This page will be dedicated in showing the double standard that liberals and conservatives have. Liberals now feel emboldened to be intolerant, judgmental and nasty to anyone that they don't agree with. Instead of debate they turn to whining, complaining and acting like spoiled children when they don't get their way.

archives on the case are here

The broadcast network evening newscasts, which didn't care in 1993 about the Clinton administration's decision to ask for the resignations of all 93 U.S. attorneys, went apoplectic Tuesday night in leading with the “controversy,” fed by the media, over the Bush administration for replacing eight U.S. attorneys in late 2006 -- nearly two years after rejecting the idea of following the Clinton policy of replacing all the attorneys. Anchor Charles Gibson promised that ABC would “look at all the angles tonight,” but he skipped the Clinton comparison. Gibson teased: “New controversy at the White House after a string of U.S. attorneys is fired under questionable circumstances. There are calls for the Attorney General to resign.”

CBS's Katie Couric declared that “the uproar is growing tonight over the firing of eight federal prosecutors by the Justice Department” and fill-in NBC anchor Campbell Brown teased: “The Attorney General and the firestorm tonight over the controversial dismissal of several federal prosecutors. Was it political punishment?” Brown soon asserted that “it's a story that has been brewing for weeks and it exploded today” -- an explosion fueled by the news media.

ABC's World News, the CBS Evening News and the NBC Nightly News on March 13 led with and ran multiple stories on the controversy, which were clearly propelled, in part, by attacks by Senate Democrats who demanded the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. But Justice Department clumsiness, which provided hooks for those Democratic attacks, does not absolve the news media of the responsibility for putting the replacement of U.S. attorneys into greater context for viewers so they would understand how Bush's predecessor removed every one (actually all but one as Brit Hume explained) so that Clinton, as is being charged in the current case, could replace them with attorneys more favorable to the administration's agenda.

Unlike ABC, CBS and NBC watchers, cable viewers got a hint of context as Steve Centanni, on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, pointed out how “the White House acknowledged there were talks in 2005, just after the President won his second term, about terminating all 93 U.S. attorneys just as President Clinton unceremoniously did 1993 after he won the White House.” The point made it onto CNN's The Situation Room -- barely -- thanks to guest Terry Jeffries who raised it during the 4pm EDT hour of the program.

Last week, on the same day as the Libby verdict, Katie Couric introduced a full March 6 CBS Evening News story by Sharyl Attkisson, who failed to remind viewers of Clinton's wholesale firings:

“Another big story in Washington tonight also involves federal prosecutors, or at least former prosecutors. Eight U.S. attorneys were axed by the Bush administration last year, and some Democrats say the firings were politically motivated. Today some of those ex-prosecutors told Congress about the pressure they felt from top Republicans.”

 

Back in 1993, the networks weren't so interested in Clinton's maneuver. The April 1993 edition of the MRC's MediaWatch newsletter recounted:

Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, a very unusual practice. Republicans charged the Clintonites made the move to take U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens off the House Post Office investigation of Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. The network response: ABC and CBS never mentioned it. CNN's World News and NBC Nightly News provided brief mentions, with only NBC noting the Rosty angle. Only NBC's Garrick Utley kept the old outrage, declaring in a March 27 "Final Thoughts" comment: "Every new President likes to say 'Under me, it's not going to be politics as usual.' At the Justice Department, it looks as if it still is."

 

“Washington Area to Lose 2 High-Profile Prosecutors; All U.S. Attorneys Told to Tender Resignations,” read a front page story in the March 24, 1993 Washington Post. Two days later, in an article on page A-22, according to Nexis, “Clinton Defends Ousting U.S. Attorneys; GOP Steps Up Criticism of Attorney General's 'March Massacre,'” Dan Balz cited how then-Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos, who appeared on Tuesday's Good Morning America and World News to comment on the current controversy, defended Bill Clinton's decision:

President Clinton yesterday attempted to rebut Republican criticism of the administration's decision to seek resignations from all U.S. attorneys, saying what he was asking was routine and less political than piecemeal replacements.

 

"All those people are routinely replaced and I have not done anything differently," Clinton told reporters during a photo opportunity in the Oval Office. He called the decision more politically appropriate "than picking people out one by one."

But Republicans in Congress pressed their criticism of the decision, announced Tuesday by Attorney General Janet Reno, with Senate Minority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) describing the decision as "Reno's March Massacre."

