NewsHounds

We're working harder than ever to keep up with the floods of misinformation and would appreciate you showing your appreciation. Click the donation button >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is, much to our own amazement, our fourth summer blogging about FOX News and their increasingly blatant bias. We know we're having an effect and will slog-n-blog through another election season, but we need your support. We'd much rather be at the beach or in the garden or snoozing in a hammock, or just watching a good movie instead of FOX, but we know you depend on us. Can we depend on you to make it financially viable for us? Please click the donation button and give as generously as you can.

Thanks!

PS - please forward to George Soros; he's been avoiding us.

PPS - Thanks for the donations - please keep them coming This thread is being closed to comments so we and our mods can prepare our Independence Day celebrations.

Remember back about a year ago when Fox faked outrage about Ted Kennedy "using kids as props" like Saddam Hussein did?

Well lo and behold, look at what the pure and righteous channel is doin' now:

Fox used two little girls (June 25, 2008) whose mom "cuts cable to save cash" to set the stage for its offshore drilling campaign.

Comment: Yo, Fox, you hypocrites: Ever heard of throwing stones and glass houses?

For at least the third time on Hannity & Colmes, Dick Morris baselessly alleged Friday night (7/3/08) that Barack Obama intends to provide national health insurance to illegal immigrants. This time, Morris added that Obama won’t budge from that position in order to appeal to the Hispanic vote. With video.

In a discussion about Obama’s supposed flip-flops, substitute co-host Rich Lowry asked Morris, “How do you rank Barack Obama in terms of shamelessness and is it working for him?”

Morris answered, “It will work for him if McCain doesn’t call him on it.” Morris went on to say that McCain should make it impossible for Obama to flip-flop. “There are some core positions he’s not going to let go of,” Morris said. “The doubling of the cap(ital) gains tax, the covering every American with health insurance, which means illegal immigrants. He can’t let go of that ‘cause (of) the Hispanic vote.”

As I have previously posted, Morris has yet to provide any proof for his outrageous accusation. He has previously attempted to justify his assertion by “reasoning” that because Obama says there are 47 million people without health insurance in America, and because, according to Morris 10 to 12 million of them are illegal immigrants, Obama must want to insure illegals.

In reality, Obama’s 47 million figure came from the U.S. Census Bureau (it has since revised the figure down to about 45 million) which counts about 9 million of the uninsured as “non-citizens.” Presumably, a significant chunk of those 9 million are legal residents. So one wonders where Morris got his numbers from. Furthermore, Obama’s health care plan speaks of “Providing affordable, comprehensive and portable health coverage for every American” (my emphasis). Nowhere is there mention of providing coverage for anyone else. There is no mention of providing health care to immigrants in Obama’s immigration platform, either.

Last night John Kasich, subbing for Bill O'Reilly, was outraged that Rene Marie unexpectedly chose to sing Lift Ev'ry Voice And Sing at a public event in Denver instead of the traditional national anthem. Charles Brown, Denver City Councilman and Marc Lamont Hill, Temple University were there to discuss the issue. Dr. Lamont Hill eventually summed up the outrage when he noted that they would have been much less offended had she sung America The Beautiful

Here is Rene Marie's statement explaining why she made the choice to sing Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing. Brown portrayed her as self centered and and inconsiderate. Kasich and Brown suggested her motives were both political and hostile. Marie's explanation of her motives are more complex and artistically based. She also made an important point that she considers herself a member of the Denver community and not a hostile outsider like she has been portrayed.

comment: One might wonder about John Kasich and Bill O'Reilly's motives in airing this story in order to stir up racial discord and distrust of Barack Obama. Seems pretty political to me. Once again, Bill O'Reilly's hypocrisy shines bright.

Yesterday Barack Obama, "raised the possibility of slowing a promised gradual, 16-month withdrawal from Iraq if he is elected president, saying that Thursday he will consult with military commanders on an upcoming trip to the region and 'continue to refine' his proposals."

On June 16, John McCain reversed his position on offshore drilling.

On Your World w/Neil Cavuto, what McCain did garners a next-day visit from a friendly Republican, Florida's Tom Feeney, who compares McCain to Winston Churchill, who, according to Feeney, said: 'When facts and circumstances dictate a change of policy, I change my position."

