1st Amendment ALERT:Michigan Considers Law to License Journalists

Steve just posted an article about regulating Blogs and now this from Michigan. These guys just hate the internet…..they can’t control it!

Before Michigan lawmakers do this, they might want to read the 1st amendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press………”

Michigan Considers Law to License Journalists

A Michigan lawmaker wants to license reporters to ensure they’re credible and vet them for “good moral character.”

Senator Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate reporters much like the state does with hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers. Patterson, who also practices constitutional law, says that the general public is being overwhelmed by an increasing number of media outlets–traditional, online and citizen generated–and an even greater amount misinformation.

“Legitimate media sources are critically important to our government,” he said.(They are?)

He told FoxNews.com that some reporters covering state politics don’t know what they’re talking about and they’re working for publications he’s never heard of, so he wants to install a process that’ll help him and the general public figure out which reporters to trust. (Thanks, but I think I can figure that out for myself, thank you!)

“We have to be able to get good information,” he said. “We have to be able to rely on the source and to understand the credentials of the source.” ( Yeah like good ole reliable truthful MSNBC or CNN?)

Critics say the proposed law will stem press freedoms and is bound to be politicized with disgruntles politicians going after reporters who don’t paint them in a positive light. (Surely not?)They say that adding members of the so-called fourth estate to the list of government regulated occupations would likely be found unconstitutional.(Yep! I’d say so too!)

“It’s misguided and it’s never going to fly,” said Kelly McBride, media ethics expert, the Poynter Institute. She is currently involved in a project examining the transformation of the journalism profession.

The bill was introduced on May 11 and has been referred to the state legislature’s Committee on Economic Development and Regulatory Reform.

“It’s a single sponsor bill. I think that says it all” said Mike MacLaren, executive director of the Michigan Press Association.

“I’ve not talked to the senator about this but whenever you see a single sponsor it’s usually indicative of what others think of it, which is not much.”

According to the bill, reporters must provide the licensing board proof of:

–”Good moral character” and demonstrate they have industry “ethics standards acceptable to the board.”

–Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent.

–Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information.

–Awards or recognition related to being a reporter.

–Three or more writing samples.

Reporters will also have to pay an application and registration fee.

The bill does not prevent reporters who are not licensed by the state from covering Michigan politics, and registering with the state would be voluntary.

Patterson conceded that he didn’t actually think his bill would be enacted into law. He says he’s winding down his two decade political career and wants to provoke public discussion before he leaves office.

“I would argue the first amendment feels otherwise,” said MacLaren. “He’s entitled to his thoughts. The first amendment protects those as well.”

The senator said that he feels that there’s no way to tell who’s a legitimate journalist and who’s just rewriting other reporters’ reporting and twisting facts.

“He is right, the problem is “How do I know where I’m getting my news from?”” said McBride, who is working on a Ford Foundation project for the Poynter Institute that address the issue of the growing fifth estate–non professional bloggers, community reporters, and citizen journalists–and the shrinking of the fourth estate, the traditional press. ( You do your own research and you can usually get a good idea on things like this)

But even though McBride agreed with Patterson’s concerns that people don’t know which news outlets to trust she said the bill introducing government-licensed reporters is just a bad idea.

Plus, she said that governments often try to control journalists through a credentialing process–and that these attempts are usually deemed unconstitutional. (Naaa, they wouldn’t do that would they?)

Fox News.com

ATLAS EXCLUSIVE: President Obama Skips Arlington to Spend Memorial Day with Louis Farrakhan

Another slap in the face to America and Christians. While the National Day of Prayer ceremony in the White House was canceled Obama spends Saturday of Memorial Day not at Arlington, but with Louis Farrakhan, a muslim. Mainstream media covering this up are just as guilty.

How did the President of the United States spend his Memorial day weekend? Honoring the glorious dead? Not a chance.

He pow-wowed with race baiter, Jew-hater Louis Farrakhan, a frequent visitor to the White House. Back in March, Farrakhan blamed the Jews for O’s woes.

