About Me

Name: Jax Hawk
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

WILL SOCIALISM REPLACE CAPITALISM IN THE USA?

Posted by Jax Hawk on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:11:13 PM

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

"Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance”. – Winston Churchill


Obama’s decision not to build the Missile Defense System in Poland and the Czech Republic and his Noble Prize have not yet been comprehended from a philosophical viewpoint. It’s time to do it.
The last turning point similar to the current one happened approximately 400 years ago. The Western European society discovered a new hierarchy of values. Feudalism that valued service and chivalry was replaced with capitalism. Wealth became the measure of success, and everyone was to care about his own pocket only. The cult of money replaced all other values, including religious.

Capitalism turned everything upside down and made people more excited about stuffing their bank accounts than anything else. This system turned out to be extremely efficient in terms of production of goods, services, and comfort. America benefited from the system the most, and decided that the rest of the world has to adopt it as well. If some underdeveloped countries are unable to appreciate the benefits of capitalism, they should be forced to do it.
Meanwhile, philosophers say that capitalism is driven not by hard cash, but rather, striving for hard cash. It’s driven not by the production of goods, but rather, striving for consumption of these goods.
If everyone had these values, the “dog-eat-dog” principle would be the major principal in the world history. But America failed to do it. There are plenty of “underdeveloped” people in the world who continue to cherish spiritual values. There are not that many chances left to force them into worshiping money since these “underdeveloped” people adopt western technology and become stronger. The appeal to adopt American values doesn’t work either. Why would we adopt the system if the system is in crisis? Pragmatic America realized that billions of people are not willing to live in the kingdom of hard cash and decided that it would be better off leaving this kingdom itself. Now the USA is talking about introducing elements of socialism. Source: Pravda

What does Obama’s decision not to build the Eastern European Missile Defense System have to do with all of this? Well, it means that it’s not capitalism that’s undergoing the crisis, but the belief in its high-efficiency. And this, in turn, means that America, the bulwark of capitalism, is no longer the boss of the world. And if it’s not the boss any more, it has to be friends with everybody, including Russia. And it’s America’s turn to offer Russia to push the reset button. Or maybe it’s just tired of imposing its rules on others and felt that friendship is more valuable than money and power? If this is the case, we will soon witness another turning point in the world history. The preceeding article was written by an un-named reporter who wrote the article for Pravda, the Moscow version o the Washington Post and New York Times. The mouth piece for the Russian government.

This article portends the coming of Socialism to the USA not for the reasons my blog will outline, but because the American people have decided that capitalism cannot work. You would expect this from a person who lives and works in a totalitarian Marxist state. But the reference to American’s deciding that capitalism does not work is not the reason why we are racing toward the “nanny” welfare State.

The reasons are because we have a man in the Oval Office that is dedicated to attaining power and total control over the lives of Americans, and has a Congress that appears to be afraid to oppose any thing he and his ideologically committed Leftists who surround him!

If Congress passes the Democrat Bill for Universal health Care that leaves out at least 25 million people, but will add over one trillion dollars to the National debt. We will transform 1/6 th of the USA to government control from the Capitalism free enterprise system in a stoke of the pen!

And waiting in the wings of the Congress is the nail that will put the lid on the coffin that buries the free enterprise system The Cap and Trade Bill! This bill should properly be called the Cap and Tax bill, because it not only will give the Federal government control over our lives more fully. It will place limits on the energy output all walks of life starting with your homes and the industry that provides the engine that makes the Capitalism work.
To support the largesse that the Obama administration is providing to his supporters disguised as a Stimulus. The government is running the printing presses in the Treasury dept on a 24 hour cycle turning out paper money that has diminishing value!

If a miracle does not occur next November in the election that will return the Republicans if not to power to a number that can stop the stampede to Socialism by the Democrats and Obama. WE will be well on our way toward the “cradle to grave” Socialism!


Massive Federal debt( presently at 12.03 trillion$) has to eventually devalue our dollar to a point of collapse and roaring inflation that will allow those who have wanted the “New World Order” to attain their goal. With the collapse of the dollar and the inability of the Federal government to pay its way out of bankruptcy lost, and the destruction of the Free enterprising system that provides the taxes that allow the government to function . The people will grasp for anything or any body who will “save” them, and the United Nations is waiting anxiously in the wings for the demise of our system. The body that is controlled by Leftist Countries like Communist China, Russia and Third World South American and African nations would love to take control of the USA!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE KABUKI DANCE IN BEIJING

Posted by Jax Hawk on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 10:47:24 AM

In common English usage, a Kabuki dance is an activity or drama carried out in real life in a predictable or stylized fashion, reminiscent of the Kabuki style of Japanese stage play.    Source: Wikipedia

 Following a summit meeting in Beijing on Tuesday, Hu Jintao and Barack Obama also spoke of their commitment to working more closely on other major issues like free trade, rebuilding the global economy and tackling nuclear proliferation.