What Obama did yesterday garners a next-day visit visit (July 4, 2008) from the vicious Obama-hater Michelle Malkin, who is on to talk about, per the chyron: "Obama: 'Refining' Iraq Policy: Will it Cost him Votes?"

On the eve of July 4th, Karl Rove went into paroxysms of pique at the notion of not being able to detain indefinitely, beyond judicial scrutiny, without being charged, anyone the president declares an “enemy combatant.” He implied that judges intent on enforcing the Constitution are traitors who would be “happy to find for the detainee.” He was joined in such fervor by Rich Lowry, the substitute co-host on Hannity & Colmes last night (7/3/08). But Alan Colmes not only stood up for the Constitutional rights of all persons to habeas corpus (as our Constitution directs) he also argued down Rove’s claim that the authorization to use force granted to Bush by Congress is equivalent to a Congressional declaration of war. With video.

The discussion began with Rove and Lowry tut-tutting the recent Supreme Court decision to restore habeas corpus to enemy combatants.

I’m not sure if anyone in the Bush administration has ever overtly stated it before, but Rove told Lowry that Guantanamo Bay was chosen as a detention facility precisely because the administration thought it could avoid the U.S. Justice system there.

Rove said, “One of the reasons that the administration did not close Gitmo earlier was because this court case was wending its way through the lower courts and on to the Supreme Court. And the question was, if you brought a enemy detainee, somebody you picked up in Afghanistan or Iraq or elsewhere around the world, and brought them to the U.S. shores, would they have habeas corpus rights? And by keeping ‘em at Gitmo, not on U.S. soil, it was thought that we’d avoid that problem. And now the Supreme Court says no matter where you have them, they get the rights of, you know, the right to an attorney and right of habeas corpus, which is really extraordinary.”

Actually, what’s extraordinary is that a guy who fashions himself as such a patriot would be so blatantly hostile to the bedrock of our Constitution, the right to challenge a detention - an indefinite detention.

Rove got more excited as he described the horrifying (to him) scenario of having to prove that a detainee is guilty. That would mean, he said with disgust, that if the government picks up someone “with a weapon or an explosive device in Afghanistan or Iraq (the country we invaded to give them democracy, the same thing he’s now desperate to keep from them) and you’ve got to prove with the same degree of evidence, in the same manner, the chain of custody of the evidence, that that person is guilty.”

Oh, the outrage of having to prove someone is guilty in order to detain them!

Apparently, in “patriotic” Rove’s America, part of the problem is that judges might demand proof, thereby proving they’re really traitors. Rove continued, “We’ve got plenty of judges, particularly on the west coast and in the 9th Circuit, who’d be happy to find for the detainee in that instance.”

By the way, all that tough talk never translated into Rove actually suiting up and joining the military.

Fellow chickenhawk Rich Lowry likewise complained about not being able to hold people indefinitely on the government’s say so. Lowry said, “Another thing that’s terrible about this decision... is this is gonna make it really hard going forward to hold for any length of time people who we capture on the battlefield in the war on terror.”

Colmes set the tone for his part of the discussion right away. He began by saying, “Hey, Karl, this is a great decision which dates back to the Magna Carta... The Constitution applies to persons, not just citizens.” Colmes is correct about that.

Rove started sputtering, “Alan, Alan, Alan, Alan, Alan... Can you imagine fighting World War II where we’d have to have an attorney present for every Nazi whom we had in an Arizona or Nevada or Utah prison camp?”

“You can’t just hold people without telling them (they have the) right to an attorney and being charged with something. That’s basic to our criminal justice system,” Colmes responded.

Rove started shouting. “This is not criminal justice. This is a war.”

“Did Congress declare war?” Colmes asked. While Rove had grown more excited, Colmes remained calm.

Rove answered that the Congress had authorized the use of force.

“There was no declaration by the US Congress, Karl,” Colmes said. “If you want to go by the Constitution, don’t they get to declare war? And they haven’t done that.”

The argument went on about whether or not war had been declared until the end of the segment. If you ask me, Colmes won it hands down.

