Brooksville, FL - It has come to light this past week that the late Senator Ted Kennedy was actively working with Soviet agents, the Kremlin, and the Soviet President in 1983 to undermine President Ronald Reagan and the American people in an attempt to steal the White House and sell out America.

Kennedy contacted the Soviet Government, via KGB spies working in America mind you, with a deal that if they (the Soveit Union) would donate large sums of cash to the Democratic Party during the next election cycle then he (Ted Kennedy) and his fellow Democratic Senators in Congress would do their best to undermine Reagan for the remainder of his term and if they could defeat Reagan then they would have America surrender to the Soviets thus ending the Cold War.

This my fellow Dixons is pure, unbrideled, treason and Ted should had been hung from the highest oak tree for committing this crime.

Maybe you should read the first paragraph again and let it sink in real good… Ted Kennedy worked under the table with Soviet KGB agents to sell America down the river to take the White House and turn America into the Socialist-Marxist dictatorship that he and his brothers dreamed of.

Question, if General Eisenhower contacted Hitler and promised to undermine the American war effort and President Roosevelt if they (the Nazi’s) would get him elected and then on top of it would surrender to the Nazi’s and end World War II would that be treason? You bet.

Question, if Alexander Hamilton contacted King George and promised to undermine the Founding Fathers and the Colonial war effort (have the Colonies surrender) in exchange for being appointed as the Lord of America would that be treason? Yep.

So why did this not happend to Ted Kennedy? Well for starters it has been kept under the rug until this past week, secondly the State Media (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) are all in cahoots with Kennedy and his successor Obama whom all want Kennedy’s Marxist-Socliast vision of America. Let that sink in real good and read it again for those out there that are slow.

Where are we getting our facts? Well from Forbes.com whom have fact checked this story and its documents through and through. We are not making this up… we are reporting on a story that has been reported by Forbes.

So next time you hear a reporter, all be it local or national, begin to talk or air video of someone praising Kennedy then remember this story. Remember that if Kennedy was successful in his efforts in 1983 then you’d be wearing an olive drab jump suit waiting in a bread line somewhere across America as the Red flag of the Soviets flew above your head. This is what we were fighting to prevent during the Cold War… the Soviets saught to conquer America and turn it into another puppet Communist State and Kennedy obviously supported this vision.

Also if they or anyone in the media praises Kennedy and ignores this action of his then you can be assured that they are a corrupt neo-Marxist news station and they are not to be trusted.

Below is a copy of the Forbes story… read it and let it sink inreal good.

==================================================================================

Ted Kennedy’s Soviet Gambit

Peter Robinson, 08.28.09, 12:01 AM EDT

Considering the late senator’s complete record requires digging into the USSR’s archives.

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.

Kennedy’s motives? “Like other rational people,” the memorandum explained, “[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.” But that high-minded concern represented only one of Kennedy’s motives.

“Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988,” the memorandum continued. “Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.”

Kennedy proved eager to deal with Andropov–the leader of the Soviet Union, a former director of the KGB and a principal mover in both the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the suppression of the 1968 Prague Spring–at least in part to advance his own political prospects.

In 1992, Tim Sebastian published a story about the memorandum in the London Times. Here in the U.S., Sebastian’s story received no attention. In his 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, historian Paul Kengor reprinted the memorandum in full. “The media,” Kengor says, “ignored the revelation.”

“The document,” Kengor continues, “has stood the test of time. I scrutinized it more carefully than anything I’ve ever dealt with as a scholar. I showed the document to numerous authorities who deal with Soviet archival material. No one has debunked the memorandum or shown it to be a forgery. Kennedy’s office did not deny it.”

Why bring all this up now? No evidence exists that Andropov ever acted on the memorandum–within eight months, the Soviet leader would be dead–and now that Kennedy himself has died even many of the former senator’s opponents find themselves grieving. Yet precisely because Kennedy represented such a commanding figure–perhaps the most compelling liberal of our day–we need to consider his record in full.

Doing so, it turns out, requires pondering a document in the archives of the politburo.

