ledeagenda.com

From USA Today:

The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.
Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession’s first 18 months - and that’s before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.

Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time - in pay and hiring - during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.

The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.

When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.

The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules.

“There’s no way to justify this to the American people. It’s ridiculous,” says Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a first-term lawmaker who is on the House’s federal workforce subcommittee.

Jessica Klement, government affairs director for the Federal Managers Association, says the federal workforce is highly paid because the government employs skilled people such as scientists, physicians and lawyers. She says federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs.

More proof of the growing fascist threat and the dire need for a seperation of everything and the State.

From the LATimes:

This morning comes word from a new ABC News/Washington Post poll that almost four parents out of 10 do not believe the vaccine is safe and have no intention of allowing their children to receive it.

More than 60% of adults say they have no intention of getting the vaccine either.

Using an open-ended question, the poll also found the overwhelming reason for rejecting the vaccine this year despite federal warnings and mounting concern about the illness’ seriousness was concern about side effects and disbelief in its safety, especially suspicions that it has been inadequately tested. Other reasons included general ignorance and a belief the illness was probably less serious than the danger of the vaccine.

So much for the persuasive powers of the U.S. federal government. Think about that for a minute: A whopping majority of Americans (62%) would rather risk illness than believe in their government’s urgings of necessity and safety.

This, of course, is great news. Numerous sources are reporting that the Swine Flu Vaccine is untested, skipped over numerous safety tests, and is vaccinating against a relatively minor flu bug. No wonder the State felt the need to grant the Vaccine makers legal immunity from their product. Given the dubious origins of the Swine Flu, it is refreshing to see skepticism of this virus.

Government Propaganda- 0

The People- 1

For more coverage on the Swine Flu click here.

Update 2:56 pm

Do as I say, not as I do? The President’s own daughter’s have not received the H1N1 vaccine.

From WaPo, of all places:

People can, and undoubtedly will, argue for some time about whether President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile, though, there’s a simpler and more immediate question: Does the Constitution allow him to accept the award?

Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the Emolument Clause, clearly stipulates: “And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

The award of the peace prize to a sitting President is not unprecedented. But Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson received the honor for their past actions: Roosevelt’s efforts to end the Russo-Japanese War and Wilson’s work in establishing establish the League of Nations. Obama’s award is different. It is intended to affect future action. As a member of the Nobel Committee explained, the Prize should encourage Obama to meet his goal of nuclear disarmament. It raises important legal questions for the second time in less than 10 months — questions not discussed, much less adequately addressed anywhere else.

The five-member Nobel commission is elected by the Storting, the Parliament of Norway. Thus the award of the peace prize is made by a body representing the legislature of a sovereign foreign state. There is no doubt that the Nobel Peace Prize is an “emolument” (”gain from employment or position,” according to Webster).

An opinion of the U.S. Attorney General advised, in 1902 that “a simple remembrance,” even “if merely a photograph, falls under the inclusion of ‘any present of any kind whatever.’ ” President Clinton’s Office of Legal Counsel, in 1993, reaffirmed the 1902 opinion, and explained that the text of the clause does not limit “its application solely to foreign governments acting as sovereigns.” This opinion went on to say that the Emolument Clause applies even when the foreign government acts through instrumentalities. Thus the Nobel Prize is an emolument, and a foreign one to boot.

In an effort to re-secure another six-year term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve and ward off efforts to open the books of the Central Bank to Congressional oversight, Mr. Bernanke has spent a great deal of time over the last two month’s meeting with and discussing the role that the Fed has in United States monetary policy.

Tonight Mr. Bernanke has agreed to do a sit-down Town Hall with a hand-selected PBS audience. The crowd, per the Wall Street Journal, was well-crafted:

The room for the taping will have 190 people, 40 of whom will have the opportunity to ask questions. They were selected by The NewsHour, local PBS affiliate KCPT and ConsensusKC, a community organization that helps select diverse audiences for events. A list of participants includes people from local chambers of commerce, unions, Kansas and Missouri universities and numerous nonprofit groups.