By the way, Rove is also thumbing his nose at the law by refusing to respond to a Congressional Judiciary subpoena to testify next week about the politicization of the Bush administration's Justice Department.

What does it say when a "premiere business news" show almost forgets to report the business news? Such was the case on Your World w/Neil Cavuto yesterday (July 3, 2008). Instead of opening with business news which ah, silly me, seems logical for a business news show, it opened with a piece asking whether the release of the Colombian hostages would "help McCain and hurt Obama."

No, the "business news," such as it was, came at the end of the show, with literally less than a minute to go, when substitute host Nicole Petallides said, "Well, 'Just In' with Laura Ingraham starts now. Oh. No. First, let's keep [sic], the Dow Jones Industrial Average finishing up 73 points on Wall Street. Up three of the last four days on Wall Street. And we actually saw some winning stocks. We saw United Technologies, Alcoa, J.P. Morgan all finishing to the upside, more than 2% each.

"And there you have it. The NASDAQ to the downside and the S&P up, just like the Dow. Alright. Thank you everybody for joining us. 'Just In' with Laura Ingraham starts right..."

With that, the "hard break" kicked in and "Just In w/Laura Ingraham" began.

Here's video - all 35 seconds of it:

Comment: Not only did Fox almost forget to report the business news but the "business news" it did report was, ah, not worth the paper it was printed on, so to speak. Fox's claim that Your World w/Neil Cavuto is a business news shows is, literally, a joke and the joke is on the viewer and anyone who believes it. There oughta be a law.

The holiday crew on Fox & Friends did the chit chat improv this morning trying to create the illusion that Barack Obama is the flip-flop candidate and McCain is the flexible one. They concluded that Obama is " laying the groundwork" for a future flip- flop. Can you count the number of times the word " flip flop" was used? video below

The holiday crew on Fox & Friends did the chit chat improv this morning trying to create the illusion that Barack Obama is the flip-flop candidate and McCain is the flexible one. They concluded that Obama is " laying the groundwork" for a future flip- flop. Can you count the number of times the word " flip flop" was used? video below

Last night 7/3/08 on Just In Laura Ingraham debated guest Terry Thornton, a spokeswoman for the CA Dept. of Corrections, on the recent implementation of mandated integration of California prisons. Thornton insisted that the integration would be done intelligently, with care taken not to house members of rival gangs together, but Ingraham was upset that the Court (activist judges) had ruled on this matter at all.

The Supreme Court ruling came down in December 2005. Thornton clarified that the Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of California's policies but rather remanded the case, Garrison Johnson vs. California, back to the lower court (the hated-on-FOX Ninth Circuit), and the corrections department and the court arrived at a settlement. Ingraham charged that the "integrated housing program" sounded like a lot of bureaucracy, and worried that members of rival gangs could be forced now to live together.

Thornton objected, saying they are not stupid, and assured that care is taken when assigning cellmates. She claimed the prisons have always been desegregated, their programs, the yards, housing units, classrooms, but now race has been taken out as a factor entirely.

According to articles, race was a determinant in housing upon an inmates intake, for their initial incarceration up to 60 days.The lawsuit stemmed from a black inmate, incarcerated only with other blacks for years on end, being pressured to join one gang or another and feeling he was in danger when he refused. California is the only state that had that (albeit unwritten) policy; when Texas instituted the full integration policy in 1991 there was an initial upswing in violence but since then there's evidence that there is less violence among prisoners housed in integrated cells and less racial tension overall.

Ingraham read one comment from one inmate and championed segregation, noting the self-segregation that occurs. Thornton argued that it happens but the department should not be basing housing decisions solely on race; they will consider all factors and take race out of the equation.

Ingraham admitted she's by no means an expert on the CA penal system, but said that the five Supremes are not either.

Ingraham, attempting snarkasm but sounding silly, asked if incoming prisoners carried cards that told officials which gang they belonged to (so rivals would not be housed together). Of course by the time someone makes it as far as entering prison, the system has relevant information that allows an informed decision.

