Peoples Press Collective

More Hope and Change from Missouri
St. Louis and Missouri law enforcement are planning to go after anyone who makes false statements against Obama during his campaign. This is so one sided I can't even begin to describe how wrong this agenda is.

It's one thing if they want to keep the campaign fail on both sides, but they clearly only want to enforce the issue for the Obama Camp.

KMOV has a video report on the Obama "Truth Squads".



St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch are threatening to bring libel charges against those who speak out falsely against Barack Obama.

KMOV aired a story last night, that stated that St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, both Obama supporters, are threating to bring criminal libel charges against anyone who levels what turns out to be false criticisms of their chosen candidate for President.

St. Louis C of CC Blog has more on the Obama Truth Squads.
Hat Tip Kat

** Here you go Truth Squad... Sue me first!
Barack Obama Attacked White People!

From his audio-book dreams of my father, Barack Obama was moved to tears when he heard his racist anti-American pastor blame whitey for all of the world's pain and ills.
In fact, he was so moved by this filth that he included the story in his book Dreams of My Father.

Here Barack Obama lashes out at the white man's greed:
(34 seconds)

Audio was taken from a Hugh Hewitt Show.
In Obama's own words:

"It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere... That's the world! On which hope sits!"

"White folk's greed runs a world in need"...
Sue me!

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds has a thuggery roundup.

Tags: GatewayPundit, Syndicated

The Board of Directors of the Libertarian Party of Colorado sets forth the following recommendations on the 18 COLORADO INITIATIVES currently on the ballot for this November, 2008.

TITLE	SUBJECT	SUMMARY DESCRIPTION	LPCO SAYS	EXPLANATION
Referendum L	Candidate age limits	If passed, this would lower the age of a candidate for the Colorado House and Senate from 25 to 21.	YES	If you can get the votes, age is irrelevant.
Referendum M	Obsolete constitutional provisions	If passed, this would eliminate obsolete provisions in the state constitution about land value increases.	YES	Nothing substantive changed by eliminating these obsolete provisions.
Referendum N	Obsolete constitutional provisions	If passed, this would eliminate obsolete provisions in the constitution about intoxicating liquor.	YES	Nothing substantive changed by eliminating these obsolete provisions.
Referendum O	Initiative process	If passed, this would make it harder for citizens to place constitutional amendments on the ballot for voter approval, but make it easier for citizens to place state statutes on the ballot. It also provides protection against the state legislature from amending statutes passed through the initiative process.	NO	The LPCO fully supports the citizen initiative process. Since this Referendum makes it harder for citizens to place Constitutional Amendments on the ballot we oppose it.

Amendment 46	Affirmative action	If passed, this would prohibit the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.	YES	The government should not give preferential treatment to any group.
Amendment 47	Right to work	If passed, this would prohibit unions and employers from negotiating "union shop" contracts under which employees would be required to pay union membership or "agency" fees as a condition of continued employment.	YES	The LPCO supports the right to work.
Amendment 48	Definition of “person” and abortion	If passed, this would change the definition of 'person' in the Colorado Constitution to include any fertilized egg, embryo or fetus.	NO	While the LPCO takes no official position on abortion, this proposed constitutional amendment would have far reaching implications and unintended consequences throughout the entire state constitution.
Amendment 49	Public payroll deductions	If passed, this would bar automatic dues deductions for private enterprises, including unions, from public employee payrolls.	YES	The government (at taxpayer expense) should not act as collector, bundler and distributor of dues for any private organization.
Amendment 50	Casino gambling	If passed, this would allow the general assembly or voters in the cities that permit limited gaming to extend the hours of limited gaming operations; to add roulette, craps, or both to the allowed games; and to increase the maximum bet up to $100.	YES	The government has no business telling people what they can do with their own money. If people want to gamble, it is not the government’s business.
Amendment 51	Sales tax for the developmentally disabled	If passed, this would increase the sales tax, in July 2009 and again in July 2010, to fund services for the developmentally disabled.	NO	While this is an admirable cause, it is best addressed via private charity and not taxation.
Amendment 52	Severance tax and transportation	If passed, this would create the Colorado Transportation Trust Fund, to be funded by that portion of the severance tax that exceeds the amount deposited to the state severance tax fund in the previous year, adjusted for inflation via the Consumer Price Index	NO POSITION	Since this amendment does not raise taxes, it only changes how existing taxes are spent, the LPCO takes no position.
Amendment 53	Criminal liability for business executives	If passed, this would increase the conduct for which criminal liability attaches for conduct of business executives.	NO	This amendment makes executive conduct that is currently subject to civil liability and makes it criminal. Further, fraud is already illegal.
Amendment 54	Government contracting reform	If passed, this would prohibit those benefitting from no-bid government contracts valued at more than $100,000 a year from contributing to political causes for the duration of the contract plus two years.	NO POSITION	There was disagreement among the BOD concerning the best way to address this issue.
Amendment 55	Employee relations, “employment at will” doctrine	If passed, this would end the “employment at will” doctrine in the state. Employers would have to document “just cause” for firing an employee.	NO	This amendment would unnecessarily open additional litigation avenues, be of limited benefit to employees, and make the cost of doing business unnecessarily expensive in the state.

