US leadership lapse in quran burning

Updated on Monday, April 4, 2011 at 2:32PM by Kay B. Day, Editor

Many of us in the U.S., regardless of our faith, viewed with despair the Quran-burning pastor’s actions —we knew innocents would likely die. President Barack Obama and others have spoken about the pastor, in the fall when he first threatened the burning and recently after he carried through with it.

There is however a lapse in US leadership regarding appropriate responses to the burning. The lapse creates a dangerous window that should concern all Americans.

Click to read more ...

Muslim cartoons in Yale book could have violated UN Resolution

by Kay B. Day

Yale University Press purports to publish a book about religious cartoons without including the cartoons in the book--a prime example of a kneejerk reaction to religious oppression, the effects of global governance via UN resolutions like 7/19.Yale is defending a decision to delete cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad from the book scheduled for release Sept. 28, ‘The Cartoons That Shook the World,’ taking the position that publishing the images could incite violence. It’s what’s not being said, however, that is relevant to this story of censorship and global governance so popular with Democrats like former vice president Al Gore and our current Dem-controlled Congress. Yale might have violated a significant UN resolution had the university press included the cartoons.

I believe leftwingers are afraid to be critical of Islam. I tried a small experiment of my own. Recently on his Facebook page, a friend made a joke about seeing Jesus in a piece of toast or something like that—playing on the popular notion that an image of the Christian deity can appear in everything from a grilled cheese sandwich to concrete. And I added a comment along the lines of ‘Are you sure you didn’t see Allah?' No one touched that with a 10-foot pole.

The primary faith targeted for ridicule by leftist comics and sophists is of course Christianity. If you’re a rightwing evangelical, most leftists see you somewhere on the level of a worm. There’s also vitriol directed towards Mormonism and Scientology. And if that fails to please the leftists, they can always bash Israel—that seems to be official US policy these days.

Fact is Yale could be in violation of a UN resolution adopted in March by the Human Rights Council. President Barack Obama sought and won a seat on that council, reversing a policy established by President George W. Bush. Bush refused to be part of the council because of its antipathy towards Israel. The resolution of course violates America's sovereignty.

Most branded media said little about Obama’s decision. We reported it, like so many other stories of significance that are overlooked. Resolution 7/19 effectively places criticism of Islam on a unique pedestal—specifics are undefined but if you defame Islam, you are guilty. The resolution pays lip service to respect for all faiths, but only Islam is mentioned repeatedly. I see the resolution as a direct attack on freedom of speech.

Click to read more ...

FCC Associate General Counsel appointment re-ignites Fairness Doctrine concerns

by Chris Carter


TUSR contributor Chris Carter is following issues related to Constitutional limits on government intrusion into freedom of speech. As we predicted, the Obama administration appears to ignore limits on government intrusion by appointing a "Chief Diversity Officer" who wants radio stations to pay more fees in the interest of diversity. A tax by any other name would stink the same.--The EditorsDemocrats continually tell America the Fairness Doctrine is dead. But if the threat of the return of government broadcast censorship was truly dead, there would be no need to keep reminding us.

The latest reminder that the threat of the Fairness Doctrine survives, or more accurately its intended result – the destruction of conservative and Christian talk radio—is the appointment of Mark Lloyd as the FCC's new Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer. Prior to his appointment, Lloyd was a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress (CAP), a liberal think tank funded by far-left billionaire George Soros and others. Lloyd was also a broadcast journalist with NBC and CNN – adding another name to a long list of former journalists now working for President Barack Obama's administration.

A look into the past writings of Lloyd shows that he intends to use FCC regulations as a means to redistribute hundreds of millions of dollars from private broadcasters to public broadcasting. While at CAP, Lloyd wrote numerous reports on the Fairness Doctrine. One, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio, introduces the Fairness Doctrine's 'Trojan Horse' of localism and diversity requirements, and was parroted by Barack Obama during his presidential campaign.

Lloyd wrote in the 2007 report that private broadcasters would be subjected to new regulations that if not met, or if the FCC “could not effectively regulate in the public interest,” would generate an estimated $100 to $250 million in fines.

Click to read more ...

The US Report debuts ‘Biggest hypocrite in the US’—Pelosi takes first

Welcome to our new feature. We will now periodically, with a hat tip to impassioned statist Keith Olbermann, run a weekly ‘Biggest hypocrite in the US’ feature.

No one is more deserving of that title than the speaker of the Democrat-controlled US House of Representatives. WARNING: Watching this video may induce nausea in the viewer.

Thus, our first ‘Biggest hypocrite in the US’ award goes to California statist Nancy Pelosi.

[Help us get around statist search engines. Use the icons below to email or share.]

Do Democratic Party supporters threaten freedom of speech?

Updated on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 9:08PM by Kay B. Day, Editor

POLITICAL COMMENTARY BY KAY B. DAY

For quite some time I’ve heard rumors among conservative and centrist bloggers that their content is pushed to the bottom of search engine results and in some cases about two years ago, conservative news sites were removed altogether from results listed on a major search engine news site. And of course, I’ve experienced moments myself, when referrals from a search engine decrease after I’ve written an Op-Ed criticizing our “leaders” in Congress or the current Democratic presidential ticket.  I’ve noted the top search results from a major engine on just about any subject almost always includes Wikipedia, where anyone can edit and a mistake may not be corrected immediately, and often, left-leaning sites are presented as news, with no notation as to their obvious and declared political slant. Wikileaks is almost always at the top of political search results, and it's my impression that's a site that not only leans left, but whose data cannot be completely validated by traditional means. Why would I want to read about Gov. Sarah Palin at a website like Wikileaks?

I’ve done my best to ‘optimize’ for the top search engine. I certainly have credibility in my profession and I think I have a fairly well-done site. But I am basically writing off the top search engine on the Web.

Click to read more ...

Missouri law enforcement to assist in policing anti-Obama ads?

Mainstream media should hang their heads in shame for not reporting this story.

I didn’t believe the rumors that Missouri law enforcement would be policing anti-Obama ads to make sure the ads are truthful, but the rumor seems to be true. Missouri governor Matt Blunt has a statement up at his government website:

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

[T]he only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

Why has this story been ignored? Do you realize the implications of law enforcement officers acting as a "truth screener" for a presidential candidate? In my opinion, this is nothing more than an attempt to stifle those who are not fans of Barack Obama. The threat of a lawsuit is enough in some cases to silence the voices of others. Where are the outcries from media and journalists' organizations? Notice the silence?

TV KMOV has a video explaining the strategy.

This is probably the worst example of intrusion on freedom of speech I’ve ever witnessed. Stations have the sense to turn down ads that aren’t truthful. Obama supporters, though not technically tied to his campaign, have trashed Gov. Sarah Palin, hacked her personal email account and created a scare video about Sen. John McCain’s health. That video played on fear and innuendo.  Frankly during the Friday debate, McCain looked a lot more chipper than Obama. The junior senator from Illinois looked tired to me.

Hopefully, someone will file a lawsuit. Liberals talk a very good game when it comes to freedom of speech, but they rarely walk the walk. What do you think would happen if McCain did this? You and I both know. This is an example of the socialist tendencies I personally perceive in the Democratic Party leadership.

Meanwhile, if I were Sarah Palin, I’d be talking to lawyers and filing some paper. Never in the history of politics has a candidate been attacked so viciously.

I guess there’s not enough crime in Missouri. Maybe that’s why they can devote their taxpayers’ law enforcement resources to police anti-Obama ads. Blunt’s statement also said, “What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words…” Thank God I don’t live in Missouri.