest I have seen you get, to date. Congress wonders why they hit the 11% approval mark, the lowest in the history of polling public opinion about Congress? This is the type of thing that has gotten you to the bottom of your approval rating, but hey.... you still have 11 points to play with, right? Cross posted from Wake up America .

Conservative Christian Writers Sought

A little over a week ago Faultline USA launched a very successful new blogroll, Christians Against Leftist Heresy .

This isn’t just a typical blogroll. Blogroll members may submit their articles and the article links are posted in weekly member updates as well as being permanently linked on the blog’s sidebar.

If you are a member of a Christian church anywhere in the western world, you may be aware of the growing threat from within – “Marxist” or Leftist Christianity. No denomination has been left untouched. The threat has been growing for many years but has now reached a critical point!
&


Fautline USA has posted a continuing series of articles concerning the epidemic leftist takeover of many venerable old Christian denominations – especially those denominations under the sway of the National Council of Churches.
&


For background please read the criticism of Pledging Your Moral Stand for Immigrants Rights

Links to previous articles are provided at the end of that article.
&


Here’s how to join the Blogroll.
Go to Christians Against Leftist Heresy and follow the simple directions to add the code to your sidebar. After you have successfully added the code to your sidebar, e-mail Faultline USA at faultlineusa(at)yahoo(dot)com. Be sure to include a link to your blog.
&


Christian
Marxist

Tags: religion, christianity, bible, jesus, church, god, faith, spirituality, theology, christ, communist, democrat, socialism, politics, left , blogging, news, weblog, blog, internet.

Did Iran Blink?

By Stanford Matthews Blog @ MoreWhat.com There is little that is more entertaining than to watch representatives of a state sponsor of terrorism like Iran act so innocent in light of previous statements that the holocaust never happened and they intend to destroy Israel. Not to mention the default Islamofascist creed bent on killing all infidels which also includes other Muslims they don't like. The sad part of the recent appearance of the Iranian President at Columbia University beyond the obvious was the number of closet liberals in the media tripping over themselves to attend a dinner with him. Not understanding that they may be the only ones in the world who actually believe their claim of doing it all in the name of journalism. So much so that their automatic defense of simply mentioning the first amendment is no longer presented with a supporting argument. Whether the Iranian President was too busy trying to fool other audiences this week or simply bored with the easy prey in American media and academia, the second errand boy has made his presence known. The Iranian foreign minister is currently attempting to give foreign policy mentoring to the Whitehouse and State Department. The worn out complaint of American saber rattling coupled with a plea for cooperation rather than confrontation is another amateur ploy looking for a gullible audience. With the advent of changing politics in France, the former opposition from the French as well as Germans, Russians and others at the United Nations may be altering course. A brief pause until November to put in place stronger sanctions against Iran on the nukes issue may be evidence of a difficult transition to pro American attitudes, the simple realization that Iran is an excessive risk with nukes or reluctance of some to agree with the US on Iran. But the French Foreign Minister has annoyed Iran by hinting at the threat of war if they continue to act like Saddam on nukes. While he backpedaled slightly after tension was raised, Iran may be less sure than their words indicate when stating the US is not in a position to deal with them militarily. While some pundits claim air strikes against Iran are not a viable option and the out of control public comments on the Iraq war suggest the US is not prepared to put more boots on the ground anywhere, the options available may not be so limited. It is fair to say one reason Iran makes these claims is to convince themselves or their population that the US will not resort to air strikes. And changing attitudes toward Iran from other nations may be enough to convince Iran to comply with international demands. And this post ends with a comment on an Iranian university inviting President Bush to attend a question and answer session. Presumably to reciprocate for the Columbia University fiasco. The White House Press Secretary Dana Perino indicated the invitation was not taken seriously. Let's just say in addition to the nearly impossible security requirements there is no real upside to honoring such a request. It is doubtful minds would be changed and determining whether the invitation is based on genuine interest or merely another ploy of the Iranian government will not take place. But there is some humor in the story.

Iran's Foreign Minister Says US Threats Not Helpful to Resolving Nuclear Issue By Margaret Besheer United Nations 03 October 2007 Besheer report - Download (mp3) 671k Listen to Besheer report Iran Summons French Diplomat To Protest Kouchner Comments By VOA News 03 October 2007 Iranian University Invites Bush to Speak By VOA News 02 October 2007