Amendment 56	Employee relations, health insurance	If passed, this would require employers of more than 20 people to pay for health insurance for their employees and families; also would establish a government program to administer the program.	NO	This amendment would make the cost of doing business in this state prohibitive and drive jobs out of the state.
Amendment 57	Employee relations, workplace conditions	If passed, this would allow employees to sue employers for work injuries outside of the workers’ compensation system.	NO	This amendment would make the cost of doing business in this state prohibitive and drive jobs out of the state.
Amendment 58	Taxes	If passed, this would eliminate a tax credit for property taxes paid for payers of the severance tax, using the revenue primarily to fund college scholarships.	NO	This amendment unnecessarily raises taxes for a cause better suited for private charitable contributions.
Amendment 59	Education funding	If passed, this would create a state education fund savings account within the state education fund, to be funded from 10% of the monies deposited into the state education fund, including revenue that would otherwise be rebated under the TABOR rules, would also require that state educational spending increase by rate of inflation plus 1% through fiscal year 2010-2011; and restricts spending of the state education fund to specific education expenses	NO	This amendment would eviscerate TABOR.

Tags: Syndicated

Worst. Congress. Ever.
Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is sneaking a provision into the appropriations bill that will ban development of shale oil reserves.
Senator Jim DeMint reported:

Sec 1602 continues ban on oil shale. The language follows:

SEC. 1602. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 152 of division A of H.R. 2638 (110th Congress), the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, the terms and conditions contained in section 433 of division F of Public Law 110–161 shall remain in effect for the 19 fiscal year ending September 30, 2009.

Tags: GatewayPundit, Syndicated

You knew this was coming:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

BEATING PROTESTERS NO LAUGHING MATTER
Recreate 68 Calls for Accountability for Police Protective Association T-shirt

DENVER, September 28, 2008 - Denver ­CBS4 reported yesterday that the Denver Police Protective Association, the union representing most of Denver's police officers, has created and distributed a "tongue-in-cheek" t-shirt that suggests that "Denver's finest" think that beating people exercising their First Amendment rights is part of their job.

As described by Brian Maass, the back of the shirt­ given free to every Denver police officer and now being sold to other departments­ "features a menacing-looking police figure, wearing what looks like a Denver police badge and helmet and clutching a baton" with the slogan "WE GET UP EARLY, to BEAT the crowds," and "2008 DNC." The front shows the number 68 with a slash through it, an obvious reference to Recreate 68 (R-68), which organized, as promised, several peaceful, non-violent demonstrations during the DNC. It was initially reported to R-68 that officers were wearing the t-shirt under their riot gear during the convention, but the rumor was unable to be substaintiated at the time.

Substaintiated. That's our Glenn.

The people of Denver were assured by the city that it would respect First Amendment rights during the DNC, and that that police officers were being trained to do so. The actions of police during the DNC, which involved numerous violations of people's right to freedom of speech and assembly, put the lie to those promises. And now this appalling, tasteless t-shirt shows why. The members of Denver's police union clearly have no respect for the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

They have no respect for something, anyway.

The Denver Police Department Operations Manual includes a Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, which begins, "As a Law Enforcement Officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind, to safeguard lives and property, to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality and justice." The creation of this t-shirt makes a mockery of that statement.

As always, R68 discredits itself. By and large, the cops did exactly what their code requires: they protected the innocent, the weak and the peaceful from the "disorder and violence" R68 and its minions hoped to create. As for the "numerous" violations of the First Amendment rights of protesters--we're still waiting for the three, four, "or even five" lawsuits you pledged to file, Spagz.

Naturally, there are demands:

We, the Re-create 68 Alliance, demand that Mayor John Hickenlooper, Manager of Safety Al LaCabe and Police Chief Gerald Whitman conduct an investigation into the creation and distribution of this t-shirt; that Nick Rogers, the officer identified as responsible for producing the shirt, and any other officers involved, be disciplined; and that police training regarding civil liberties be reevaluated, because it clearly has not achieved its intended effect. We also demand that Mayor John Hickenlooper and Chief Jerry Whitman issue a public statement condemning this shirt, and condemning the attitude behind it that treats police abuse of power and brutality against peaceful protesters as a joke.