Rep. Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) urged the administration to allow Jay B. Stephens, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, to stay on the job until he completes his investigation of the House Post Office scandal and the role House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) may have played in it.

Stephens said Tuesday he was about a month away from "a critical decision with regard to resolution" of the probe....

Presidential spokesman George Stephanopoulos said it was not unusual for a president to ask for such resignations, although Republicans said presidents in the past have not asked for mass resignations, replacing them over a period of time as replacements were found.

Stephanopoulos said only those U.S. attorneys who are in the middle of trials will be allowed to continue working and said an interim appointee could capably pick up Stephens's investigation of the House Post Office scandal, with no serious disruption or political interference....

For a flavor of Tuesday night, March 13 coverage on ABC, CBS and NBC, the leads on each:

ABC's World News. Anchor Charles Gibson's tease:

“Tonight: new controversy at the White House after a string of U.S. attorneys is fired under questionable circumstances. There are calls for the Attorney General to resign.”

 

Gibson's opening:

“The Attorney General of the United States is under fire. Alberto Gonzales is fending off charge that he carried out a purge, firing eight U.S. attorneys for political reasons on orders from the White House. Across the country there are 93 U.S. attorneys. They prosecute cases for the government. They can be hired and fired by the President. The accusation is these eight were fired because they refused to do the Bush administration's political bidding. We look at all the angles tonight, starting with Pierre Thomas at the Justice Department.”

 

After Thomas, Gibson did a Q and A with Jan Crawford Greenburg and George Stephanopoulos about the situation, but Stephanopoulos, who stuck to assessing the status of Gonzales, did not mention his defense of Clinton's action.

CBS Evening News. Katie Couric led:

“Hello, everyone. The uproar is growing tonight over the firing of eight federal prosecutors by the Justice Department. The department had told Congress the White House was not involved in the firings, but e-mails released today show that the firings had been discussed for two years by officials of the Justice Department and the White House. So we'll begin at the White House tonight with correspondent Jim Axelrod.”

 

Following Axelrod, CBS went to a second full story from Bob Orr on how a former U.S. attorney charged that Gonzales “has let politics infect the justice system” and then Couric conducted a brief Q and A with Axelrod and Orr over whether Gonzales will be fired. Couric also noted how Axelrod's younger brother worked for one of the fired prosecutors.

NBC Nightly News. The tease from fill-in anchor Campbell Brown:

“The Attorney General and the firestorm tonight over the controversial dismissal of several federal prosecutors. Was it political punishment?”

 

Brown opened:

“Good evening. The Attorney General of the United States is under fire but vowing he will not resign. It's a story that has been brewing for weeks and it exploded today. The key issue, a decision by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to fire eight federal prosecutors and questions about whether that decision was politically motivated and driven by the White House. Attorney General Gonzales' top deputy has already resigned, but the President is standing by his man. We begin tonight with chief White House correspondent David Gregory.”

 

Following a piece on Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace's remarks about homosexuals, Brown discussed both topics with Tim Russert.

Hypocrisy alert!

A heretofore "unknown" 2004 interview with Barack Obama by leftwing radio host Randi Rhodes has just emerged. And basically, as you shall hear, Obama is saying do as I say, not as I do. In this case he was referring to quickly forcing legislation through congress. As you can hear in this  interview, uncovered by Naked Emporer News,  the hypocrisy seems so massive that it is destined to go viral on the Web. It features Randi Rhodes back during her Air America days interviewing then senator-elect Barack Obama on November 22, 2004.  And despite the fact that Randi is currently pretty well hidden from public view, you can be sure she will soon be talked about again because of her inadvertent exposure of incredible hypocrisy on the part of Obama. And what was the hypocrisy? His complaint that the Bush administration was rushing legislation through congress without giving the legislators time to read the bills or allowing for much debate.

To get the full flavor of the Obama hypocrisy, be sure to listen to the YouTube clip which also includes a video of MSNBC's Chuck Todd discussing why Rahm Emanuel felt the need to Rahm, I mean ram, legislation through congress. Here is the transcript which picks up at the 55 second mark:

BARACK OBAMA: ...When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them. 

RANDI RHODES: 14 pounds it was!