They also agreed to hold joint talks next year on the sensitive issue of human rights, restarting a long-stalled dialogue on the subject.

 Appearing at a joint press conference at the Great Hall of the People, the leaders of China and the US emphasised co-operation between the two powers as the only path to resolving some of the biggest issues facing the world.

In carefully scripted statements, Hu and Obama presented a broadly united front, although they did touch briefly on points of ongoing contention in the fields of trade and human rights.

Frank Sieren, an author on China, said the two leaders still do not trust each other.

“President Hu and Obama looked to me like two wrestlers hugging each other but don’t really get forward or backwards, and they were both kind of careful not to lose their face … they don’t want to press each other too much,”

“I think this is the first kind of meeting in China; they’ve met a few times before. So we have to wait [and see] how this relationship will develop, but they look like two guys who won’t have a barbecue soon.”

 Hu warned of the need to “oppose and reject protectionism in all its manifestations” – hinting at growing concern in Beijing over recent moves by the US to impose tariffs and raise duties on some Chinese imports.

 IN THE TYPE OF DOUBLE TALK THAT WE ARE  ACCUSTOMED TO HEAR FROM OBAMA. Here is what Obama had to say about China’s horrid history of human rights violations.

Obama meanwhile reiterated his comments a day earlier about the importance of universal respect for human rights – long an issue of friction between the US and China.

 Never the less, the US president said both nations’ joint interests far outweighed their differences, adding that the US-China relationship “goes far beyond any single issue”.

“I do not believe that one country’s success must come at the expense of another,” he said.

The addresses by both leaders were carefully worded, with no opportunity for questions in the joint news conference.

 Looking ahead to Copenhagen, Obama said he had agreed with his Chinese counterpart that they should aim for global pact that has “immediate operational effect”.

This kind of comprehensive agreement would be an important step forward in our effort to rally the world around a solution to our climate challenge,” the US president said.

As evidence of joint efforts to reduce emissions, Obama pointed to a recent agreement between the US and China to create a joint clean energy research centre.

He added that both he and the Chinese president had agreed to take “significant” action to reduce carbon emissions, but gave no specific targets.Thus the Kabuki dance in Beijing!

 ”As the two largest consumers and producers of energy, there can be no solution to this challenge without the efforts of both China and the United States,” Obama said.

From the Chinese side, Hu reiterated Beijing’s insistence on the different “responsibilities” rich and poor nations have in addressing climate change. So, essentially he wants the USA to reduce its way of life and production, and let China keep churning out pollution!

 But he added that China had agreed on the importance of working with other states “to help produce positive outcomes from the Copenhagen conference.”He will talk the talk, but will not walk the walk!!

Hu dedicated much of his statement to the ongoing uncertainty in the global economy, saying that while there was some cause for optimism, “the foundation for recovery is not firmly established”.

 With that in mind, he said, it was important for both sides to avoid any moves towards protectionism.

In other words he expects that the USA will continue to accept cheap and sometime adulterated drugs, toys and trinkets as well as shoes, caps ,t-shirts and every sport you can think of wearing apparel from the Communist country that pays those who make the goods slave wages!

For his part, Obama said the two leaders had agreed that a sustained recovery depended on both countries following a strategy of more “balanced” economic growth. Let me translate this for you. If we pass Cap and Trade the USA will have no economic growth and that will make him and his Marxist friends happy!

That strategy, he said, would be one “where America saves more, spends less, reduces our long-term debt and where China makes adjustments across a broad range of policies to rebalance its economy and spur domestic demand”.In other words, do nothing concrete!!

Speaking after their meeting, Obama said China’s president had also agreed that Iran must “provide assurance to the international community that its nuclear programme is peaceful and transparent”.

 ”Iran has an opportunity to present and demonstrate its peaceful intentions but if it fails to take advantage of this opportunity, it will face consequences,” he said.

Hu made no specific mention of “consequences”, but said it was essential that the row over Iran’s nuclear programme was resolved through negotiations.

 Communist China has large and growing economic ties with Iran and has been reluctant to support a tougher approach to restrict Iran’s nuclear programme. So once again no action all talk!!.

On sensitive Chinese domestic issues, Hu also called on the US to respect China’s “core interests” – a term that usually implies ending support for Taiwan and for the Dalai Lama, and his Tibetan government-in-exile.

Obama, in response, said that the US stood committed to the “one China principle, but urged China to restart talks with the Dalai Lama’s representatives. No mention by POTUS of the long-standing pact between Taiwan and aggression from Chinese Communists. The Bush administration had the 7th Fleet stationed in Japan and patrolling the Taiwan straights to ward off any attack by China. I guess that just changed!!