It's the tone that grates.

(via Westword, which for some reason doesn't link to the press release; a cursory look failed to find it on the interweb apparatus)

Tags: Syndicated, The Drunkablog

And the same people that caused this are right there asking us to "trust them to fix it" When you see the evidence put together like this it is quite damning. Throw the bums out..at the very least.

Tags: Daily Blogster, Syndicated

Neither enemy faces, nor the mothers that love them, come to mind when one is thinking of nothing but endeavouring to survive. Philosophising about war is useless under fire.

Linda Berdoll, Mr. Darcy Takes A Wife, 2004

Everyone's a pacifist between wars. It's like being a vegetarian between meals. ~Colman McCarthy<!--, quoted in You Said a Mouthful, Ronald D. Fuchs, ed.-->

Tags: Daily Blogster, Syndicated

Marines Sue Congressman John Murtha.
Hopefully they will post where we can contribute to their legal fees soon

Former Marine Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, 24, of Canonsburg, will file a civil lawsuit against U.S. Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Johnstown, who was widely quoted two years ago saying that eight Marines carried out a cold-blooded killing of 24 civilians in the Iraqi town on Nov. 19, 2005.

Charges were later dropped against all but one of the Marines, with a military prosecutor calling allegations against Mr. Sharratt “incredible.” READ THE REST

________________

Iraq passes Provincial Election Laws

BAGHDAD: After months of negotiation, Iraq's Parliament passed a crucial election law on Wednesday, but only by setting aside for future debate the most divisive political issues.

The law could clear the way for provincial elections to take place in much of the country early next year. The elections are viewed by many Iraqi and American officials as crucial for the nation to heal its deep-running political and religious fissures and also to shore up the fragile security gains that have been achieved in recent months. Read the rest

______________

Dennis Prager was in town this week for a debate;

Prager & Sirota....Sirota severely outmatched.

Monday at South High in Denver, a big crowd came out to see the noted conservative writer and radio host Dennis Prager debate Continue reading "Headlines of the Day - Good news from Iraq"

Tags: Daily Blogster, Syndicated

Another People’s Press Collective dedicated reader just sent us a copy of Protect Colorado’s Culture of Corruption Future’s latest dishonest mailer that’s dripping with more fear mongering.  You won’t be surprised that they’re still abusing Colorado’s real heroes as puppets for their elaborate LIES:

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Honesty just isn’t one of Protect Colorado’s Culture of Corruption Future’s strengths.  Taking their Page 4 LIES one by one (click the links to read the actual Amendment text on the Colorado Secretary of State’s webpage):

Amendment 47: How does giving firefighters the right to choose whether they want to join a union take their equipment and tools away?  Amendment 47 will only take away power from Union Thug Bosses from strong-arming firefighters to join a union.  The amendment actually protects an individual firefighter’s right to choose what’s in his best interest.

Amendment 49: Doesn’t dictate how hardworking firefighters spend their paychecks.  It prohibits Union Thug Bosses from stealing money out of firefighter paychecks.  It requires Union Thug Bosses to ask before taking money from our hardworking Colorado firefighters.

Amendment 54: Closes campaign finance loopholes for corrupt, scumbag corporations who presently can spend millions of dollars in campaigns to get crooked politicians elected and then can be rewarded by those politicians with multi-million dollar NO-BID government contracts.  Small businesses actually benefit from an Amendment 54 even playing field allowing them to compete for those same government contracts.  Working families benefit because our tax dollars don’t go to crooked politicians paying off corrupt, scumbag contractors with multi-million dollar political favors.  In addition, Amendment 54 sets up a statewide searchable database that allows us, the hardworking Colorado families, to see which politicians are handing out NO-BID government contracts and which contractors receive them.  We should be able to see exactly how our tax dollars are being spent. 

Protect Colorado’s Culture of Corruption Future is shameful and dishonest.  They send out mailers full of LIES on Amendments 47, 49, and 54.  They LIE to Colorado voters’ faces about Amendments 47, 49, and 54.  They refuse to publicly debate Amendments 47, 49, and 54 to defend their LIES.  Unfortunately for Protect Colorado’s Culture of Corruption Future , we Colorado voters actually use our heads and see through the LIES.

Tags: Amendment 47, Amendment 49, Amendment 54, Colorado, lies, Protect Colorado's Future

Last week a Rocky Mountain News piece by the Editorial Board stated:

There’s a widely held political consensus in Colorado, one we essentially share, that new state revenues should largely flow to one of three priorities: higher education, transportation or health care.

This consensus is irresponsible, promotes unaccountable bureaucracies, and is unfair and intolerant.

