With both Barbara Bush and Michelle Obama attending the ceremony in Somerset, Pa., to mark the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Tom Burnett Sr. and Alec Rawls of the Error Theory blog are buying full-page color ads in the city’s Daily American Sept. 10 and 11. The ads will serve as ready-made protest signs for anyone attending the ceremony who opposes the design of the Flight 93 Memorial.
Click to read about it!
Reasons for opposition to the Flight 93 Memorial design are highlighted in the video below:
A PDF of the ad will be available next week for anyone who wants to make signs ahead of time. There is also a set of small posters that were put together for a previous talk by Mr. Burnett. Just print with tiling to make the finished product as large or small as you want:
Uh, oh! Phil Hare, the incumbent Democrat running for re-election in Illinois’ 17th Congressional District, is at it again, apparently sore at veterans like Medal of Honor recipient John F. Baker Jr. who are supporting his opponent, Republican Bobby Schilling.
With the help of James L. Moody, chairman of the Sangamon County (Ill.) Democratic Party, Hare — the same guy who said, “I don’t worry about the Constitution,” when asked about the Constitutionality of ObamaCare — filed a complaint Aug. 27 with the Federal Election Commission.
Hare’s target: Veterans for the Constitution, a group of military veterans whose stated mission is to seat Conservative leaders who truly represent the people and do not see the Constitution as an obstacle but as a document the founding fathers intended be upheld at all costs. The group, according to spokesperson Ken Moffett, is comprised of only a handful of active members who have managed to raise a whopping $6,000.
One has to wonder how a few thousand dollars raised by a small group of veterans could have such an impact on the re-election efforts of a sitting congressman who, as of July 15, reported having $855,863.18 cash on hand to spend on the general election Nov. 2.
Unlike Hare, the veterans he is attacking know how to work effectively and efficiently with other people’s money.
UPDATE 9/01/10 at 11:25 a.m. Central: Cross-posted at BigGovernment.com.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (Ret.) has supplied an affidavit in support of Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the flight surgeon wiling to risk a court-martial in order to determine whether or not Barack Obama is eligible to serve as president of the United States.
Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney (Ret.)
General McInerney is the highest ranking officer yet to lend public support to Colonel Lakin, who faces trial on Oct 13-15, according to a news release issued today by officials with the American Patriot Foundation.
The general’s affidavit acknowledges widespread concerns over the president’s Constitutional eligibility and demands Barack Obama release his birth records or the court authorize discovery. It was filed in support of Colonel Lakin’s motions for subpoenas for all of the president’s school records, and for a deposition of the custodian of Obama’s birth records in the possession of the State of Hawaii.
A notable extract from the affidavit reads as follows:
The President of the United States, as the Commander in Chief, is the source of all military authority. The Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined.
The judge in the case has set a hearing in the court-martial on these motions Thursday at 11 a.m. Eastern at Ft. Meade, Md. All court proceedings are open to the public. The courthouse is located within Ft. Meade at 4432 Llewellyn Avenue, which is on the corner of Llewellyn and Ernie Pyle Road. At the first intersection after the Reece Road gate, you should turn left on to Ernie Pyle Road. The courthouse is approximately 1 mile south of the intersection of Reece Road and Ernie Pyle Road.
Click to download affidavit.
To download the entire affidavit, click here or on the graphic above.
EDITOR’S NOTE: A friend in the real estate business just forwarded the news release below about a very important voting opportunity for Missourians.
In a court victory for the rights of voters, Missourians will have an opportunity this fall to Vote “YES” to Stop Double Taxation. Cole County Circuit Judge Paul Wilson ruled Tuesday that the proposed state constitutional amendment barring transfer taxes on real estate received enough petition signatures from registered voters to appear on the Nov. 2 ballot.
“There is no dispute that enough registered voters signed the initiative. The Vote ‘YES’ To Stop Double Taxation Committee showed conclusively in court that thousands of valid voter signatures were incorrectly thrown out by election authorities. We stood up for the rights of these voters to be counted, and the court has supported the rights of voters to be counted,” said attorney Chuck Hatfield, who represented the campaign committee during several days of hearings.
The Vote “YES” To Stop Double Taxation Committee submitted tens of thousands of voter signatures on petitions to place the amendment on the ballot. However, the Missouri Secretary of State’s Office announced its conclusion that the proposal did not receive enough signatures of registered voters to qualify for the ballot.
The committee’s own analysis showed validation rates around 80 percent across six of the nine congressional districts where signatures were gathered, and in some counties better than 90 percent. The committee also showed in court that thousands of valid voter signatures were thrown out by election authorities for an array of questionable reasons during their reviews of the petitions.