BARACK OBAMA:  Yeah. And it gets rushed through without any clear deliberation or debate then these kinds of things happen.  And I think that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean you remember that there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration.

The YouTube clip then segues to comments made last March by Chuck Todd of MSNBC describing Rahm Emanuel's rationale for rushing legislation through congress:

CHUCK TODD: And a few things that I feel like that I've picked up from these guys. Number one is that they are very aware. Rahm Emanuel is Chief of staff...had experience in the Clinton White House. And he is trying to learn every lesson from those days of Clinton and apply it to Obama. So number one is, don't deal with just one big issue. One of the reasons why, for instance, they thought health care went down is you had one issue sitting out there when Hillary Clinton introduced it. We all focused on it in the media. And the opposition got to organize and stop it. And you can kill anything in this town if you set an idea out here long enough and give the opposition time to organize and stop something. And I don't care which side of the aisle you're on. You can kill anything in Washington doing that. And I think they're attacking it this way: saying we're going to push 3 or 4 different things. Because they believe the opposition won't have time to unite and kill all of it.

So kudos to Randi Rhodes for exposing the massive hypocrisy of one Barack Obama although she wasn't aware of it at the time. And why is it that it is once a blog, and not the MSM, that has dug up this very revealing interview?

• Impeach Obama
• Al Qaeda's favorite days: 9/11/01 and 11/04/08 
• Work Harder. Obama needs the money

The bumper stickers and posters sold at "Free Market Warrior" at Concord Mills are meant to be "biting," the kiosk's owner Loren Spivack said.

At least one passerby found them racist and bigoted, and took time to tell the mall in a letter and a letter to the editor of the Charlotte Observer. Whatever your opinion, the fact is this: At the end of July, Free Market Warrior will not be allowed at Concord Mills Mall. The kiosk chain's owner shared e-mail correspondence with NewsChannel 36 that explains that the mall management has decided that the items sold are not "neutral" enough. The lease will be allowed to expire July 31, 2009 without an option to renew.

Spivack, who first leased the space this spring, says the decision came as a shock to him. He says mall management seemed pleased with the kiosk just a few weeks ago.  "Nobody in that mall is selling anything from a conservative perspective. Plenty of people are selling things with a liberal perspective, with a pro-Obama perspective," he said. "Given that we are in America and not North Korea, we probably should have some stuff on the other side."

Spivack says he is careful not to sell things that personally attack a politician and wants a fair exchange of ideas. "The material that I sell is about politics and ideas," he told Newschannel 36. "It's all legitimate criticism."  Concord Mills, owned by Simon Property Group, would not comment for this story, cited a policy against talking about tenant and landlord situations. 

Spivack says the company first contacted him about his lease after a letter to the editor appeared in the Charlotte Observer. The author, recent UNC-Charlotte graduate Jennifer Ibanez, wrote"  "Free Market Warrior, a kiosk located adjacent to Bass Pro Shops, specializes in memorabilia embellished with pro-confederacy statements as well as those opposing both the government and President Obama. In addition, these products support ideas such as racisms, sexism, and even slavery. While freedom of speech is a Constitutional right it's difficult not to believe that something just isn't quite right here.

"I find it appalling that Concord Mills, North Carolina’s #1 visitor attraction, would condone such a message to be portrayed by their vendors and can't imagine how the outside visitors' perceptions of North Carolinians have been skewed by such an establishment. "It’s hard to stay open-minded when such uncivilized and outdated ideas are endorsed on a daily basis. It's 2009; please, let's at least try to put this type of bigotry to an end." Ibanez told NewsChannel 36 she was so offended, she wrote the mall as well. She says a friend of hers also wrote in. Both threatened not to return to Concord Mills.

The owner of the mall group, Mel Simon, has been a generous contributor to Democratic causes and politicians, including Barack Obama.  Spivack thinks the decision about his lease is political. "If they have decided to make their malls conservative/libertarian free zones, where those opinions can't be expressed, I do think it's their right to do that, but it's our rights to publicize the fact that they are doing that," he said.  If the issue is about causing offense, he told us, the mall should police other stores. Spivack sent NewsChannel 36 pictures of several T-shirts and banners from novelty stores at the mall that were so crude we've chosen not to share them.  "What I think the mall should have done if they thought that we were expressing one set of ideas and not another, is that they should have gotten another store to come in and sell their ideas," he said. "I would've been all in favor of that. I would have helped them move in."