Additionally, it is noted:

Discussions to do the forum began in March after the “60 Minutes” program featuring Mr. Bernanke, said Robert Flynn, a spokesman for The NewsHour. Why Kansas City? “We wanted to be somewhere in the middle of the country, away from the coasts and away from Washington,” he said. The only two cities under serious consideration were Kansas City and St. Louis, and The NewsHour wanted to use a Federal Reserve bank given security considerations.

Mr. Bernanke re-affirmed implicitly that the Federal Reserve is in fact a private central bank whose charter is the regulate the Nations monetary supply in monopoly status:

Jim Lehrer, after explaining the mechanics of the event to the audience, opened the taped part of the program by calling on Gwen Bailey, a social worker with the Visiting Nurse Association.

Her question: “Exactly what is the Federal Reserve? I don’t have a clue what they do, how they impact our lives” and how it makes decisions.

Mr. Bernanke got the opportunity to explain not just financial stability, monetary policy and bank supervision, but that the Fed is responsible (through consumer protection) for the structure of disclosures on credit-card statements.

The explanation led Mr. Lehrer to ask for a definition of an “independent” central bank. “There’s a lot of evidence that when politicians make monetary policy, you don’t have a good result,” Mr. Bernanke said. It’ll lead to inflation, he says. “We’re very very sensitive to this issue,” he says.

Asked about the Fed being referred to as the fourth branch of government, Mr. Bernanke says “that’s a tremendous exaggeration.” He says he’s accountable to Congress and is subject to the appointments process by lawmakers. “Our independence has to be won everyday.”

Mr. Bernanke also implicitly confirmed fears from Austrian Economists that the drastic increase in the monetary supply could lead to inflation down the road and that the Stimulus package will do nothing to create “shovel-ready” jobs:

Bob Litan, a well-known economist at the Kauffman Foundation, asks about employment growth falling short with slow GDP growth. Bernanke says “economic forecasting makes weather forecasting look like physics.”

He sees the unemployment rate peaking in 2010, with 1% annualized growth in the second half of this year. Even when the economy begins growing again, he says “it’ll be a while before the job market gets back to where we want it to be.”

Responding to a question about inflation, Mr. Bernanke says inflation will be “quite low” for the next couple of years given slack from “the softness in the global economy.” But he says once the economy is growing again, he says it’ll be “very important” to unwind the money the Fed has put into the system.

The importance of these frank discussions however will be missed due to the allusion of journalistic objectivism.

This audience was not impartial, nor was the setting, a branch office of the Fed, intended to be. The questions that Mr. Bernanke faced were not, “from the man on the street”, but rather from specific interest  groups who have a strong desire to keep the current regulatory system in place. The questions were admittedly pre-screened and security considerations tight to avoid the suggestion of any alternative system to the Federal Reserve.

This tour is an allusion, designed by community organizers to craft a specific result: public backing for expanded regulatory powers for the private, central Federal Reserve bank. Fortunately we have Ron Paul’s HR1207 and the efforts of the Campaign For Liberty to fight off this well designed public-relations campaign.

Will we open the books and examine the evidence that this central bank has created the boom and bust cycle that has largely served as a control mechanism by government since 1913? Will we expand the powers of the Federal Reserve to every institution that presents a “systemic risk” to the financial system, even though the Fed has never been audited? We will pass HR1207, which has the support of 64% of the House, and S604, which has 18% support in the Senate, and Audit The Federal Reserve? 

Audacity it seems, is owned by fiat.

I have come to the conclusion that Janeane Garofalo must be a plant by Fox to kill off ‘24′.

I am a racist for opposing socialism? I am a racist for demanding that the Federal government stick to its enumerated powers? I am a racist for pointing out that the Federal Reserve is actually the main culprit of the economic crisis?

Not that there aren’t bad apples in every crowd, but I am 100% certain that my opposition to the TARP funds, the bailouts, and socialist nationalization of our economy is rooted in freedom and liberty, in the Constitution.