“The Zionists are in control of Congress,” Farrakhan said  as he listed off a slew of Jewish economic advisers, adding that the “bloodsuckers of the poor” were rewarded with a bailout.

America is in trouble.

Jackie Calmes, a New York Times reporter who covers the White House, was in Chicago covering the President’s visit there this weekend. On Saturday night, she was one of the reporters who was assigned to the White House pool of reporters covering the President on his evening out having dinner at what appears to be, according to the Chicago reporters on site, the home of  Louis Farrakhan. The official line is that it was the home of Marty Nesbitt (treasurer of OFA — Organizing for America), but the house is “is tax exempt for being a religious institution.” The press pool van was parked nearby. Here is what Jackie Calmes reported on behalf of the press pool:

Sent: Sat May 29 21:08:47 2010
Subject: Pool Report 5

At 7:20 local time the pool was holding at Woodlawn and 49th, next to a large sandstone mansion that the Chicago reporters say is the home of one Louis Farrakhan. Our Secret Service agent allowed us off the bus (Air!) and as a dozen of us congregated on the sidewalk, inevitably some shoes touched grass. Immediately a polite man in jeans and Tshirt emerged to ask us to stay off the grass. Though this grass was the curbside city property, we obliged.
Soon, however, he was pacing and talking on a cell phone. He went inside the mansion’s black wrought iron fence, crossed the well-landscaped yard, lifted a water bucket behind rose bushes and, voila!, a walkie-talkie. He was heard to refer to “the CIA” once he began speaking into it.

Soon he approached our agent, asking him to move the van and its occupants, though your pooler could not hear much else he said. But the agent said, “How is this a security breach?” And he asked if the house was a government property. The man said something else and at that point the agent stuck out his hand to shake hands and introduced himself as a Secret Service agent. He added, “Sir, I can assure you that we will do nothing to interfere with whatever is going on in there.”

The man is back to pacing and talking on his cell, walkie-talkie in hand.

A co-pooler searched the Internet for the address and found it listed on a Web site called NotForTourists and another called Taxexemptworld.com.
Indeed, another pooler found a county Web site that confirmed this property is tax exempt for being a religious institution.

Reinforcements arrived–three men in Tshirts reading “Wide or Die!” One surly man has been staring daggers at us. Asked if this is Minister Farrakhan’s house, he just stared at your pooler. Asked again, he said, “I don’t have no comment.”
You should have the WH statement on top kill’s failure. At nearly 8 pm local time we are still holding while POTUS and family remain at the Nesbitts.

Sent: Sat May 29 22:07:24 2010
Subject: Pool Report 5a

It’s 8:45 and nearly dark; your pool has retreated back inside the van. We’re outnumbered now by roughly a dozen Fruit of Islam agents for the Nation of Islam. As each casually dressed man arrives, he exchanges elaborate handshake/hug/double air-kisses with others. Two walked by your pooler chanting “Islam.”
Several have filmed and photographed your poolers, the van and its license plates with their cell phones.
One came and stood close to a couple poolers and OUR agent. He asked if he could help. No answer. He asked again. The man said no. The agent said, “Secret Service — Please move away from this group of people.”
He did.
Soon the agent asked us to go in the bus.
We did.
But several poolers, hearing the call of nature, are asking whether they might ask the Fruit about using their bathroom.
Still holding. No pun intended.

And now, have a look at how mainstream media (AP) covered this story (and remember, AP feeds all the news outlets throughout the world. This is what they are hearing about, not Farrakhan.) The media is covering all this up, with stories like this below:

Back in Chicago, Obamas enjoy weekend barbecue

Atlasshruggs2000.typepad.com

BP should plug the Spill with Speaker Pelosi

Is there ever enough blaming the Bush Administration? When will these people ever take some blame? How many times did GW blame the Clinton administration?

Pelosi blames Bush administration for BP oil spill.