 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Real Reason For The Trial in New York of Khalid Shaikh Mohammad

Posted by Jax Hawk on Monday, November 16, 2009 9:56:41 AM

 

Monday, November 16, 2009

Given the availability of military commissions to try KSM and his co-terrorists., I ask why Obama has chosen to bring them to trial in federal court in New York. One searches in vain in Saturday’s Washington Post story on the decision for an explanation. And do not forget that the orders to the attorney General come directly from the White House in such a controversial matter!

No consideration of justice, history or tradition weighs in favor of treating KSM . as a criminal defendant. Against the predictable negative risks and negative consequences, advocates of Obama’s decision offer stupid considerations of public relations. Is this a trail or a public relations skit to make foreign governments like us??

Judging Obama’s treatment of KSM . by its predictable effects rather than its apparent intentions, one arrives at a harsh conclusion. If Obama sought to subvert fundamental American institutions or to confuse the understanding of the American people( upon both of which America’s future depends) he would proceed as announced.

It has been suggested that the Obama administration views KSM  as its” allies” in its war against the Bush administration. Which seems to me to an ongoing vendetta!
Obama expects them to make their treatment by the Bush administration, real and imagined, the centerpiece of their defense, with the possible result that Bush, Cheney, and others may be indicted as war criminals by European countries or international courts, thereby satisfying the far left of the Democratic Party, which Obama represents.Think about it! The ACLU and most Leftists believe this lie already!

 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his terrorist co-conspirators ( the perpetrators of 9/11) are now afforded all the protections to which American law entitles them. Now Obama, to whom the decision must be attributable, regardless of the pretense that the buck stops with Eric Holder.Has chosen to bring KSM and his terrorist friends from “Gitmo”. to federal court in New York for a civilian trial as though he and his colleagues were common criminals. Why? Doing so carries with it certain necessary consequences and obvious risks that have already been the subject of informed comment:
Here are the risks and fallacies of trying this trash in New York!

1. Obama confuses the commission of crimes with acts of war. The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon constituted acts of war.

2. Obama cloaks KSM et al. with all the constitutional protections to which American citizens are entitled under the United States Constitution.

3. Obama affords KSM et al. a public forum for the waging of their war by other means.

4. Those who apprehended and detained KSM et al. treated them as enemy combatants from whom valuable intelligence was sought and received. Trying them in federal court creates otherwise unnecessary issues regarding the admissibility of this evidence and provides them another avenue of attack on those defending the United states against them.

5. The treatment of evidence in connection with the trial raises a serious threat that national security will be compromised.

6. The trial of KSM et al. in New York by itself raises severe security risks.
Source: PowerLine.com

One of many puzzling aspects of the Obama administration’s decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others in federal court is the fact that other terrorists will be tried by military tribunals. For example, Abd al-Rahim al Nashiri, who led the attack on the USS Cole, will be tried and sentenced by such a tribunal.
And what is happening in the pre-trail proceedings may be an indication of what is coming in New York.
“There is absolutely no reason for this court to presume that the facts contained in the government’s exhibits are accurate,” District Judge Gladys Kessler wrote in ordering the release of Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed. He was repatriated to Yemen after a seven-year stay at Guantanamo, where he was brought as a teenager.

“Much of the factual material contained in those exhibits is hotly contested for a host of different reasons ranging from the fact that it contains second- and third-hand hearsay to allegations that it was obtained by torture to the fact that no statement purports to be a verbatim account of what was said,” Kessler said. She ruled the government failed to prove the detainee was part of or substantially supported Taliban or al-Qaeda forces.There are approximately 250 more detainees in “gitmo” awaiting just this type of Liberal justice!

This raises two questions: If the administration acknowledges that military tribunals are an adequate and appropriate venue in which to try terrorists, why is it so necessary to bring some to the U.S. for a jury trial accompanied by the full load of Constitutional protections? And how did the administration decide which terrorists to give public trials, which inevitably will turn into media circuses, rather than trial by military commissions?

Eric Holder answered the second question, if not the first, in the press conference in which he announced the trials:
“In each case, my decision as to whether to proceed in federal courts or military commissions was based on a protocol that the Departments of Justice and Defense developed, and that was announced publicly in July”.

“Because many cases could be prosecuted in either federal courts or military commissions, that protocol sets forth a number of factors, including the nature of the offense, the location in which the offense occurred, the identity of the victims, and the manner in which the case was investigated. All of these things must be considered. In consultation, again, with the secretary of defense, I have looked at all of the relevant factors and made case-by-case decisions for each detainee”.

Mr. Holder elaborated later in the press conference:

QUESTION: How much of a factor for you was it that in the case of the five 9/11 detainees you’re returning them basically to the scene of the crime?