When President Reagan chose to confront the Soviet Union, calling it the evil empire that it was, Sen. Edward Kennedy chose to offer aid and comfort to General Secretary Andropov. On the Cold War, the greatest issue of his lifetime, Kennedy got it wrong.

Peter Robinson, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a former White House speechwriter, writes a weekly column for Forbes.

Boston, MA – USA: The State Media reported this morning that ultra liberal / neo-Marxist Senator Ted Kennedy died peacefully in his sleep due to complications of brain cancer. Well don’t believe it, the reality is that Kennedy died weeks ago. Kennedy has been absent from the Senate for the past two weeks during the Marxist Healthcare push and this has hurt Obama’s efforts to ram it through Congress and down our throats.

Also for the past two weeks Obama and his cohorts have been trying to change Massachussetts state law so that the new Democrat Governor can appoint a liberal lap dog to replace Kennedy. Yesterday at 5:00PM Obama and the Marxists were told that this would not happen… its funny less then 5 hours later that Kennedy is announced dead.

Don’t believe the lies and the propiganda… use your brain Dixie!

Brooksville, FL - He was certainly brave, but was he crazy? That’s what I wondered when I picked up Rory Stewart’s “The Places in Between,” an account of the Scotsman’s 2002 solo walk across Afghanistan. That’s right, he walked. Many Afghans doubted he would survive the journey. Just weeks after the fall of the Taliban, in the dead of winter, in some of the most remote and difficult terrain in the inhabited world, he went from village to village on foot. Relying on the tradition of hospitality, Stewart found welcome, sustenance, and shelter (mostly, but not always) graciously offered by people who had very little to share.

Stewart, a British Foreign Service officer, (he served in southern Iraq after the Iraq War — the subject of another good book, “The Prince of the Marshes”) and a Harvard professor, relied upon his knowledge of Farsi and Urdu, his understanding of Afghan history and culture, and his own hardy constitution to get him through.

The portrayal of Afghanistan that resulted was illuminating and honest. He was unsparing about the deception and cruelty he witnessed, as well as the warmth and fellowship. I recall in particular the vignette about local children throwing stones at a dog for fun. For several years, Stewart lived in Kabul, where he established a charitable foundation seeking to promote local crafts.

So when Stewart raises a yellow flag about our escalating commitment to Afghanistan, we should take notice.

The rationale that President Obama has offered for our ramped-up engagement in Afghanistan, Stewart argues in a piece for the London Review of Books, runs as follows: We cannot permit the Taliban to return to power or they will revive the alliance with al-Qaida and will plot more catastrophic attacks on the United States. In order to defeat the Taliban, we must create a functioning state in the country, and in order to create a functioning state, we must defeat the Taliban.

Obama seems keen to increase our role in Afghanistan to highlight the contrast with his predecessor. Bush, Obama ceaselessly repeats, fought “a war of choice” whereas Obama will fight only “a war of necessity.”

Obama argues that Afghanistan represents such a war. But does it? In order to achieve the goal of a “stable” Afghanistan, President Obama has deployed (for starters) 17,000 more U.S. troops at a preliminary cost of $5.5 billion. His stated goals for this poor, decentralized, and shell-shocked nation match in ambition and grandiosity the claims that George W. Bush made for a revived Iraq — but with arguably less foundation. “There are no mass political parties in Afghanistan and the Kabul government lacks the base, strength or legitimacy of the Baghdad government,” Stewart writes. There is almost no economic activity in the nation aside from international aid and the drug trade. Stewart notes that while Afghanistan is not a hopeless case, it is not at all clear that it is “the most dangerous place on Earth” as advocates of a massively increased U.S. and British role argue. In fact, neighboring Pakistan, sheltering al-Qaida (including, in all likelihood, bin Laden) and possessing nuclear weapons, represents a far graver threat to our national security. Stewart believes that bin Laden operates out of Pakistan precisely because Pakistan, a more robust state than Afghanistan, restricts U.S. operations. Nor is it clear that Afghanistan poses more of a threat than, say, Somalia or Yemen. Obama promises a “comprehensive approach” that will promote “a more capable and accountable Afghan government … advance security, opportunity and justice … (and) develop an economy that isn’t dominated by illicit drugs.”