It’s irresponsible because if you really care about these issues, empowering government to address them disempowers you.  Unlike non-government charities, to which you can stop donating to if you think they’re doing a lousy job, government gets your tax dollar no matter what.  So the government programs for higher education, transportation, and health care are unaccountable to those who fund them.

Worse yet, every tax dollar government takes from you is one you could have donated to a charity that actually earned your support.  That’s unfair to these charities.  It’s also intolerant of your values because the taxes force you to support someone else’s notion of what is a worthy cause at the expense of supporting your own.

Government is supposed to protect us from thugs who want to use force to substitute their judgment for our own. It’s not supposed to be the thug.

(Thanks to Ari Armstrong for the pointer.)

Tags: PPC, Syndicated

The Daily Camera published my article on the 2008 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1B today. (print version)

Update: The so-called “Citizens for a Worthy Cause” that support this are really the very organizations that receive the tax revenue.  See here.

Ballot Issue 1B: It’s not Your Penny to Give
by Brian T. Schwartz

Would you call the police on someone who didn’t donate to a charity that you consider to be a “worthy cause”?  If not, then you should oppose County Issue 1B in this November’s election, which would extend the so-called “Worthy Cause” sales tax.  This tax is immoral — regardless of how worthy the causes are. It is compulsory charity, or charity at gun-point. It is intolerant to people’s values and unfair to charities that must earn our donations. It undermines both the responsibility of donors and the accountability of non-profits that receive forced donations.

The compulsory charity tax represents the tyranny of the majority. Recipients of the tax revenues are politically-favored charitable organizations in Boulder County. Generous Boulder County residents can and do donate to these organizations. But in 2000, a half-percent majority of voters supported the measure, which makes it a crime for Boulder County consumers not to donate to these charities. You can end up in behind bars.

This is an offensive display of arrogance and intolerance. In 2000, almost 67,000 voters voted for the tax.  Apparently it’s not enough for these supporters to donate to charities they deem “worthy.”  They asked government to impose their values on everyone else, as if they are anointed to declare what the real “worthy causes” are.  But there’s no compassion in spending other people’s money by force.

Compulsory charity is unfair to non-profits who do not receive government subsidies. Every dollar you’re taxed to fund politically-favored charities is a dollar you could have given to a charity that actually earned your donation.  We appropriately disapprove when government legislates to give certain businesses advantage over competitors. We should also object to politically-favored government-subsidized charities.

Compulsory charity undermines your responsibility to promote your chosen values. Say you care about whether people receive adequate health care, housing, or education. The last thing you want is for government to address the issue. Government is unaccountable to you as a donor; it gets your tax dollars even if you think it’s squandering your tax dollars.  This lack of accountability gives government-funded charities little incentive to be efficient or effective.  By empowering government, you disempower yourself.

Compare this to donating to a charity yourself.  You’re the customer. Charities know that to keep your donations coming, they must demonstrate that they are a worthy cause. You can read the organization’s literature and website, talk to their employees, or read performance evaluations by Charity Navigator and GuideStar.org.

GuideStar envisions “an increasingly efficient nonprofit marketplace where donors seek out and compare charities, monitor their performances, and give with greater confidence; nonprofit organizations pursue more effective operating practices, embrace greater accountability, and enjoy lower fund-raising costs; and society benefits from a more efficient, generous and well-targeted allocation of resources to the nonprofit sector.”

Supporters of the “Worthy Cause” tax claim that without it, worthy causes would not have sufficient funds.  But the alternative to the compulsory charity tax is not “doing nothing.”  The alternative is to take responsibility for supporting your values by donating money yourself and persuading others to donate.

Remember the 67,000 voters who originally supported the tax?  If they thought these causes are so important, they should put their money where their vote is.  This year’s Boulder County budget includes $3.5 million in the “Worthy Cause Fund.”  Instead of voting to force their neighbors to donate to charity, a $50 tax-deductible donation would provide this revenue.

Another common argument in support of compulsory charity is that “we all benefit from it.” But do we?  The poor also pay the sales tax, but could benefit more by using their hard-earned money to provide for their families.  That $3.5 million can create other values, either through other charities or businesses that create jobs.

In any case, just because you benefit from something does not mean you must pay for it.  We benefit if others have food, shelter, clothing, and good hygiene, but this doesn’t mean government should force us to buy food, shelter, clothing, and soap for others.

Some claim that these are necessities of life are “rights.”  They are not. Rights are freedoms of action, not entitlements to what others produce.

The “Worthy Cause” tax empowers authorities to decide for others what causes are more “worthy” than others.  This is an elitist and intolerant, and has no place in a civil society.  Ballot Issue 1B isn’t about “a penny for a worthy cause,” it’s about compulsory charity.  If you want to donate your own penny, that’s great.  But your neighbors’ pennies are not yours to give.

Tags: Syndicated