By: Joel S. Gehrke Jr.
Special to the Washington Examiner

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., blamed the Bush administration for any lack of oversight leading up to the Gulf oil spill. The Obama administration, on the other hand, is blameless.

From Talk Radio News Service:

“Many of the people appointed in the Bush administration are still burrowed in the agencies that are supposed to oversee the [oil] industry,” Pelosi said when asked if Democrats could have prevented or mitigated the crisis by keeping a closer watch on the industry.

Added the Speaker, “the cozy relationships between the Bush administration’s agency leadership and the industry is clear…I’ve heard no complaints from my members about the way the president has handled it,” Pelosi stated.

On Friday, the Washington Examiner requested that Speaker Pelosi’s office release the list of Bush appointees to whom she was referring. We’ll let you know when we hear back.

AZ governor suspends Dem AG from immigration-law defense

The plot thickens….smart move by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer:

The Arizona immigration-enforcement bill has created a national debate, but it may pale in comparison to the infighting in Arizona.  The Attorney General expected to defend the law is a Democrat expected to run against Governor Jan Brewer in November, and Terry Goddard’s meeting this week with Eric Holder was apparently the final straw for Brewer.  She took advantage of a clause in SB1070 and hired outside counsel to represent Arizona in the case and suspended Goddard from it:

Late Friday night as the Memorial Day weekend began, Arizona’s Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in effect, suspended the state’s Democratic attorney general from defending the new law in upcoming legal challenges. The measure, known as S.B. 1070, is due to take effect this summer and, among other things, allows local police under federal guidelines to check the immigration status of people they stop. (For a full list of background stories, see Related Items below.)

The governor’s abrupt action against Terry Goddard, her likely Democratic opponent in this fall’s gubernatorial election, came after months of disputes between the two and at the end of a long day of legal maneuvering in both Arizona and the nation’s capital.

As the state’s chief lawyer, Goddard would be expected to take the lead in defending Arizona against challenges to the Legislature’s action, which erupted after years of state frustration with the federal government’s inability to secure the state border with Mexico against illegal immigrants, drugs and criminals.

However, Goddard has vocally opposed the measure, so much so that the Legislature gave the governor advance authority to hire outside legal counsel.

On Friday, Goddard met with the Obama administration’s Atty. Gen. Eric Holder in Washington, then held a news conference just hours before Brewer’s handpicked attorneys were to meet with Holder, an outspoken critic of the law.

Brewer said, “I believe the federal government should use its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the State of Arizona.”

Seeing apparent collusion between the two Democrat lawyers, Brewer pulled the plug Friday night.

It’s hard to imagine how Goddard thinks he can benefit from opposing the law or aligning himself so closely with Holder, an outspoken critic of the law.  Arizonans overwhelmingly support the law, and they’re not likely to be budged by Holder’s scolding.  Arizona voters will also wonder why Goddard is spending his time fighting Arizona rather than getting better cooperation from the Obama administration on immigration enforcement and border security.

The legislature also gave Goddard a vote of no confidence in its opt-out for Brewer.  That adds to the baggage Goddard will have to carry into his election.  On top of that, the longer this stays a national issue, the more Arizonans will dig in their heels — and the longer resentment towards Goddard will continue.

Hotair.com

Controversy Continues to Grow Over the Joe Sestak Job Offer & Bill Clinton

Former President Bill Clinton is now claiming that he carried the offer to Sestak of an appointment to an unpaid position on a Presidential Advisory Board in return for dropping out of the race. But that story is not plausible because as a sitting member of Congress he could not have legally served on such a Presidential Board. So is the White House now lying to the American people about the matter?

Moreover, indirectly offering the job through former President Clinton still violates the statute, as does the offer of an unpaid position. That is why Issa, Mark Levin, and others are saying that what the White House is publicly admitting still amounts to a federal crime, which is an impeachable offense.

Obama Sending 1,200 US Troops to Border, but not to Enforce Immigration

How much sense does this make? It just shows once again Obama is not abiding by his Oath to uphold the Constitution, but instead obeys Mexican President Felipe Calderon who said “US troops OK, but no stopping illegals”.