This is more than we have the knowledge or ability to accomplish, Stewart argues. As for the necessity, he is unconvinced that the Taliban should loom so large as a threat to the West. He thinks it unlikely that the Taliban will regain control of the entire country (though they do control some provincial capitals). Unlike the situation in 1996, the Afghans now have experience of Taliban rule. “Millions of Afghans disliked their brutality, incompetence and primitive attitudes. The Hazara, Tajik and Uzbek populations are wealthier, more established and more powerful than they were in 1996 and would strongly resist any attempt by the Taliban to occupy their areas.” In any case, a more circumscribed foreign role should be sufficient to prevent the revival of terrorist training camps — as it has since 2001.

One might have thought, listening to the opponents of the Iraq War, that a certain modesty about nation building would be axiomatic among liberals. Instead, we are witnessing something else entirely — the approach is now brainlessly partisan. Your nation building is a war crime. My nation building is a national security necessity. Stewart’s approach is refreshingly impartial and thought provoking.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Mona Charen
Friday, August 21, 2009

WASHINGTON (Sodom) - Let’s see if we can have a reasoned discussion about end-of-life counseling.

We might start by asking Sarah Palin to leave the room. I’ve got nothing against her. She’s a remarkable political talent. But there are no “death panels” in the Democratic health care bills, and to say that there are is to debase the debate.

We also have to tell the defenders of the notorious Section 1233 of H.R. 3200 that it is not quite as benign as they pretend. To offer government reimbursement to any doctor who gives end-of-life counseling — whether or not the patient asked for it — is to create an incentive for such a chat.

What do you think such a chat would be like? Do you think the doctor will go on and on about the fantastic new million-dollar high-tech gizmo that can prolong the patient’s otherwise hopeless condition for another six months? Or do you think he’s going to talk about — as the bill specifically spells out — hospice care and palliative care and other ways of letting go of life?

No, say the defenders. It’s just that we want the doctors to talk to you about putting in place a living will and other such instruments. Really? Then consider the actual efficacy of a living will. When you are old, infirm and lying in the ICU with pseudomonas pneumonia and deciding whether to (a) go through the long antibiotic treatment or (b) allow what used to be called “the old man’s friend” to take you away, the doctor will ask you at that time what you want for yourself — no matter what piece of paper you signed five years ago.

You are told constantly how very important it is to write your living will years in advance. But the relevant question is what you desire at the end — when facing death — not what you felt sometime in the past when you were hale and hearty and sitting in your lawyer’s office barely able to contemplate a life of pain and diminishment.

Well, as pain and diminishment enter your life as you age, your calculations change and your tolerance for suffering increases. In the ICU, you might have a new way of looking at things.

My own living will, which I have always considered more a literary than legal document, basically says: “I’ve had some good innings, thank you. If I have anything so much as a hangnail, pull the plug.” I’ve never taken it terribly seriously because unless I’m comatose or demented, they’re going to ask me at the time whether or not I want to be resuscitated if I go into cardiac arrest. The paper I signed years ago will mean nothing.

And if I’m totally out of it, my family will decide, with little or no reference to my living will. Why? I’ll give you an example. When my father was dying, my mother and brother and I had to decide how much treatment to pursue. What was a better way to ascertain my father’s wishes: What he checked off on a form one fine summer’s day years before being stricken; or what we, who had known him intimately for decades, thought he would want? The answer is obvious.

Except for the demented orphan, the living will is quite beside the point. The one time it really is essential is if you think your fractious family will be only too happy to hasten your demise to get your money. That’s what the law is good at — protecting you from murder and theft. But that is a far cry from assuring a peaceful and willed death, which is what most people imagine living wills are about.

So why get Medicare to pay the doctor to do the counseling? Because we know that if this white-coated authority whose chosen vocation is curing and healing is the one opening your mind to hospice and palliative care, we’ve nudged you ever so slightly toward letting go.