This segment forwarded two important "conservative" talking points: when judges interpret cases contrary to what the right-wing would have, they are activists, making law. Clearly no such thing happened here and Ingraham, if she's a real patriot, should applaud the justices for insisting the constitutionality of California practices be scrutinized by the lower court. Second, this whole segment reinforced the idea that segregation = security, and knocked the idea that integration can lead to better relations between formerly separate groups. The right favors divisiveness and infighting over unity; fragmented groups are easier to control.

Last night 7/3/08 on Just In Laura Ingraham debated guest Terry Thornton, a spokeswoman for the CA Dept. of Corrections, on the recent implementation of mandated integration of California prisons. Thornton insisted that the integration would be done intelligently, with care taken not to house members of rival gangs together, but Ingraham was upset that the Court (activist judges) had ruled on this matter at all.

The Supreme Court ruling came down in December 2005. Thornton clarified that the Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of California's policies but rather remanded the case, Garrison Johnson vs. California, back to the lower court (the hated-on-FOX Ninth Circuit), and the corrections department and the court arrived at a settlement. Ingraham charged that the "integrated housing program" sounded like a lot of bureaucracy, and worried that members of rival gangs could be forced now to live together.

Thornton objected, saying they are not stupid, and assured that care is taken when assigning cellmates. She claimed the prisons have always been desegregated, their programs, the yards, housing units, classrooms, but now race has been taken out as a factor entirely.

According to articles, race was a determinant in housing upon an inmates intake, for their initial incarceration up to 60 days.The lawsuit stemmed from a black inmate, incarcerated only with other blacks for years on end, being pressured to join one gang or another and feeling he was in danger when he refused. California is the only state that had that (albeit unwritten) policy; when Texas instituted the full integration policy in 1991 there was an initial upswing in violence but since then there's evidence that there is less violence among prisoners housed in integrated cells and less racial tension overall.

Ingraham read one comment from one inmate and championed segregation, noting the self-segregation that occurs. Thornton argued that it happens but the department should not be basing housing decisions solely on race; they will consider all factors and take race out of the equation.

Ingraham admitted she's by no means an expert on the CA penal system, but said that the five Supremes are not either.

Ingraham, attempting snarkasm but sounding silly, asked if incoming prisoners carried cards that told officials which gang they belonged to (so rivals would not be housed together). Of course by the time someone makes it as far as entering prison, the system has relevant information that allows an informed decision.

This segment forwarded two important "conservative" talking points: when judges interpret cases contrary to what the right-wing would have, they are activists, making law. Clearly no such thing happened here and Ingraham, if she's a real patriot, should applaud the justices for insisting the constitutionality of California practices be scrutinized by the lower court. Second, this whole segment reinforced the idea that segregation = security, and knocked the idea that integration can lead to better relations between formerly separate groups. The right favors divisiveness and infighting over unity; fragmented groups are easier to control.

(With all due respect to our British readers...) We hope all our readers have a happy and safe Fourth of July. Please don't drink and drive!

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Preamble to The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Read the entire Constitution here.

The Bill of Rights

Amendment I
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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the
consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by
law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime
shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of
Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a
jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than
according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.

*********************************************************************************************

To our readers: Please show respect to the powerful and thoughtful words written here and discuss in intelligent terms. If you can't manage that for one thread please refrain from posting.

(With all due respect to our British readers...) We hope all our readers have a happy and safe Fourth of July. Please don't drink and drive!

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Preamble to The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Read the entire Constitution here.

The Bill of Rights

Amendment I
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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the
consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by
law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime
shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of
Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a
jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than
according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.

*********************************************************************************************

To our readers: Please show respect to the powerful and thoughtful words written here and discuss in intelligent terms. If you can't manage that for one thread please refrain from posting.

On last night’s (7/3/08) Hannity & Colmes, Karl Rove was once again brought on to serve as the sole analyst of the Barack Obama campaign. Rove was identified merely as a “FOX News contributor” despite the fact that he has been an informal advisor to the John McCain campaign. Alan Colmes changed subjects to ask Rove about his influence in the previous day’s shake-up of the John McCain campaign. Rove repeatedly implied he played no role but made elaborate efforts to avoid a direct answer. With video.