Then consider the extraordinarily worrisome information that DHS is concerned that terrorists from Somalia may be seeking to enter the United States by running our nation’s border in Texas.

Now stop and put these two  stories together- the United States Senate has refused funding to station 6,000 national guard troops on the border that is supposed to separate our nation from Mexico although the previous day’s report disclosed that DHS is now concerned about the infiltration of terrorists into our country along the Mexican border!

We  probably should not be amazed when you consider that just last week, on May 20th, Felipe Calderon, the President of Mexico, the country that is sends our nation more illegal aliens than any other country in the world and the country through which more narcotics flow en route to the United States was invited to address the United States Congress and called for the enactment of Comprehensive Immigration Reform and condemned the government of the State of Arizona for enacting legislation that was enacted to discourage illegal aliens from coming to Arizona and setting up shop!

What is absolutely amazing is that Calderon’s remarks were greeted with a standing ovation by members of the United States government who were sworn to uphold our nation’s Constitution and laws and protect the sovereignty of this nation!

Mexico Says: ‘U.S. troops OK, but no stopping illegals!’

At least we know where they stand don’t we. Unlike some over here that say one thing and do another.

By Chelsea Schilling

---

INVASION USA

Mexico: ‘U.S. troops OK, but no stopping illegals!’

Foreign gov’t warns 1,200 soldiers must not enforce immigration laws

The Mexican government has announced it respects the Obama administration’s decision to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S. southern border to counter cross-border drug and weapons trafficking – just as long as the troops don’t enforce U.S. immigration laws.

The Embassy of Mexico in Washington, D.C., released the following statement on May 25:

Regarding the administration’s decision to send 1,200 National Guard servicemen to the U.S. Southern border, the government of Mexico trusts that this decision will help to channel additional U.S. resources to enhance efforts to prevent the illegal flows of weapons and bulk cash into Mexico, which provide organized crime with its firepower and its ability to corrupt.Additionally, the government of Mexico expects that National Guard personnel will strengthen U.S. operations in the fight against transnational organized crime that operates on both sides of our common border and that it will not, in accordance to its legal obligations, conduct activities directly linked to the enforcement of immigration laws [emphasis added].

Upon learning of the statement, former Rep. Tom Tancredo told WND, “The Mexican government can be assured that there will be no attempt to enforce immigration law by the National Guard because there is no attempt to enforce immigration law by the president of the United States.”

Statement from Mexican Embassy in Washington, D.C.

Tancredo said he is certain the statement was released after the Mexican government communicated its expectations with the White House.

“I guarantee you that before Barack Obama decided to send the troops, he called the president of Mexico to let him know,” Tancredo said. “Things like this don’t happen without that kind of communication. This is proof of that. What they’re doing here is reaffirming what the president told them.”

Tancredo said 1,200 troops for a 2,000 mile border is an inadequate number because there have been requests for up to 8,000, with 6,000 in the Arizona area alone.

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo

“Remember, 1,200 means 400 in three shifts,” he said. “If you do not have three shifts, what does it matter? You have 1,200 out there for eight hours a day and then you pull them back? It’s ludicrous!”

Arizona border residents told Fox News today that Obama’s wavering immigration policy is only making things worse.

“Every time our president talks to the Mexican president, or every time the word amnesty comes over the Mexican news, there is a flood of people,” said one unnamed resident who feared retaliation.

The residents said troops won’t deter illegal aliens and drug smugglers.

“There’s guys out here with no guns, and they’re our troops,” she said. “The Mexicans think we’re nuts.”

As WND recently reported, thousands of illegal aliens apprehended along the 2,000 mile border stretching through California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas aren’t even from Mexico. Many are citizens of countries that are known sponsors of terrorism, including Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Syria and Iran.

Tancredo said he doesn’t believe the U.S. government’s decision to send troops is intended to improve the situation.

“I don’t think anybody thinks this matters,” he said. “Obama certainly doesn’t. That’s why he’s doing it.”