HOLDER: “Well, that is something that typically happens in the criminal law. The cases are typically tried in the place where the offense occurred, and so that was one of the factors.
There are a number of other factors that went into making that determination, including the nature of the people who were the victims: largely civilians in New York.
In addition to that, this is a matter that, as I said, happened in this country as opposed to overseas, which is different from what we might do with regard to those who are going to be tried in the military commissions.
But that is a fundamental tenet of American jurisprudence, that crimes are tried in the places where they occur”.

This illustrates the perversity of mindlessly applying the criminal law template to terrorist attacks. What is the implication of Holder’s criteria? Put yourself in the place of a would-be terrorist: If you want to garner maximum publicity; if you want to make yourself into a world-famous martyr; if you want an endless platform for disseminating jihadist propaganda; if you want to be treated with kid gloves at all times; what should you do? That’s right: you should organize an attack on American soil that kills thousands. You’ll be rewarded with top-flight legal representation at taxpayer expense and a forum in which to advance the cause of jihad.
Like so many things the Obama administration does, this creates exactly the wrong incentives and needlessly puts American lives in danger. source: John Hinderaker

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey is one of the many distinguished lawyers participating at the Federal Society’s annual national lawyers conference  in Washington this past week.
Mukasey did not mince his words about the decison to try KSM in federal court. He called this decision “not only unwise, but based on a refusal to face the fact that what we are involved with here is a war with people who follow a religiously-based ideology that calls on them to kill us.” Mukasey viewed the administration’s approach as “a return. . .to the mindset that prevailed before Sept. 11 that acts like the first World Trade Center bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa and other such acts can and should be treated as conventional crimes and tried in conventional courts.”

Mukasey explained some of the difficulties of using civilian courts to try terrorists. These include the discovery process, the public presentation of evidence, and other elements of a trial that “could turn a criminal proceeding into a cornucopia of information for those still at large and a circus for those in custody.”

He also noted that when terrorists like KSM were captured, we did not gather information on the assumption that it would be presented in federal court. Thus, the prosecution is at a disadvantage in proceeding down this road now. (Some will glibly say that this is the Bush administration’s fault for the way it handled KSM, but at that time the adminisration was properly focused on preventing a follow-up attack to 9/11).

Mukasey also pointed to the obvious security issues that will be associated with the KSM trial. All things considered, he concluded: “It would take a whole lot more credulousness than I have available to be optimistic about the outcome of this latest experiment.”  Source: Breitbart.com

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

JUST ANOTHER CAMAIGN SPEECH, WHEN WILL IT END?

Posted by Jax Hawk on Friday, November 06, 2009 8:53:38 AM

Friday, November 06, 2009

President Obama opened a summit with American Indians here in Washington today, making good on a campaign promise to hold annual meetings with tribal leaders.


386 tribes were represented at the Tribal Nations Conference where Mr Obama signed a presidential memorandum requiring every cabinet agency to report back to the president on ways to improve the relationship between the federal government and tribal communities.

According to the White House today's meeting at the Department of the Interior was the largest and most widely attended gathering of tribal leaders in US history. Government officials planned to discuss problems facing the American Indians including the economy, education, health care, public safety, and the environment

"You will not be forgotten as long as I'm in this White House," Obama said during opening remarks at the all-day conference of tribal leaders and government officials.

Obama said the meeting is the largest and most widely attended gathering of tribal leaders in U.S. history. Officials planned to discuss problems facing American Indians, including economic development, education, health care, public safety and housing.

Given the government's history of reneging on agreements with Native Americans, Obama said it took an "extraordinary leap of faith" for leaders to attend the meeting. Obama said he is determined to be a good partner with tribal nation.

There are two problems with Obama's speech to the indians.

The Lakota Nation has withdrawn from all treaties with the United States, national leaders said Wednesday. “We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us,” Indian leader Russell Means told reporters and a delegation from the Bolivian embassy at a Washington news conference.
There are approximately 2,500 tribes and one broke away from the USA .
A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the US State Department on Monday 12/20.07, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States.
They also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and will continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months, they told the news conference.

The Lakota Nation includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming

The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 provided for the formation of "tribal governments" under federal authority as vehicles for Indian "self-government." The Act provided a model of government based on democratic and corporate structures often at odds with the original forms of organization among indigenous nations. The New Deal abandoned some of the exercises of federal authority typical of the allotment era that preceded it. Thus establishing a separate Indian Nation!

Tribal councils established under the Indian Reorganization Act are regarded as vehicles of "tribal sovereignty"; they act as governments and not just as corporations.Indian nations are regarded as immune from suit without their consent, under the doctrine of "sovereign immunity.