The discussion about Rove’s involvement in the McCain campaign occurred during the first part of a double segment with Rove. As it turned out, the second part also contained a notable interchange between Rove and Colmes (to be discussed in my next post).

In Part 1, Colmes noted that an article in the New York Times described the shake-up as having increased the influence of two Rove protegés, Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace. “Does this mean that Karl Rove is having an influence in who McCain is hiring and is this your way of influencing this campaign?” Colmes asked.

Rove replied, “Look, I’ve been around this business for a number of years and it’s hard to find a lot of people who don’t have some connection with me. Alan, if you went to work in the Obama campaign, you could count on the New York Times saying that a Rove protegé was in the Obama campaign.”

It was a shrewd answer but one that avoided denying having played a role in selecting or organizing the new campaign management structure.

Rove went on to joke that since Colmes has been associated with Rove at FOX News, Colmes might be described as a Rove protegé.

Colmes said, “The Times positioned this as, you know, Rove’s legacy needs to be helped by a McCain win and that you’re vested in this win for your own legacy’s sake.”

Once again, Rove tapdanced. He said that he has been friends with senior McCain advisor Charlie Black for many years. “My point is, I’ve been around this for a long time. I know a lot of people. I’ve been associated with a lot of people. I wouldn’t put too much into some of those people rising to the tops of various campaigns.” Rove further claimed that he had a close friend or associate running all the Republican presidential campaigns during the primary.

That may be true but he still had not directly answered Colmes' question.

Unfortunately, Colmes’ time was up and he never pinned Rove down about his role is in the campaign.

The Times reported, “(Rove) was said by Mr. McCain’s advisers to have offered advice in recent days to Mr. Schmidt and others on how to get Mr. McCain’s campaign on track, but has stayed mostly on the periphery. Mr. Rove is aware, his associates said, that his own legacy could be helped should Mr. McCain win the presidency.”

“Mostly on the periphery?” That sounds like “directly involved at times” to me. But beyond Colmes, the “We report. You decide” network didn’t think that was relevant information about a supposedly neutral campaign analyst on their own payroll.

I'm wondering, what have I done to deserve this? Ever agreeable Bob Beckel joined the Snipe Sisters to discuss whether the media is being too soft on Obama, or rather, how soft the media is being on Obama.

You can't please these people - they complain that we don't know anything about him, so they saturate us with images and words from people he knows to build a persona-by-association, but when the media starts featuring his "theme speeches" and giving the public glimpses of the private man they complain that they're "suck-up pieces and profiles." It doesn't seem to occur to them that maybe he's not all bad and as he campaigns, he's putting his best foot forward - how unusual.

And it's hardly a first for media to do a fluff piece or six on candidates - there's lots of air to fill. CJR noted, back when John McCain was "also-ran Republican presidential candidate John McCain," that NightLine did "what can only be called the ultimate political fluff piece, focusing on “the women” behind" him, and their shoe preferences. FOX ally Washington Times more recently published an article about John McCain's many superstitions; point is, it's not unusual. (Now you're all thinking of Tom Jones, mwahahaha.)

Coulter, specifically citing Brent Bozell's take on it, told of a "top five" countdown-type list of things we didn't know about Obama, including that he used to scoop ice cream. According to her, it evolved into how that made him presidential material. From that one segment on CBS, Coulter broadly claims that "all they (the evil liberal media) want to talk about now is the fist-bump, how fabulous and sexy this couple is, that he plays Scrabble, and that he used to scoop ice cream."

Beckel agreed that Obama's had quite a run, and has "gotten away with some things.' Ignoring the Jeremiah-jihad, the numerous insinuations that he is somehow supportive of and/or supported by terrorists, and the questioning of his patriotism, all smears to which he is now responding, Beckel said "more power to him; I glad he's on my side."

The two toxic talkers (who shop at the same giant crucufix store, it's rumored) lamented that Obama was making news with his speeches on volunteerism, faith, patriotism and his visit with troops while McCain was south of the border, where, Coulter said essentially, the longer he stays the better. Much as she isn't crazy (HA! you say) about McCain, she thinks "B. Hussein Obama" will be a disaster for the country. Look at the damage Carter did in 4 years, she said, ignoring the far more serious damage Bush has done in eight.