It’s not an outrage. It’s surely not a death panel. But it is subtle pressure applied by society through your doctor. And when you include it in a health care reform whose major objective is to bend the cost curve downward, you have to be a fool or a knave to deny that it’s intended to gently point you in a certain direction, toward the corner of the sick room where stands a ghostly figure, scythe in hand, offering release.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 21, 2009

“For with thee is the fountain of life; in thy light shall we see the public option.”

Yes, it’s finally come to this. We’ve dragged the Almighty Lord into the debate. It’s Yahweh or the highway.

This week, President Barry Obama claimed his version of health care reform is “a core ethical and moral obligation,” beseeching religious leaders to promote his government-run scheme. Questioning the patriotism of opponents, apparently, wasn’t gaining the type of traction advocates of “reform” had hoped.

“I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness,” Obama said, invoking the frightening specter of the Ten Commandments.

On Team Righteous, we have those who meet their moral obligations; on the other squad, we must have the minions of Beelzebub — by which, of course, we mean profit-driven, child-killing, mob-inciting insurance companies.

Why wasn’t this multidenominational group of pastors, rabbis and other religious leaders offended that a mere earthly servant was summoning the good Lord in an effort to pass legislation? Certainly, one of the most grating habits of the Bush administration was how it framed policy positions in moral absolutes.

As CBS News recently reported, Obama has thrown around the name of God even more often than George W. Bush. Then again, no group couches policy as a moral obligation more than the left. On nearly every question of legislation, there is a pious straw man tugging at the sleeves of the wicked.

What isn’t a moral imperative these days? As if they were chiseling commandments into stone tablets, Democrats refer to budgets as “moral documents.” Thou shalt compost, or climate change will descend upon the lands and smite the wicked and innocent alike. Extend alms to the downtrodden moneylenders and carmakers, for it is just, and the president commandeth thee.

If the apostate argues that dependency programs keep poor people poor or that progressive environmental policies are ineffective and create poverty or that free will is more important than free stuff, they will be dealt with like the Amorites. And you know what happened to those swine.

Morality — whether derived from religion or a Starbucks coffee cup — is only one of the many considerations Americans take into account when thinking about policy. As an atheist, for instance, my core moral concern is that elected officials stop telling me what my core moral concerns should be.

While we have no clue what Jesus would make of a public option, we do have plenty of evidence that government tends to act immorally, corruptly and incompetently — especially a government with too much power. And the self-righteous elected official who has complete moral certitude on his side also has a tendency to ignore any other concerns. That detail has been painfully obvious in this debate.

“It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies,” wrote C.S. Lewis, a man who knew a thing or two about religion. “The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

We now know that the advocates of government-run health care have full approval of their own consciences. That is surely comforting to them. Now, I don’t know about you, but I gladly will champion the policies of any president who can walk on water. Until that time, though, I’ll take my chances with blasphemy.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

David Harsanyi
Friday, August 21, 2009

Brooksville, FL - Pay czar Kenneth Feinberg’s official government title is “Special Master for Compensation.” You’ll be happy to know that he’s really getting into the confiscatory spirit of his role. Asked by Reuters whether his powers include reaching back and revoking bonuses awarded to financial industry executives before his office was created earlier this year, Feinberg asserted broad and binding authorities — including the ability to “claw back” money already paid out.

Regulations governing his office explicitly limit his jurisdiction over contracts signed before Feb. 11, 2009. But the fine print is no obstacle to Obama’s czars. “The statute provides these guideposts, but the statute ultimately says I have discretion to decide what it is that these people should make and that my determination will be final,” Feinberg claims. “Anything is possible under the law.”

Yes, he said “anything.” It’s not just senior executive officers who fall under Feinberg’s purview. “These people” also includes “the next 100 most highly paid employees” of all bank bailout recipients, who must file compensation proposals with their pay overlord by Friday.

But why stop there? The Troubled Asset Relief Program has morphed from a toxic asset buy-up to a capital injection plan and back to a toxic asset buy-up. The money has been doled out to auto supply companies and life insurance companies. Congress wants to siphon off more of it to bail out bankrupt California and create a “national housing trust fund” to bail out low-income renters. Grabby-handed politicians have used TARP as a crowbar to pry open new areas for command-and-control meddling under the guise of saving the economy.