NewsChannel 36 has been swamped with e-mails and comments on this story. A spokesperson for the mall did not return a call Thursday about the e-mails, which were hand-carried to the office by reporter Rad Berky. A receptionist unlocked a door and took the e-mails but we don't know if anyone read them.

As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding "secret energy meetings" with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama's "clean coal" policies. One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged "presidential communications." The refusal, approved by White House counsel Greg Craig's office, is the latest in a series of cases in which Obama officials have opted against public disclosure. Since Obama pledged on his first day in office to usher in a "new era" of openness, "nothing has changed," says David -Sobel, a lawyer who litigates FOIA cases. "For a president who said he was going to bring unprecedented transparency to government, you would certainly expect more than the recycling of old Bush secrecy policies."

The hard line appears to be no accident. After Obama's much-publicized Jan. 21 "transparency" memo, administration lawyers crafted a key directive implementing the new policy that contained a major loophole, according to FOIA experts. The directive, signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, instructed federal agencies to adopt a "presumption" of disclosure for FOIA requests. This reversal of Bush policy was intended to restore a standard set by President Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno. But in a little-noticed passage, the Holder memo also said the new standard applies "if practicable" for cases involving "pending litigation." Dan Metcalfe, the former longtime chief of FOIA policy at Justice, says the passage and other "lawyerly hedges" means the Holder memo is now "astonishingly weaker" than the Reno policy. (The visitor-log request falls in this category because of a pending Bush-era lawsuit for such records.)

Administration officials say the Holder memo was drafted by senior Justice lawyers in consultation with Craig's office. The separate standard for "pending" lawsuits was inserted because of the "burden" it would impose on officials to go "backward" and reprocess hundreds of old cases, says Melanie Ann Pustay, who now heads the FOIA office. White House spokesman Ben LaBolt says Obama "has backed up his promise" with actions including the broadcast of White House meetings on the Web. (Others cite the release of the so-called torture memos.) As for the visitor logs, LaBolt says the policy is now "under review."

THERE are objects or possessions that scream "I'm better than you" - items that remind the average Joe of a cultural and economic divide that cannot be crossed. It's a $10,000 bottle of wine, a Hummer, a real Rolex. This year's conspicuous object seems to be the private jet.

Once, this prized possession was associated with corporate executives and reclusive stars. Or with congressmen on a junket. There was nothing political, or at least nothing partisan, about them. But since October, when John Edwards was tweaked for flying on planes borrowed from Archer Daniels Midland and other companies, they have become what conservatives have portrayed as symbols of liberal hypocrisy, much as the Volvo was a generation ago. The argument is: these people pretend to be "of the people" or at least "for the people" but they are elitists who fly far above the rest of us. When the leftist film maker Michael Moore used his publisher's plane on a recent book tour, for example, critics lambasted him for enjoying the corporate high life. The Hollywood activist Laurie David, the wife of Larry David of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," was labeled a "Gulfstream liberal" in an article in the latest issue of The Atlantic Monthly for condemning S.U.V. owners while flying around in private planes.

Arianna Huffington, a financial backer of anti-S.U.V. commercials, has also borne the brunt of criticism for traveling in a jet; and a supermarket magnate, Ron Burkle, is perhaps as well known for his eight-bedroom 767 as he is for the more than $1.5 million that he has given to the Democratic Party since 2000.

Republicans, of course, avoid the hassles of commercial flight at least as often as Democrats. The former chairman of Enron, Kenneth Lay, even flew on private planes to his company's bankruptcy hearings. But no one accuses Republicans and their wealthy supporters of hypocrisy, of being "Gulfstream conservatives.'' "Democrats get hit with a double whammy," said Bill Blomquist, a political science professor at Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis. "It's not just expensive and indulgent. It's also somehow against the principles of the party."

David Horowitz, a conservative purveyor of the hypocrisy accusations, says that the attitude is "everyone should ride bicycles, but we'll take the jets."

"The schools thing is a good example of that," Mr. Horowitz says. "They send their kids to private schools, but they oppose vouchers."

The image issue, the disconnect between average Americans and the celebrities who claim to love them, starts with the sticker price. The smallest Gulfstream sells for $11.5 million. An entry-level 25-hour share of private flight time, at companies like New Jersey's NetJets, costs more than $100,000.