The idea of indigenous sovereignty surfaced internationally and with intensity in the Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, E/CN.4/Sub. 2/1994/56, issued in 1994 as a report to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. This document, which may eventually become the basis for an international protocol or convention, stirred up the ancient debates. The United States took an official position that the word "peoples" was inappropriate in a statement of "rights," because it implied group rights, which would threaten the sovereignty of states. The United States and others argued that "rights" adhere only to individuals, and that no group may be recognized as having any legal existence independent of a state. Indigenous nations, on the other hand, asserted that the Draft Declaration was meant to embody just such group rights, that these were essential for the survival of indigenous peoples worldwide.

Secondly, In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (in the case California vs. Cabazon band of Mission Indians) that states had no authority to prosecute gaming conducted on Indian land. It was a huge victory for the tribes.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (Pub.L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.) is a 1988 United States federal law that establishes the jurisdictional framework that governs Indian gaming. There was no federal gaming structure before this act. [1]The stated purposes of the act include providing a legislative basis for the operation/regulation of Indian gaming, protecting gaming as a means of generating revenue for the tribes, encouraging economic development of these tribes, and protecting the enterprises from negative influences (such as organized crime)[2]. The law established the National Indian Gaming Commission and gave it a regulatory mandate. The law also delegated new authority to the U.S. Department of the Interior and created new federal offenses, giving the U.S. Department of Justice authority to prosecute them.
The law has been the source of extensive controversy and litigation. One of the key questions is whether the National Indian Gaming Commission and Department of Interior can be effective in regulating tribal economic decisions related to Indian gaming. Senator John McCain is in favor of greater regulation, while a prominent professor in the field is skeptical that such regulation is effective.[3] Many of the controversies have produced litigation, some of it reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.

The National Indian Gaming Association (NIGA) is a non-profit organization founded in 1985 of 184 Indian Nations, with additional nonvoting associate members. The purpose of the NIGA is "to protect and preserve the general welfare of tribes striving for self-sufficiency through gaming enterprises in Indian country," and to "maintain and protect Indian sovereign governmental authority in Indian Country." The NIGA seeks to advance the lives of Indian people economically, socially, and politically. The NIGA's office building is located in Washington, D.C. The NIGA headquarters building was purchased by a tribal collective. It is the first structure to be owned by Native Americans in Washington, D.C The building was purchased with money from casino operations on Native American lands.

Native Americans today have a unique relationship with the United States of America because they can be found as members of nations, tribes, or bands of Native Americans who have sovereignty or independence from the government of the United States. Their societies and cultures still flourish amidst a larger immigrated American populace of African, Asian, Middle Eastern, and European peoples.Despite this fact, Native Americans who were not already U.S. citizens were granted citizenship in 1924 by the Congress of the United States.

American Indian and Alaska Native in combination 1.6 million are registered voters. This is 1.37% of the US population.

Through the years, Native Americans became US citizens by:
1. Treaty provision (as with the Mississippi Choctaw)
2. Registration and land allotment under the Dawes Act of February 8, 1887
3. Issuance of Patent in Fee Simple
4. Adopting Habits of Civilized Life(?)
5. Minor Children
6. Citizenship by Birth
7. Becoming Soldiers and Sailors in the U.S. Armed Forces
8. Marriage to a US citizen
9. Special Act of Congress


So it is easy to see this was just another "promise" speech to a minority voter group
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THREE REASONS AND MORE FOR THE USA ECONOMIC COLLAPSE

Posted by Jax Hawk on Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:12:29 AM

Thursday, October 29, 2009

 
Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

First and foremost, the US state debt has skyrocketed from $2 trillion to $11 trillion within a decade. The USA will never be able to pay off the debt.
Secondly, the political structure of the nation is vulnerable. There is neither universal legislation in the country, nor common traffic rules. The US Army does not execute its major function – defense – anymore since many foreign nationals prefer to serve in the army to obtain the US citizenship.
Third, the split of elites, which was especially visible under the conditions of the crisis.
The problems, which Panarin named, are absolutely real. However, there is only one thing that is real: America will not be able to cope with these problems. The USA is sick, but the illness began a long time ago and had a number of exacerbation. However, none of those illnesses has ever resulted in the collapse of the nation.

The USA survived several immigration and economic crises. There was the split of elites before – it once resulted in the civil war between the North and the South. Winston Churchill once said that Americans will find a way out of a difficult situation only after they try all other ways. It goes without saying that the map of the United States will remain unchanged in 2010.
Professor Igor Panarin made his mapof the divided USA in 1998, although it did not produce any attention on either the Russians or the Americans.

For those who have not seen the map It divides the USA into sections that will be taken over by foreign countries, such as Alaska by the Russians, the South West and the West Coast by the mexicans and so on! Any American knows that the USA economy is based on a large market. The larger the market is, the faster the nation can overcome economic difficulties.