How much longer until the pay czar is determining all corporate pay he wishes to deem “inappropriate, unsound or excessive”? House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank has yapped all year long about extending pay curbs to all financial institutions and perhaps to all U.S. companies.

Let’s remember that the Beltway hysteria over bonuses served as a convenient distraction from the responsibility of subprime meltdown-enabling lawmakers like Frank and Obama’s crony economic team. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner landed his previous job as head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York thanks to heavy lobbying by his Wall Street mentors Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, both of whom sat on the New York Fed’s selection committee. Their cronyism had multi-billion-dollar consequences for taxpayers.

Rubin was also an executive at New York-based Citigroup, which Geithner regulated. Or was supposed to regulate. Instead, he helped foster Citi’s spending binge and engineered the teetering company’s $52 billion federal bailout. This makes the Obama administration’s recent protestations about one Citi employee’s $100 million compensation package look like the very kind of manufactured outrage of which it incessantly accuses its political opponents.

Geithner also had a hand in the $30 billion Bear Stearns bailout and the multilevel AIG bailouts ($85 billion and $38 billion under President Bush and another $30 billion in March 2009 under Obama). Massive sums of that taxpayer money went to major financial institutions that had employed Obama’s moneymen and their closest confidants. Goldman Sachs, for example, raked in nearly $13 billion in December 2009 from AIG in federal TARP funds — and reported record profits this quarter with a bonus pool of more than $11 billion.

The “solution” isn’t to empower a pay czar to curb bonus payouts ex post facto. The solution is to stop dumping billions into failing companies in the first place.

As for private businesses (what’s left of them, anyway), this is a teachable moment, to borrow one of the president’s favorite phrases. Government strings are like sexually transmitted diseases: They attach forever. If a basket-case company is willing to take bailout money, it will pay an interminable price. The long arm of regulators can and will reach back and open sealed deals and signed contracts on a whim. The Obama campaign chant is the czars’ chant, too: “Yes, we can!”

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Brooksville, FL - The Florida Patriot will be shutting down the presses this summer as we go on our annual Summer Vacation. We would love to keep the Patriot running 24/7 but due to the economy and a lack of volunteers we are forced to shut down.

I hope that Obamunism has not destroyed Dixie before we get back!

See y’all on 08/20/2009!

St. Petersburg, FL - Normally we here at the Florida Patriot would not post a story such as this but we have received a few letters from some former Southern Party of Florida members that live in the Crescent Lake area whom want us to get the word out. Also we are about to shut down the “presses” for the next few weeks as we (all 5 of us) go on our separate summer vacations.

The below story was taken from the St. Pete Times… it pains us to repost any story by this liberal rag but allas they are the only ones that covered the story (its easier to report on missing geese instead of reporting on how Obamunism is turning America and Dixie into one big Socialist Banana Republic) and since we only have second hand information to rely on from the letters we recieved we are forced to do so.

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

The two young men grabbed the geese by their necks from Crescent Lake and took off running.

The animals squirmed and squawked as the men jammed them into cages in their tan pickup. It took only a few moments on a quiet Saturday afternoon.

A man who was walking around the lake turned around and stared. Across the lake, another got into his car and tried to head them off.

Stephan Van Horn, 36, was pedaling along on his bike and did a U-turn. He stopped and memorized the license plate of the truck.

When the feathers had settled, Mama Goose, the longtime matriarch of Crescent Lake, was gone. Two other geese were missing, too.

Before long, residents would call police and get a name for one of the goose grabbers.

They knew it well.

• • •

Goose-loving residents of this picturesque neighborhood have barely recovered from Austin Corley’s last expedition to Crescent Lake.

Wanted: Austin Corley… if you see him contact the St. Pete Police Dept. and it would be wise to use force if necessary to prevent him from stealing anything.

A year ago, they discovered Mama, a large buff-colored goose, paddling the lake from shore to shore, honking in distress.

Mama’s mate and babies were gone.

Geese mate for life. And these geese were beloved, like the Banyan trees and the baseball field. Mama’s bleating got so bad — HONK, HONK, HONK — one resident picked up a pair of Chinese geese and released them into the lake.