When Beckel called them on their flip-flopping from blasting McCain up until he won Florida in January and now rallying around him, Ingraham protested that they just think "he's running a lousy campaign." Nonsense, of course - they harp constantly on how he's not "conservative" enough; in fact, Coulter had just said that Republicans can't win if they're moderate.

Ingraham suggested that Coulter's next book (because you know she'll be pooping out another any day) should be "If Republicans had any brains, they'd be Conservatives." Methinks Republicans are saying they want their party back, and a redefinition of what it means to be conservative. They can't reconcile their gospel and Gordon Gekko.

Ingraham flatly acknowledged that she wants to see McCain win because at least he's on her side on Iraq and will appoint conservative Supreme Court Justices (who are supposed to be, from my understanding of civics, objective and neutral, or at least publicly inscrutable).

If she had five minutes alone with McCain, Coulter would tell him to change his position on ANWR and change his position on "amnesty."

Ingraham said she's want to amplify the message that Obama is a flip-flopper, and get out the message that Obama represents the MoveOn.org wing of the Democratic Party, but he's just forging his own way and it's getting tougher as the days go on. Right, agreed Coulter, and reiterated that McCain should just stay out of the way and let them go after Obama, but his message is, sigh, he's a centrist, and that never works out for the right.

Aww, the American people have awakened to combat the right-wing media smear machine and Obama is fighting back, handling it. No wonder they fear a fairness doctrine; the more truth people hear, the more they reject the right-wing spin and lies.

Fox News is still a major cheerleader for the war in Iraq. If one watched Fox News, exclusively, one would see a rosy scenario with happy troops and happy Iraqis. In Fox’s Iraq, there are no casualties. Returning vets come home to a life of perpetual bliss. There is no talk of PTSD, suicidal and homeless vets, and families whose lives will never be the same. There is no talk of an overstretched military and Veterans Administration. Fox accentuates the positive and ignores the negative when it comes to Iraq and those “liberal” media outlets which aren’t blissful about Iraq get a “wag of the finger” from happy, happy Fox News.

Last night’s (July 2nd) Grapevine had a piece which admonished the bad, liberal media. That stellar, non partisan (yes, I’m joking) media watchdog group, Media Research Center (brought to you by the less than stellar, rightwing hack Brent Bozell) was indignant that the three major news outlets (ABC, CBS, and NBC) ignored what Brit Hume referred to as the “big news” about the administration’s report on the “satisfactory progress” in Iraq. Brit Hume was just amazed that the news networks were not agog about “satisfactory progress” on 15 of 18 benchmarks. Bozell’s group even claimed that the New York Times “ignored” the story.

Comment: Perhaps if Bozell’s staff had bothered to examine the June 24th NY Times, they would have seen James Glanz’s article which debunked the “big” news. As Glanz points out, “beyond the declines in overall violence in Iraq, several crucial measures the Bush administration uses to demonstrate economic, political and security progress are either incorrect or far more mixed than the administration has acknowledged, according to a report released Monday by the Government Accountability Office…” The AP states, in an article which references the benchmarks, “but for every small step forward, Iraq has several more giant steps to take before victory can be declared on any one issue.” One suspects that Fox viewers will not be told about “miles-long gas lines despite oil riches” and ongoing electricity shortages. And let’s not even mention Afghanistan! So it’s not quite as simple as Bozell and Hume would like it to be; but “Grapevine” is all about simplicity and news in short sound bites. Can’t have it too nuanced or complicated for the black and white world of the Fox News viewer. Fox News: all the good news from Iraq that’s fit to distort!

John McCain is to the Colombian hostage release what Ronald Reagan was to the Americans released by Iran on Inauguration Day, l981? That's exactly what Fox implied today (July 3,3008) during Your World w/Neil Cavuto.

Nicole Petallides of the Fox "Business" Network was the substitute host. Her first guest, conservative radio talk show host Paul McGuire, didn't talk about the stock market but about the release of the Colombian hostages. The topic was will the hostage rescue "help McCain and hurt Obama?" (The answer to that would be yes, if Fox has anything to say about it.)