America has never suffered from any crisislike like we are facing todayEven.after WWII, that is why the  current crisis so painfully. However, the interest, which so many Americans have shown to the research of the Russian professor, proves they treat the imminent threat seriously. The government and the majority of the USA will not take a risk of triggering a global war.
If we do, our nation will suffer from much greater damage than it did during WWII, when we lost thousands of military personel but no damge to our infra-structure. There were no intercontinental ballistic missiles 70 years ago. However, Our  nation's presnt leadership can provoke smaller, local wars, for example a conflict between China and India. If it happens, the USA will not try to have Russia involved in any regional conflict because Russia, for the time being, is the only state that is technically capable of destroying America,

Within six months (April through September) the dollar lost over 10 percent at the world foreign exchange trading, which marked the sharpest decline since 1991. Some experts believe that the American currency is close to collapse, which may lead to a new financial crisis.
Our present GDP to the amount of money in circulation, due to the government printing money as fast as they can spend it, is 120 times the GDP. The slide of the US dollar devaluation has been observed for a few years, but the current rate of decline is unprecedented.
Some jokester even rushed to re-read the letters of Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels written during the US financial panic of 1857 discussing the collapse of America. It would have been funny if it wasn’t so serious.

The chief economist of HSBC Bank Stephen King believes that if the US officials fail to stop the fall of American currency, it may provoke another financial crisis. “A dollar collapse would be a disaster all round! It would leave the international monetary system short of stability and long on fear. It would unleash economic upheavals on a similar scale to those seen in the 1970,” King wrote for The Independent.

American government officials, including the Treasury and the Congress,  don’t seem to be overly concerned since nothing is being done about it.And the spending marches on at a rapid pace despite the Tea Parties and protests by concerned citizens.
The US hasn’t done anything to support the currency since 1955. But is a collapse inevitable? From the viewpoint of macroeconomic indicators, the US state of affairs is, indeed, scary: A record budget deficit of $1.4 trillion, record state debt that now exceeds $11.9 trillion, high unemployment and weak currency. Huge inflows of capital into the economy that Obama is proud of haven’t yet shown results!

AND WHILE OBAMA CUTS ONLY THE "UNNECESSARY" DEFENSE SPENDING, THE RUSSIANS HAVE DEVELOPED A NUCLEAR CARRYING ROCKET THAT THEY SECRETLY FIRED AT THE POLAR REGION.
On 11 October 2008 Russia’s northern fleet held military exercises in the Murmansk region. Russia’s President Dimitry Medvedev praised the maneuvers paying special attention to the launch of the intercontinental missile ‘Sineva’, which he watched from Russia’s only aircraft carrier. The ministry of defence says the rocket, which was fired from the fleet’s nuclear submarine ‘Tula’, reached its longest distance yet – 11,547 kilometers. An aide to the Russian navy commander said it was the first time a submarine had launched the Sineva ballistic missile to its maximum range. “For the first time in Navy history, the launch was not to the Kura test range in Kamchatka [Russian Far East], but to the area of an equatorial part of the Pacific,” Captain 1st rank Igor Dygalo said, adding that the launch was made to check the preparedness of naval strategic nuclear forces. The Sineva launch was made as part of the Dvina tactical exercises of the Russian Northern Fleet, which are also part of larger-scale Stability-2008 exercises conducted with Belarus that started in September and ran until October 21..
 These RSM-54 missiles will be able to stand on alert status until 2030. The K-84 Ekaterinburg strategic submarine of the Project 667BDRM/Dela IV class of the Northern Fleet conducted a successful launch of a R-29RM Sineva/SS-N-23 missile at 15:20 MSK (11:20 UTC) on September 9, 2006. The missile was launched from a surfaced submarine from an ice-covered polar region toward the Chizha test site at the Kanin Peninsula. The three warheads that the missile was reported to carry successfully reached their targets.
 Unlike its predecessor, the Skif, the Sineva carries 10 independently targetable re-entry vehicles instead of four. The new missile has a longer range and a modern control system developed for Makeyev’s Bark SLBM (SS-NX-28). It can carry four or 10 nuclear warheads, depending on the modification. The RSM-54 carries four, and the Sineva (with a service life of several decades) 10 individually targetable reentry vehicles, with a yield of 100Kt each. source: Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces.com

So now after Obama and his followers in the Congress manage to spend US into insolvency, that will make paying the present military force impossible. All the Russians and Chinese have to do to take over the USA is threatened to annihilate us with their nukes, and Kruschefs prediction that we will not have to beat you on the battle field will become a truism!
Kruschev remarked to Agriculture Secretary, Ezra T. Benson,  that communism would eventually consume democracy. Benson replied that Americans would never accept such a drastic change in their form of government as communism. Kruschev then told Benson that it was already beginning to happen.