He added, “The desire is not to fix the problem. The desire is to have amnesty. All of this is in anticipation of amnesty.”

Worldnetdaily.com

FACT: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.

It appears Mexican President Felipe Calderon is attempting to help President Obama with his assault on the 2nd amendment coming thru the back door, by making it look like it is to fight the “drug cartels.”  Calderon also asks not to have the 1,200 US troops going to the border to  not stop “illegals”, but only drug smugglers. What a joke!

Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.

EXCLUSIVE: You’ve heard this shocking “fact” before — on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

– Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it to reporters on a flight to Mexico City.

– CBS newsman Bob Schieffer referred to it while interviewing President Obama.

– California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a Senate hearing: “It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors … come from the United States.”

– William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that “there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States.”

There’s just one problem with the 90 percent “statistic” and it’s a big one:

It’s just not true.

In fact, it’s not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

What’s true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency’s assistant director, “is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S.”

But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.

“Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market,” Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.

A Look at the Numbers

In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced — and of those, 90 percent — 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover — were found to have come from the U.S.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.

Read more here:

Phoenix Suns get $140 million TARP bailout and in turn support Obama against Arizona immigration law

This looks like Chicago style politics to me, straight from the White House: At least you’ll know why behind the scenes certain people or organizations are against the Arizona Illegal Immigration Bill.

Phoenix Suns get $140 million TARP bailout and support Obama against Arizona immigration law

There are a lot of small business owners who buy season tickets to the Phoenix Suns. The other day we were talking about why all of the sudden the Suns were so much against the recent Arizona immigration bill 1070 passed by Jan Brewer our governor of Arizona. This is the exact same law that has been  in  Federal immigration statutes for over seventy years and the exact same immigration law that California has had for decades.

So why are the Suns so anti 1070? We have just found out that the Suns owner Robert Sarver received a $140 million TARP bailout from Mr. Obama. Do you think there is a connection?

Nothing remarkable here. There really is no connection. Move along. Move along.

And we can’t help wonder what exactly is so critical to the economy that people have to go see others play basketball?

The Phoenix Suns: Progressive X’s and O’s

2010 May 18

JC Arenas

” Pardon me for being cynical, but is team owner Robert Sarver using his franchise to support the federal government’s anti-Arizona immigration law stance because his bank, Western Alliance Bancorporation, received $140 million in TARP funds?

Moreover, in 2008, Sarver was a big contributor to then pro-Amnesty presidential candidate, John McCain, but now that McCain has switched sides on the issue, Sarver has thus far only donated money to Democratic candidates for the 2010 midterm elections.” More…

‘Jobs’ bill deals with leftover costs from Obamacare

Here’s more “hidden” expense from Obamacare that Steve and I told you about many times……….the “doc fix”…..

One of the costliest components of a $190 billion bill advertised as a “jobs” bill is a provision that would forestall a 21.3 percent reduction in Medicare physician payments that is scheduled to take effect next month (in Obamacare).

At a cost of nearly $65 billion, the “doc fix” measure, as it has been nicknamed, would stave off such Medicare cuts for the next three years. Typically, Congress has voted to prevent these cuts on an annual basis, even though they were built into the system as a way to keep the cost of treating Medicare patients from getting out of control.

This year, lawmakers promised doctors a long-term fix if they would back the Democratic health care reform bill. Initially, this expenditure was included in President Obama’s $1 trillion national health program, but it was stripped out in order to keep the bill from adding $59 billion to the deficit.

Now it comprises nearly one fifth of the cost of the jobs package.

Ironically, this latest fix lacks the enthusiastic backing of the American Medical Association. According to the AMA, the formula that calls for the cuts, known as the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate, is flawed and needs to be completely revised to prevent even bigger cuts in three years, when the current fix expires.

But there is little political will to repeal this formula because it would cost tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars.

“Lawmakers must realize that the underlying policy problem will return larger than ever in 2014,” James Rohack, president of the AMA, warned.

Washington Examiner