Mama warmed to the newcomers, named Lenny and Squiggy.

“They were a family,” said Jennifer Silva, 37, who witnessed the union. “I was crying. It was a beautiful thing.”

Residents discovered the identity of the goose grabber — Austin Corley, an 18-year-old from Palmetto.

Corley may have broken a city ordinance, but the police don’t typically cross county lines for such minor violations.

The son of a former beekeeper, Corley had just graduated from high school. He had an animal trapper’s license.

In an interview at the time, he admitted that he had been taking ducks and geese since the ninth grade for extra cash. He was selling them at animal auctions, getting $5 to $20 a bird. The birds went to residential lakes and Asian restaurants.

At the time, he promised never to return to Crescent Lake.

“There’s too much drama there,” he said.

• • •

This past year, geese and ducks disappeared from lakes all over Tampa Bay.

In Tampa, two women whose pet geese, Andre and Daisy, were snatched from a private lake tried to negotiate with Corley to get them back to no avail.

In Riverview, a woman accused Corley of trying to run her over when she tried to stop him from taking the ducks behind her home in a gated community. Corley was acquitted of those charges.

And just two weeks ago, Mary Jane Kohler of Harshaw Lake neighborhood was approached by two men in a pickup truck who said they were city employees coming to remove the ducks.

Kohler, 68, knew better.

“I said, ‘No you don’t, you’re not taking any ducks,’ ” Kohler said.

She followed them in her Ford Escape and got a license plate number.

• • •

Mama has been missing for three days now. There have been calls to the police, calls to area small animal auctions, calls to state wildlife officials.

No luck so far.

But the neighbors won’t let Mama go.

“We know there are other more heartbreaking things going on in the world so we understand that and keep that in perspective,” said Michael Flanagan, 52, who lives at Crescent Lake. “At the same time, we live on this lake and several of us feed those geese. They’re part of our neighborhood and our family.”

Flanagan wrote a letter to the parks department and City Council member Leslie Curran seeking help. Stronger laws. Trespass violations. Anything.

But mostly he’s counting on St. Petersburg Officer Ray Merritt.

Merritt helped the residents when Mama’s mate and babies were nabbed. Geese and ducks are domestic animals. It’s a city ordinance violation to pluck them from a public lake. Trappers can remove ducks if called to do so by the neighborhood or the city.

Officer Merritt is looking for Corley, who doesn’t have a listed telephone number. The tan pickup spotted at the lake on Saturday belongs to Corley, now 19. Merritt wants to know if Corley had a reason to be there Saturday.

“I spoke to a friend of his,” Merritt said. “What I’m telling him is ‘come on down here and show me the documentation of who wanted you to remove these ducks.’ I’m also hoping to get the geese back if they haven’t already been destroyed.”

• • •

Janet Wuske stood by the banyan tree at Crescent Lake and stroked Lenny’s downy chest Monday, trying to soothe him.

Lenny, a white Chinese male, is the last remaining goose on Crescent Lake. Squiggy, a female who was smaller and had a crooked tail, disappeared from the lake about six months ago.

Several of the neighbors are making plans to sequester Lenny, to protect him.

“Come here sweetheart,” Wuske said in a soft voice. “I know. It’s so sad. It’s so sad. Yes, it is. It’s too sad.”

Lenny stood at her feet and nibbled her hand.

“He’s just lost,” she said.

Every morning at 6:20 a.m., Wuske feeds bread to the geese of Crescent Lake.

On Sunday morning, only Lenny showed up.

But he wouldn’t eat. He wouldn’t eat Monday either.

Wuske keeps hearing him out there on the lake by himself.

HONK. HONK. HONK. HONK. HONK. HONK. HONK. HONK.

Times researcher Shirl Kennedy contributed to this report. Times reporter Leonora LaPeter Anton can be reached at lapeter@sptimes.com or (727) 893-8640.

Press Release #09-006 / Home Rule League of Florida
Exec. Director, Kevin Floyd
Friday, July 21, 2009
***PRESS RELEASE***

Due to the recent militant pro-diversity add campaign of McDonalds Corp. in which their tv and radio commericals air in spanish; the Florida Patriot and the Home Rule League of Florida have joined forces to boycott McDonalds.