I find it so unbelievably offensive that the media has chosen to carte blanch ignore the reasons behind the Tea Party movement. I will say it again: I attended and supported the Tea Party protests to oppose the unconstitutional spending found in the Stimulus and TARP legislation. I attended the Tea Party protests because I oppose the socialist takeover of our free markets. I oppose government ownership and control of any industry.

Given the massive political shift that took place on November 4th, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Fox executives made the decision to kill off ‘24′ in favor of a new show with more targeted political themes. What really galls me though, is the manner in which Fox chose to do it. For the fans of Fox’s ‘24′ to be stabbed in the back by one of the most successful shows on the Fox network, one can only wonder how serious Fox ever took the ideas they claimed to favor.

It seems that like with most corporations nowadays, there is no two-way loyalty. As soon as the winds shifted for the product that Fox offered, they moved quickly to make a self-imposed destruction. In this case, they deliberately chose to introduce Jeaneane to the show to offend the show’s core audience.

Mark my words: very soon we will see their newest project unveiled and I am willing to bet it will be  based on the benefits of a Big-Brother state in a post-modern economically collapsed world. In other words, much as ‘24′ was tailored to the Bush administration, very soon the winds will shift to a new show showing the virtues of an Obama rule.

We have only one real choice: it is time to turn off our TVs. This time for good.

I will admit, in the eyes of the television industry, I am but scant insignificance. I don’t watch much TV at all, instead preferring the internet or online video games for my “zone out” entertainment. I watch Boise State Football, and a little other college and professional football as well. But I do not watch any shows regularly (or really at all), with the exception of one noticeable standout: ‘24′.

At least I did until this season.

I have opined many times on this blog, joining a wide variety of other people who have quit buying and subscribing to their local newspaper for the sense of political, social and religious bias found in news editorial content. Certainly, the cable television explosion has done the same for the television industry, as former cable giants (CNN) have taken a back seat to news sources more in-tune with their readers’ political mindset (Fauxnews).

Quite simply, people do not need to put up with having their political, religious or social beliefs insulted anymore.

Should this season of ‘24′ be a precursor of things to come, count me out.

Like most loyal ‘24′ fans, I was bothered by the season-long cancellation of last year’s show. I understood the writers strike- It was not just this show that was being affected. It was annoying, but I considered it as a “patience is a virtue” moment and otherwise went about looking forward to when the show would return to the air.

Hindsight is 20-20. Looking back, at what should have been seen as a red-flag to the show’s politically conservative audience, Fox announced that ‘24′ would be one of the first shows on the Fox Network to ”reduce it’s carbon footprint”. Again, annoying, but the show’s entertainment value offset any pet-project that Fox would have the show undertake.

Yet another couple of months later Fox announced that Jeanine Garofalo would be joining the cast. Warning lights started flashing and a mild digestive unease took hold, but again, the show has great entertainment value. Provided these additions didn’t affect the core worldview the show presented, it would still maintain a high-quality entertainment value. After all, Jeanine could be scripted in for a villain, right?

Wrong. Thus far into the season Jeanine’s character plays essentially the FBI replacement for Chloe O’Brian in the disbanded CTU unit. And I will admit, I cannot recall any quip that her character has made that stands out. But still, she seems so out of place on the show.

The dagger always needs to be twisted a little deeper. The producers would not be content with just adding one of the most profoundly liberal actors in Hollywood to a show aimed at conservatives. No, we also need to have Kieffer Sutherland give near-weekly “Go Green” infomercials just to make sure we fully alienate the show from its target audience. Real brilliant move jackasses.

And I will admit, had the producers of ‘24′ stopped there, I would have been quiet about my opposition to the show’s new direction. But that was until we finally got around to watching this week’s episode on Hulu last night.

For those of you who haven’t watched ‘24′ thus far this season, here is really all you need to know- terrorists have a bio-chemical weapon. Jack is infected with said bio-chemical weapon. And just to make it abundantly clear that they want to slap their conservative viewers in the face, they had the doctor assisting Jack on this week’s episode recommend a treatment that was discovered from stem-cell testing.

Ok, you know what Fox, I’m sick of this. I’m pissed off now. You just couldn’t keep your agenda out of the one show that most conservatives had left to enjoy could you? You just couldn’t let the one show that still didn’t try to press the liberal agenda remain true to its core values, could you? You just had to stab your viewers in the back, again.