McGuire said he thinks, "It's a very happy coincidence for John McCain. I think it speaks well of his leadership. The fact that President Uribe would talk privately with McCain demonstrates that he has McCain's confidence. McCain is a military hero. McCain was a hostage. McCain is a strong military leader. All of the attributes that Barack Obama does not have. This is a man who foreign leaders take seriously. The fact that Uribe would release these hostages during this time of McCain's visit sends a strong signal to the world and to American voters that McCain is a man that the world trusts. It reminds me of Ronald Reagan being able to release the hostages immediately after he was elected and of course, Jimmy Carter was not able to do so."

Minutes later Fox's Steve Harrigan, reporting from Bogota about the release said, "A couple of questions really not answered yet: What, if any role or how much did Senator John McCain know? He was actually present here in Colombia when that raid took off."

Comment: Talk about empty rhetoric. Fox's mission is not to present facts, but to paint pictures.

UPDATE: July 4 - From The Times, which is owned by Fox's parent company, News Corp.: Ingrid Betancourt returns 'home' to France - but doubts emerge about 'daring' rescue.

On Studio B with Shepard Smith, in a Breaking News segment, Greg Jarrett showed a clip, from closed circuit TV, of a van blowing up in Florida. He went on to say it was caused by a smoker in his welding vehicle who did not know the tank was leaking, lit up and “thar she blew” and that his condition was unknown. Then he went on to say, “Well he is a suspected al-Qaeda terrorist.” Then after a very pregnant pause, Jarrett failed to elaborate on this charge and went on to Wall Street news. 7/3/08 video below

Guest Blogged By Tom

From TVNewser:

TVNewser has learned America's Election HQ is returning to the Fox News Channel schedule beginning Monday. The 5pmET show will be anchored by a rotating series of anchors through election day. E.D. Hill will host next week.

Just In with Laura Ingraham ends its three-week run tomorrow. Ingraham was aware the show was temporary, and she will continue as primary fill-in for Bill O'Reilly.

As for John Gibson whose show, Big Story, was replaced by America's Election HQ in February, he continues his show on Fox News Radio.

Was it only three weeks? Seemed longer.

FOX and Friends was all atwitter this morning over the "huge" news that Christian conservative evangelicals had endorsed John McCain - "At least 100 of them." Wikipedia and Sourcewatch revealed no information about the "leaders" (with the exception of the ancient Phyllis Schafly), but the Google did reveal that one named endorser, "Phil Burress, a self-described former pornography addict, has become a Paul Revere for the movement against same-sex marriage." Maybe it's the flip-flop energy that drew Phil to John.

The segment was taken from an article on Swampland, which Steve Doocy identified as a popular blog but failed to note is a Time/CNN website. Drilling deeper to an article by an attendee, we learn there were "more than 70" leaders claiming to represent millions of evangelicals.

The group was quoted by Brian Kilmeade as agreeing "Collectively we feel that he will support and advance those moral values that we hold much greater than Obama, who in our view will decimate moral values," (his emphasis) and are of the same opinion that they have to do all they can to stop Obama from being elected because, as Doocy read, "None of these people want to meet their maker knowing that they didn't do everything they could to keep Barack Obama from being president," according to an attendee who wished to remain anonymous.

James Dobson of Focus on the Family in neighboring Colorado Springs, who has said he "would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances," was not in attendance, because, Steve Doocy reported, he's "working on a book."

The group wrote to John McCain and "suggested, didn't demand" that McCain choose Mike Huckabee as his running mate.

The lower third exaggerated the scope of the support, saying "Conservative consensus: Evangelicals rally for McCain."

Brian Kilmeade finally named some recognizable names who really do influence millions - Pat Robertson, who will not endorse McCain, Dobson, likewise, and Hagee, who has endorsed but from whom McCain has had to distance himself because of extremist views he holds. It all boils down to who do they want appointing Supreme Court judges? McCain has promised to skew the court further right. Carlson concluded that when the chips are down, conservatives will choose McCain over Obama; in other words, they'll hold their noses and vote the party.

This is huuge? Nice try, but not really.