Since 2000 McDonalds has been working with many pro-hispanic groups (i.e. pro-illegal immigration groups) to create spanish friendly ads for those that can not speak or read English. Since 2000 McDonalds Corp. has restriced these ads to only spanish radio stations (illegal alien channels) and to the small Hispanic districts (illegal alien hot beds) of cities like Miami, San Antonio, Los Angeles, and El Paso.

However since Novemebr 2008, McDonalds Corp. has chosen to scrap both its normal American ad campaigns and its Hispanic ad campaigns and instead has chosen create a new ad campaign which is a hybrid of both.The new ad campaigns of McDonalds have overtly Hispanic actors and actresses speaking Spanglish (i.e. broken English mixed with Spanish words or just a heavy Spanish accent).

This new ad campaign is being aired State wide in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Lousiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Oklahoma, Nevada, and Colorado. Also the new campaign is being broadcast in areas with little or no Hispanics and to make matters worse McDonalds billboards have even begun to be printed in pure Spanish.

It is the belief of the Florida Patriot and the Home Rule League of Florida that there is no need for Spanish ads on the tv, radio, or printed on billboards. The only people that can not speak English are here illegally and thus it is our belief that McDonalds is acting out in defiance of immigration laws and is shamelessly pandering to the illegals (violent criminals).

The Florida Patriot and the Home Rule League of Florida are both dedicated to wiping out illegal immigration in Dixie and we consider McDonalds to be a supporter of illegal immigration and must be dealt with if we are going to make progress towards achieving our goals.

We urge all readers and supporters to instead visit Burger King, Dairy Queen, Sonic, Whitecastle, Krystal, Taco Bell, Wendy’s, Dunkin Donuts or Checkers instead if you must eat fast food.

Help us in sending a message to McDonalds that anyone whom supports illegal immigration will be punished severly for aiding these violent criminals in their quite invasion of Dixie and America. To get the message out please send a letter to McDonalds Corp. at the below address letting them know that you and your family are boycotting them over their decision to air Spanish ad’s:

McDonald’s Corporation
2111 McDonald’s Dr
Oak Brook, IL 60523

Many assume that McDonalds is as Ameircan as apple pie and unfortunatly in todays Liberal Socialist America that is simply just not the case anymore. McDonalds has long ago sold their sole to the Socliaist open borders crowd and thinks that you and I are too dumb and lazy to do anything about it.

Prove them wrong and give them a piece of your mind!

Homestead, FL — So called “Civil rights” groups on Thursday put city and business leaders down in Homestead on  a 30-day notice that unless they meet a list of demands – including a ban on the display of the Confederate flag at taxpayer-funded events – they will be subjected to protests and boycotts (Click Here for Video).

In response the people of Dixie and her leaders, namely the great H.K. Edgerton (one of Dixie’s best leaders in over 100 years) of Southern Heritage 411 and Dixie’s legal eagles at the Southern Legal Resource Center are fighting the good fight against these prejudice vandals.

In addition we have unconfirmed reports that the Florida League of the South is assisting in the fight and that a few former members / residents of Homestead which were proud members of the late Southern Party of Florida have also joined the fray as well.

The conflict began following a Veterans Parade in Homestead in which a small company of Confederate Color Guard marched. The following week less than 100 people (head count was at 52) converged on the steps of Homestead City Hall for a press conference organized by clerical, so called civil rights and community groups who submitted the list of demands.
“We are ready to talk with the city of Homestead and the Homestead Chamber of Commerce concerning our action items. And our issues are with them, and not with the Sons of the Confederacy,” said Bishop Victor T. Curry, president of the Miami-Dade branch of the NAACP. “If the Sons of the Confederacy want to have their own parade, we are not trying to stifle freedom of speech or freedom of expression. We just don’t want to see racism walking down the streets of Homestead, being funded by the taxpayers.”

Curry warned business leaders that if their demands are not met by the 30-day deadline, the controversy would escalate to another level.