Fine. I will probably continue to watch this season, but only because I am already emotionally engaged in the story and outcome. But what I cannot promise is that I will be back next year when ‘24′ returns.

I am angry that the liberal agenda has taken over everything- Washington, business, the economy… now even simple pleasures like ‘24′ need to tow the liberal line. Well, fine. Just don’t expect me to express a continued interest in the show if this is the direction you want to take it. This conservative has had enough force-fed agenda driven politics.

Regarding last night’s press conferance:

SOURCE: Reporters were told in advance if president was going to call on them. Senior Administration Officials notified reporters from Stars & Stripes, Univision and other news outlets that they should have question ready. Several reporters moved up in assigned seats as result…

This is report it our-way agenda setting. Sadly, President Bush (and probably many others before him) mastered it first.

Regarding the politically correct agenda:

During President Obama’s second East Room news conference, he took questions from 13 reporters over about an hour — that’s the same as during his first presser on Feb. 9. 

But in quite a departure from the first presser — and White House protocol — Obama skipped over the nation’s top newspapers. Indeed, there were no questions from the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal or USA Today. That might not sit well with the already insecure newspaper industry.

In exchange, Obama opened things up to a wider variety of outlets, including  Spanish-language television, a military news outlet, and black-oriented media. It’s another example of the White House going over the typical Washington press corps “filter.”

Regarding report it our way for access:

The highest-profile moments in the new approach have been well-noted, such as the president giving an interview to progressive radio host Ed Schultz and Obama calling on a reporter from the liberal-leaning Huffington Post at his first news conference.

But those moves are only part of a much larger strategy aimed at communicating directly with audiences the White House believes are more sympathetic to the president’s agenda — and one in which much of the work is being done by Obama’s top advisers.

On the day Obama released his ambitious spending plan, the administration put White House budget director Peter Orszag on a conference call with liberal-leaning writers. Senior administration aides have followed up by promoting the budget to local radio talk shows during morning drive time.

More info:

Lede Agenda: Fake Press Conferances

WSJ: Obama Pre-Screen’s Questions

Newsbusters: Obama’s “Pre-Approved” Press List Getting Notice

From Live Feed:

Fulfilling their scheduling civic duty is starting to seem increasingly cumbersome to broadcasters, however. Between a struggling economy and ratings sagging in midseason, every interruption costs networks advertising dollars and momentum. 

“At a time when we’re struggling not only financially but to build audiences, this doesn’t help on either front,” one network executive said. “These repeated interruptions — and the rumor of even more to come — really make it difficult to build audience flow and loyalty. We will all lose one or two million dollars for this.”

The presidential election resulted in a fall season regularly interrupted by political news coverage, followed by primetime inauguration coverage, then two primetime speeches about the economy. The White House requesting yet another primetime slot, during sweeps and right after several shows dropped to new lows in last night’s ratings, has some executives exasperated.

“I believe in the president and his policies, and as broadcasters we have a responsibility to provide the airtime,” said another network insider. “But these frequent primetime requests are wreaking serious havoc with our schedule and our advertisers. Ratings are down everywhere and the airtime is costing us all significant dollars when we can least afford it.”

From Yahoo:

Obama’s comments near the market close rattled investors when he said financial institutions that pose a serious risk to markets should be subject to serious government supervision.

“Whenever there is a question about how large the government role will be … the market doesn’t like that,” said Peter Kenny, managing director at Knight Equity Markets in Jersey City, New Jersey.

“As we came close to the bell we got the curveball: our president came on TV,” he said.

Trade was choppy on Wednesday, with stocks buffeted by uncertainty over Washington’s plan to shore up the banking system and weak housing sales. The market had turned briefly positive after the government gave details on stress tests of banks’ capital levels, with investors betting that banks would be able to withstand the news tests with relative ease, before finally falling in late trade.

These two articles highlight perfectly what is going on- the MSM being in the tank for Obama while pushing us down a self-destructive national path. Wonderful.