The court victory means the Vote “YES” To Stop Double Taxation Committee will move ahead with a strong educational campaign for Missourians about the unfairness of transfer taxes. Transfer taxes on home sales are double taxation because Missourians already pay annual property taxes on real estate, often over many decades of ownership.
Missouri is among just 13 states that do not impose a transfer tax on real estate sales, including all of Missouri’s neighboring states. As state, county and city revenues decline, politicians are tempted to impose new transfer taxes – just as Missouri citizens are struggling to make it.
The proposed state constitutional amendment’s language is straightforward and simple:
“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing any new tax, including a sales tax, on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate?”
The proposed amendment is sponsored by the 21,000-member Missouri Association of REALTORS®, which wants to keep Missourians from being saddled with unfair double taxation that can destroy the American dream of home ownership.
If my experience with one U.S. Department of Justice agency is indicative of how the federal government operates in this new era of transparency, then I must conclude that transparency causes “blindness.”
Several times during the past 18 months, I’ve contacted people at the National Institute of Justice — the research, development and evaluation arm of the DoJ in Washington, D.C. — with seemingly-innocuous questions about a grant the agency awarded to a state mental health agency in Oklahoma almost five years ago. NIJ’s answers would better equip me to explain to my readers how NIJ works. Unfortunately, it seems NIJ officials prefer I remain “blind” to what’s going on inside the agency.
Some background: Curious to learn details about NIJ’s criteria for granting non-competitive awards, I forwarded several questions to Jolene Hernon July 28. After pointing out to my contact in the NIJ Office of Communications that less than one percent of the total amount of NIJ’s annual awards in 2009 was non-competitive, according to the Guidelines Regarding Non-Competitive Awards published on the NIJ web site, I asked several questions as follows:
I asked Hernon to explain whether or not the guidelines used in granting non-competitive awards have changed since Jan. 1, 2005, and, if they have changed, asked her to explain those changes;
Prefacing my request with “If the guidelines have not changed,” I asked her to explain the basis upon which a particular non-competitive award was granted; and
Finally, I asked for a copy of the NIJ director’s “determination in writing,” as called for in the current guidelines, that the award in question was worthy of non-competitive status.
I asked the final question above after reading on the NIJ web site that the agency’s policy is to make non-competitive awards only under the following circumstances:
Only one reasonable source — instances where only one responsible applicant can perform the work of the proposed award. Circumstances under which this may occur include when the NIJ Director has determined in writing that:
~ The applicant has proprietary information or proposes a project involving a unique idea, method, or approach toward advancing criminal justice, policy, and practice in the United States.
~ The applicant has made a substantial investment in an activity that would advance criminal justice policy and practice in the United States. The majority of NIJ’s non-competitive awards to other Federal agencies fall into this category. These agreements are developed to leverage the investment or infrastructure of these agencies to criminal justice application.
~ The applicant is the only entity known to possess the capability to perform the work.
Compelling public interest — instances where the NIJ Director has determined in writing that exigent, urgent, or other compelling circumstances exist that make it in the public interest to make an award non-competitively. One example of such an instance might be an unusual and compelling urgency to execute a pilot project within a short window of opportunity to affect a public policy decision.
Statutory requirements — instances where a funding recipient is specified by an appropriations act or other applicable law.
Recommendations in Congressional reports, when a non-competitive award would be consistent with applicable law — instances where a House, Senate, or Conference Report accompanying an appropriations act or other law recommends an award to a particular recipient, and an award may be made consistent with applicable law, including any applicable executive orders.
I closed my request by asking Hernon to “Please let me know if you plan to respond to this as a media inquiry or whether I must submit the questions above via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).”
Make no mistake, I have received several short e-mail bursts from Hernon since July 28, but none qualify as answers. For instance:
On July 28, she wrote, “I will respond. But it will take me a day or two to find out the answers to your questions.”
On July 30, she assured me, “I am still working on getting answers to your questions.”
On Aug. 12, she explained, “As I am not a grant manager, I do not know the system very well. So I have been coordinating with others here at our agency.”
On Aug. 20, she told me, “The people who can help answer your questions have scheduled a meeting for next week. I will be back in touch.”
Today, after going 34 days without an answer, I sent this message to Hernon:
“I think you would agree that 34 days should be plenty of time for any government agency to answer my questions — unless, that is, they’re trying to cover things up or rewrite history. Should I expect answers anytime soon? Please advise.”
What happened to the citizen’s right to know? I’m feeling blind.
"Yikes! I Might Be...Militia!"