“We want the mayor and the council, and the chamber, to do the right thing. We hope that we could start this with a positive dialogue. But we’re also ready to move from dialogue to demonstration,” Curry said.

object width=”429″ height=”295″>

“We are also prepared to say to the businesses that support the chamber, that if you want to offend the people of this great county and community, then we will seek other places to spend our dollars,’’ Curry said. “We will not pay you to offend us.”

At the press conference, the coalition of organizations issued a six-point ultimatum and a 30-day deadline for those conditions to be met. If the demands are not met, the city could face protests and economic boycotts of local businesses.

The list of demands includes:

•  An apology from Mayor Lynda Bell and city officials over their handling of the issue

•  A reversal of the city council’s vote to dissolve the advisory Homestead/Florida City Human Relations Board, which initiated the challenge to the Confederate flag

•  A meeting between city officials and coalition members to discuss other concerns

•  A meeting between Chamber of Commerce representatives and the coalition to discuss their concerns

•  The city’s adoption of the guidelines for parades that the Human Relations Board established.

•  The Chamber of Commerce’s restriction of all flags in its events to official local, state and/or national flags.

None of the city council or chamber officials, including Mayor Lynda Bell, attended Thursday’s press conference, and none could be reached for comment about the demands, or the 30-day time limit.

“In light of the comments that Mayor Lynda Bell is making about us, their lack of response really doesn’t surprise me,” said Rosemary Fuller, the former chairwoman of the now dissolved Human Relations Board.

“I think Mayor Lynda Bell has not demonstrated any leadership in how she has handled this issue and for her to criticize those of us who are opposed to the Confederate flag is what has caused this to go on for the last seven months,’’ Fuller said. “The city needs to designate someone else as the point person on this issue.”

Curry said Bell canceled a meeting that was scheduled to take place between the coalition and city officials immediately after the press conference. He said she canceled because she objected to having former members of the Human Relations Board participate in the meeting.

“I really think it’s unfortunate that she [Mayor Lynda Bell] doesn’t have the foresight to understand that she needs to work with Rosemary and myself, and it’s a disservice to the citizens of Homestead,” said Pat Mellerson, a founding member of the Human Relations Board.

“I think the council should try to work with us, and meet the demands,’’ she said. “I think if the mayor does not want to have this resolved, someone else should take the lead.’’

The controversy dates back to the 2008 Veterans Day Parade in the city, which was organized by the Greater Homestead/Florida City Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber allows the Sons of Confederate Veterans to march and display the Confederate battle flag in the procession.

Opponents of the Confederate flag say it is a reminder of the violence and oppression of slavery. Supporters insist it is a symbol of their southern heritage and pride.

Homestead officials say they had no say in the city’s Veterans Day parade because it was organized by the chamber’s Military Affairs Committee, and the city only provided in-kind and logistical support. Therefore, they said, the city has no say in who is allowed to participate in the event.

Chamber of Commerce officials say it is a matter of freedom of speech, and they would not ban the groups from marching in future parades.

H.K. Edgerton is a 61-year-old former president of the Asheville, North Carolina branch of the NAACP.

He is also the founder and president of Southern Heritage 411, a pro-Confederate States organization whose intended purpose is to educate black people about their role in the Confederate Army and the War for Southern Independence.

“If they are successful in banning the flag, we will surely file a lawsuit to stop it,” Edgerton said when he was informed of the press conference.

He also sits on the board of the pro-Confederacy, Southern Legal Resource Center in Black Mountain, North Carolina, which is near Asheville.

“I think it’s absurd,’’ he said.  “It sends the wrong kind of message, especially when you’re talking about fulfilling Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of bringing together the sons of former slaves and slave owners. What the NAACP is doing, once again, is trying to use the Confederate flag to solicit donations and increase its coffers, with the same old tactic of trying to divide Americans, but it will fail again.”

Edgerton said he is not sure if his lifetime membership in the civil rights organization remains intact, but he has not been active since deciding not to run for reelection in 1988.

We here at the Florida Patriot salute Mr. Edgerton he is a great Confederate Patriot and one of the best Southern leaders Dixie has had in over 100 years.