This is not the kind of travel available to "the lunch pail guy, or the person at the hair salon," says the Republican pollster John Zogby. "They'll never see it."

Then there's the criticism of the rich environmentalist who flies in a private jet to Sierra Club fund-raisers. A midsize Gulfstream 200 uses from 1,200 to 1,500 gallons of fuel for a cross-country flight, so if it holds four people, giving them the chance to stretch out on the leather sofas, each person would use about 350 gallons of fuel. That's 10 times the amount of fuel used per person by 130 passengers flying coast to coast on a Boeing 737-300.

It's also nearly the equivalent of driving a Hummer cross country, twice. Mr. Burkle's 767, if it carries eight people across the continent, would each use 1,000 gallons of fuel, enough for eight Hummer trips from southern Brazil to Dearborn, Mich

Mr. Burkle did not return calls for comment, nor did Ms. Huffington.

Ms. David, whose husband was a creator of "Seinfeld,'' also could not be reached for comment. Liana Schwarz, who works closely with her at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group of which Ms. David is a member of the board, said that she was out of town. Ms. Schwarz would not say if Ms. David used a private plane to get there.

Such silence, according to conservatives and even some liberals, only proves that the party of the New Deal is blind to the political danger of visible self-indulgence.

Administration's proposals aim to reduce tax breaks for U.S.-based multinationals that it says gives them an unfair advantage over domestic rivals.

Fannie and Freddie are paying out those bonuses anyway – regardless of Barney Frank’s demands and the populist furor over AIG’s bonus payouts. Frank, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, sent a letter Friday to James Lockhart, the federal regulator overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, asking him to rescind retention bonuses of at least $1 million planned for four top executives over the next two years. But in letter obtained by POLITICO, Lockhart tells Frank there’s a “great risk” of key employees walking away if they don’t pay out the promised bonuses. These Fannie and Freddie employee retention programs were established because federal officials believed top executives will play a critical role in ensuring the successful turnaround of the companies.

The federal government took Fannie and Freddie over last September, placing them into a “conservatorship” overseen by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, giving the federal government now has an even tighter hand on the mortgage giants. “In September, when the conservatorships were established, I made clear to Congress that we had developed, with the new CEOs and with an outside pay consultant, employee retention programs” in consultation with Treasury, Lockhart wrote. “I stated then my view that it was very important to work with the current management teams and employees to encourage them to stay and to continue to make important improvements to the enterprises.”

So far, most employees have stayed and “have been working far more hours, with far less compensation than they did prior to conservatorship,” Lockhart said. The senior managers responsible for the bad decisions have departed, he added. Lockhart also argues that the Obama administration has given Fannie and Freddie a key role in its plan to stabilize the housing market and preventing foreclosures – and the success of their effort depends on keeping the expert staff on hand. “But I can also say that we run a great risk of these same employees deciding this is the last straw and walking away,” he wrote. “The loss of key personnel would be devastating to the companies and to the government’s efforts to stabilize the housing system.”

So these people who are culpable for the mortgage madness get a pass from the media and from Congress, yet AIG who were ALSO contractually obligated to get paid are thrown under the bus. Were begged to stay and help fix the mess left by others, being paid $1 a year, working 14 hour days and being treated like criminals by the Obama administration and ACORN. Disgusting doesn't even cover it.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's Treasury secretary says the administration will unveil a series of rules and measures in the coming months to limit the ability of international companies to avoid U.S. taxes. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday that Obama will propose legislation to limit U.S. companies' ability to shelter foreign earnings from taxation in the U.S. He also said the administration will try to limit wealthy Americans' ability to use tax havens to avoid taxation.He did not immediately provide details.

This coming from Turbo Tax Cheat Gietner.

Around noon today Bellantoni noted via Twitter: breaking Helen Thomas tells filmcrew Bush worst POTUS in history, "too many people are dead" in Iraq sez Kennedy, Johnson best #whpresscorps 

Below I've appended all of Bellantoni's tweets relating to Thomas's interview in reverse chronological order:

• In re: lots of Thomas questions - I overheard taping by a film crew fr Barcelona, & didn't get exact quote and don't know when taping, sorry
• Bobby Jindal was 'pitiful,' Helen Thomas tells film crew, right before making a 'Slumdog Millionaire' crack
• Helen Thomas tells film crew Obama "needs more courage" #whpresscorps #journotwits
• Thomas says Cheney "sinister" #whpresscorps
• Thomas says "it doesn't matter" that #whpresscorps "thought i was weird" says, "i don't need to be a heroine."
• breaking Helen Thomas tells filmcrew Bush worst POTUS in history, "too many people are dead" in Iraq sez Kennedy, Johnson best #whpresscorps

They had to outsource the response tonight, the Republican party. They had to outsource to someone who had nothing to do with Congress because the Republicans in Congress had nothing to do with the programs he was talking about tonight or the record he referred to.

First of all, one might point out that Piyush “Bobby” Jindal was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 2004 to 2006. Furthermore, Republican governors are quite important members of the party. The idea that the GOP was bringing in an outsider is flat out wrong. The pièce de résistance, however, was the idea that Republicans had to “outsource” the response to Governor Jindal. Using the term “outsourced” in reference to the performance of a young Indian-American is a very poor choice of words – especially by a cable anchor who very recently fretted over the effect of a certain New York Post political cartoon. One wonders at Mr. Matthews’ error in judgment.

Golly gee that's not racist at all they like to call Conservatives racist. Um sure.

After lecturing us all to turn down our thermostats to “72 degrees at all times” on the campaign trail, The One moves into the White House and promptly cranks up the heat to tropical temperatures!

WASHINGTON — The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat. He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

Just as a side note here on this article: Put a suit and tie on! Have some respect for the office of the Presidency!

“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.

Thomas A. Daschle, fighting to defend his nomination to be secretary of health and human services, released a letter early today apologizing to the top lawmakers on the Senate Finance Committee for mistakes on his personal income tax returns that resulted in $146,000 in back payments.

“I am deeply embarrassed and disappointed by the errors that required me to amend my tax returns,” he wrote to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). “I apologize for the errors and profoundly regret that you have had to devote time to them.”

Sgt. Rodney Hicok was at home and off-duty when he forwarded the e-mails, said an official with the Iowa Department of Public Safety Bureau and Professional Standards. The e-mail made disparaging remarks about 15 people in the photos and referred to Obama as having "quite a fan base." Hicok was not making a racial statement, the official said, but, rather, a political statement.

In a statement, Hicok said, "I am deeply sorry for my actions … I apologize to anyone this e-mail may have offended, as well as my family, citizens in my community and Iowa taxpayers."Hicok ended his statement by saying he guaranteed "nothing like this will ever happen again." "I regret what happened and wish I could take it back," Hicok said in the statement. He violated the department's policy and his permanent file will reflect the suspension, the official said. The 27-year veteran, who has no prior offense on his record, will also attend DPS training on policies and procedures.

OK so this trooper took a bunch of pictures of Obama supporters, public records of mug shots, it's been all over the web. Can we not remember the State employees that went through PRIVATE records of Joe the Plumber?

Sherri Shepherd gave her approval exclaiming "say it baby!" Filling in for Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Fox News host E.D. Hill, allegedly the conservative voice for the day, conceded "there are double standards."

Let's not forget that this woman is a blithering idiot and not the only celebrity out there that follows along these lines.

1st off let me point out very clearly that I AM for GAY RIGHTS/MARRIAGE. These are human beings, Americans that want what we all want, love and to be with the one they want. That is a human condition. This article is an example of the intolerance of the left. These tactics are thugish in nature just like how Obama ran his campaign.

FOR the backers of Proposition 8, the state ballot measure to stop single-sex couples from marrying in California, victory has been soured by the ugly specter of intimidation.

Some donors to groups supporting the measure have received death threats and envelopes containing a powdery white substance, and their businesses have been boycotted.

The targets of this harassment blame a controversial and provocative Web site, eightmaps.com.

The site takes the names and ZIP codes of people who donated to the ballot measure — information that California collects and makes public under state campaign finance disclosure laws — and overlays the data on a Google map.

Visitors can see markers indicating a contributor’s name, approximate location, amount donated and, if the donor listed it, employer. That is often enough information for interested parties to find the rest — like an e-mail or home address. The identity of the site’s creators, meanwhile, is unknown; they have maintained their anonymity.

Eightmaps.com is the latest, most striking example of how information collected through disclosure laws intended to increase the transparency of the political process, magnified by the powerful lens of the Web, may be undermining the same democratic values that the regulations were to promote.

With tools like eightmaps — and there are bound to be more of them — strident political partisans can challenge their opponents directly, one voter at a time. The results, some activists fear, could discourage people from participating in the political process altogether.

That is why the soundtrack to eightmaps.com is a loud gnashing of teeth among civil libertarians, privacy advocates and people supporting open government. The site pits their cherished values against each other: political transparency and untarnished democracy versus privacy and freedom of speech.

“When I see those maps, it does leave me with a bit of a sick feeling in my stomach,” said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, which has advocated for open democracy. “This is not really the intention of voter disclosure laws. But that’s the thing about technology. You don’t really know where it is going to take you.” 

Can you imagine a Conservative saying this about a minority? 

Families of white, male construction workers may want to pay attention: Robert Reich has opined that the Obama stimulus funds allocated to businesses in the construction industry should be withheld specifically from white men. YouTube features a clip of this memorable little tidbit of political lunacy at work.

On his blog, Robert Reich reasoned "if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most -- women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed -- will be shut out."

While it is comforting that in the audio clip Mr. Reich is quick to disclose that he has "nothing against while male construction workers," the fact that he does not want stimulus generated jobs to go to "white male construction workers" is gravely disconcerting. Even more alarming is the fact that Barack Obama has remained mum about the opinions expressed by his economic adviser.

Would there have been an outcry has Mr. Reich suggested keeping the stimulus funds from being spent on "black male construction workers" or "undocumented alien construction workers?" Maybe it would have made waves had he opined on "Jewish construction workers" or "female construction workers?" As it stands, it would appear that Robert Reich has declared open season on white males.

The police officers who stopped Oklahoma City motorist Chip Harrison and confiscated a sign from his car told him he has a right to his beliefs, but the U.S. Secret Service "could construe this as a threat against President Obama," according to the incident report released this morning. The sign, which read "Abort Obama Not the Unborn," was returned to Harrison later that day, the report said. Police spokesman Steve McCool said this morning that the sign was taken in error, and Oklahoma City residents should not be worried that their First Amendment rights will be violated. He said a supervisor "intervened and quickly returned the sign" after Harrison called the police department.

"Obviously, it was not a good decision to confiscate the sign," McCool said. Harrison, who could not be reached for comment this morning, told the officers that in his opinion the words "Abort Obama" meant to impeach him. He told the officers he does not believe in abortion because he is a Christian. Harrison was stopped while driving a white truck on westbound Interstate 44 at SW 119th at 8:45 a.m. on Feb. 12, according to the police report.

 According to Harrison, an official said the Secret Service had been contacted on the matter and had told them the sign was not a threat to the president. Harrison was asked if he would like to file a complaint. He said he was not sure but would take the paperwork, just in case. But his run-in with the law wasn't over yet. ''The Secret Service called and said they were at my house," Harrison said. After talking to his attorney, Harrison went home where he met the Secret Service. ''When I was on my way there, the Secret Service called me and said they weren't going to ransack my house or anything ... they just wanted to (walk through the house) and make sure I wasn't a part of any hate groups."

Harrison said he invited the Secret Service agents into the house and they were "very cordial." ''We walked through the house and my wife and 2-year-old were in the house," Harrison said. He said they interviewed him for about 30 minutes and then left, not finding any evidence Harrison was a threat to the president. ''I'm still in contact with a lawyer right now," Harrison said. "I don't know what I'm going to do." Harrison said he feels his First Amendment rights were violated.

McCool said the officer who pulled over Harrison misinterpreted the sign. ''We had an officer that his interpretation of the sign was different than what was meant," McCool said. "You've got an officer who had a different thought on what the word 'abort' meant." McCool said the sign basically meant Obama should be impeached and it was not a threat. ''(The officer) shouldn't have taken the sign," McCool said. "That was (Harrison's) First Amendment right to voice his concern." McCool said although the sign should not have been confiscated, the situation was made right in the end. ''We always try to do the right thing and in the end we believe we did the right thing by returning the sign," McCool said.

The Double standard is very clear here, with all the Palin Derangement Syndrom addicts out there, they were given free reign to be just as nasty as they can be an it was OK. But Oh no, can't say anything bad about Obama.