He said that Americans were being fed one small bite of communism at a time, and that over the course of several years, Americans will have accepted so many communistic ideals, including a massive and uncontrollable federal government, that one day we would wake up to discover that we are a democracy only in name - that our policies and methods of government will be communist in nature. Kruschev concluded that it will be the slow injection of socialist/communist principles into America - not nuclear missiles - that would destroy our nation.Source: Wikapedia

 





Posted in THREATS TO US

« THE RUSSIAN ARE ENJOYING THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR ECONOMY
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

AND I THOUGHT THE PURPOSE OF THE WAR WAS TO DEFEAT THE ENEMY!!

Posted by Jax Hawk on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:07:14 AM

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

If the United States waited until Germany and Italy had stable governments before we invaded Europe in 1944. The British and most of Europe would be speaking German, possibly Russian by now.

We went to war to defeat the Nazis and the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor.Not to establish a stable government!
MacArthur set up the government in Japan and Eisenhower set up the government in Germany AFTER we defeated the enemy!

Today we dither around at the peril of the brave men and women who are trying to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, despite the fact that the General sent by Obama has asked for 40,000 more troops to complete the job that Obama sent him to Afghanistan to do.

The absurdity of the dialogue about sending more troops is centered around the establishment of a stable government. We do not even have a stable government in the USA in my opinion. How can you equate what Obama and the Democrats are trying to do with health care and cap-and-trade with the Constitution and Bill of Rights! You cannot!!

But todays news highlites the statement by the spokes person in NATO that they would not consider sending troops to fight in Afghanistan until a stable government has been established.
“Bratislava, Slovakia (AP) – Two NATO members said Friday they will not send more troops to Afghanistan unless its Nov. 7 presidential runoff creates a legitimate government and until President Barack Obama decides on a new strategy there.
Dutch Defense Minister Eimert Van Middelkoop said his country, with 2,160 troops in Afghanistan, is awaiting the final election results “because the legitimacy of the Afghan government is key,” as well as a decision by the Obama administration.

“I think most countries are waiting for the American decisions,” van Middelkoop said at a meeting in Bratislava of the defense ministers of the 28 NATO countries.
I believe they will have to wait until Obama gets his Health Care Bill and the CAP and Trade(aka Tax) are passed, and then he will say that the economy will not support the sending of 40,000 troops as an excuse to do what he intended to do two months ago. Deny McChrystal’s request for 40,000 troops!

The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, was briefing NATO ministers — including U.S. Defense Minister Robert Gates — on his view of the war in Afghanistan at the meeting.
Danish Defense Minister Soeren Gade said allies won’t increase troop levels until they’re assured the new government in Kabul is committed to the NATO goals.
“I think whoever is going to send more troops to Afghanistan will put up some conditions,” said Gade, whose country has 690 soldiers in Afghanistan. (who cares what a country steeped in socialism that only has 690 troops committed cares?)

“They need to see the new Afghan president and say: ‘If we send more troops to your country, you have to deal with this, this and this.’ We have to make sure the new government in Afghanistan are committed to their job before we send any more troops to Afghanistan.”
Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung of Germany said he also doesn’t expect his country to increase its troop numbers in Afghanistan when the soldiers’ mandate from the German parliament comes up for renewal in December. The existing mandate allows the deployment of a maximum 4,500 soldiers, and Germany currently has just over 4,200 troops in Afghanistan.

The” Hill” is reporting today that: In a speech to nearly 3,000 servicemen at the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, Fla., Obama said those who died gave “the last full measure of devotion.”9But will he send the troops to watch their backs as McChrystal has requested?)
In the same speech, he pushed back against critics who say he hasn’t acted swiftly enough.( he has not!!)
“While I will never hesitate to use force to protect the American people or our vital interests, I also promise you this — and this is very important as we consider our next steps in Afghanistan — I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm’s way,” Obama said. “I won’t risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary. And if it is necessary, we will back you up to the hilt.”( I guess he forgot his votes against anything that Congress was doing to support the troops in the Iraq war!)
Monday’s loss of U.S. troops in Afghanistan followed Sunday’s car bombs in Iraq that killed more than 150 people, many of them children.

The president met with some of his national security advisers Monday in the White House Situation Room, the sixth meeting of its kind, to discuss the situation in Afghanistan. But fewer advisers were included, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in the region who reportedly has asked for nearly 40,000 additional troops, did not participate! (It sounds like the failure of McNamara and president Lyndon Johnson to listen to the generals in Viet Nam while they were listening to the anti-war chants in the streets and reading the negative articles in the Washington Post and New York Times)

Will Americans allow this smooth talking president to be Commander in Chief over the modern day Viet Nam! And do not believe the Left when they say we are invoved in a civil war that has been going on for 35 years. What we are fighting for is to destroy alQaeda before they attack us again. We would rather defeat them in their hideouts than in the streets of the USA!






Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HOW OBAMA GETS CROWDS AT HIS SPEECHES

Posted by Jax Hawk on Monday, October 26, 2009 12:28:09 PM

For the first time in six years the president of the USA, and Commander in Chief, is visiting the Naval Air base in Jacksonville, Florida. The Captain in command of the Naval base said publicly that at least3000 people will attend Obama;s speech,but the dirty little secret is the following post from a person who is stationed on the base, To protect her I will not reveal her name, But for what it is worth here is here response to the Commanders statement about the attendance.
"President's Visit
Captain Scorby, you didn't tell the whole story! After sign-ups to attend the speech turned up empty, you MANDATED that the troops show up for the speech! So, yeah, that's why you are expecting 3000 people! There's always more to every story
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A DEAL WITH EVIL WILL LEAD TO CATASTROPHE

Posted by Jax Hawk on Tuesday, October 20, 2009 9:19:14 AM

 

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

 

Danger – if you meet it promptly and without flinching – you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!…Winston Churchill

Nile Gardiner is Director of the Margaret Thatcher Centre for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC, AND HE POSTED THIS ON THE INTERNET. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR ALL AMERICANS TO READ THIS POST.

In the face of rising domestic opposition to the war, mounting casualties and a clear unwillingness on the part of European allies to send additional troops for the NATO-led mission, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has set his government down an extremely risky and dangerous path of negotiations with a barbaric enemy.

It is a dangerous strategy that is also backed in principle by some senior figures in the Obama administration such as Richard Holbrooke, the President’s Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who may be keen to use the British-led experiment as a trial balloon for a possible U.S. exit strategy as well. This is a disastrous approach that signals defeat, and one that must be firmly rejected by the next British administration, almost certainly Conservative, likely to take office in the spring of 2010.

Great Britain is the second largest contributor to the NATO-operation in Afghanistan, with over 9,000 combat troops on the ground. The British contribution in Afghanistan is roughly equal to that of continental Europe’s big four combined — France, Germany, Italy and Spain. So far 191 British troops have been killed serving in Afghanistan (more than were killed in Iraq), and hundreds wounded. In the month of July alone, Britain lost 22 soldiers in combat.

However great the bravery of British servicemen, it is being undercut by massive underfunding of Britain’s armed forces, crippling defence cuts, and by shortages of helicopters, armored vehicles, medical teams as well as basic equipment. Britain now spends less on defence than at any time since the 1930s, and is waging a major war on a peacetime budget. It is though the lack of political will in London that is the biggest threat to the British mission.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s recent speech on Afghanistan at NATO headquarters sent completely the wrong message to our enemies. In his address on July 27, the foreign secretary called for a political deal with so-called moderate elements of the Taliban in an effort to split the insurgency:

First, a political strategy for dealing with the insurgency through reintegration and reconciliation. That means in the long term an inclusive political settlement in Afghanistan, which draws away conservative Pashtun nationalists — separating those who want Islamic rule locally from those committed to violent jihad globally — and gives them a sufficient role in local politics that they leave the path of confrontation with their government.

In effect Miliband is saying that Britain and the United States must be willing to place cooperative, supposedly more reasonable wings of the Taliban back in local power in Afghanistan. This would be like putting the Nazis back in office after the fall of Berlin or the Khmer Rouge in charge of Cambodia again. No matter how much spin is placed on this negotiating strategy, it smacks of defeatism and appeasement, and a failure to place the conflict in Afghanistan within the broader context of a global war against a brutal Islamist ideology that seeks the destruction of the West and the free world.

British, American, Canadian and other NATO troops are not dying on the battlefields of south Asia to facilitate the return of a medieval-style government steeped in barbarism and savagery where women are treated as fourth-class citizens and individual liberty is non-existent. It would be only a matter of time before an Afghanistan dominated by “moderate” Taliban returned to its old position as a safe haven for al-Qaeda to launch attacks against New York, Washington or London.

Great Britain and the United States should have no truck with any strategy that allows a return to political power for the Taliban of whatever stripe. If this foolhardy policy is executed, it may ultimately lead to negotiations with al-Qaeda-linked groups in the region as well.

It is vital that a future British Conservative administration reverses what is a disastrously naïve approach, and commits to the complete political isolation, as well as the ultimate military defeat, of the Taliban in Afghanistan. This will require a significant increase in British defence spending to adequately fund a major military mission on this scale, as well as leadership in Downing Street that takes Britain’s great power responsibilities seriously.

As UK Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox wrote in a recent article for The Times of London,

If we abandoned our task in Afghanistan today, we would put the security of our own country in greater peril. Al-Qaeda used Afghanistan for training, and to plan attacks on the West. We must not let that happen again. To throw in the towel at this stage would encourage every jihadist to believe that we lack the moral courage to see through a difficult mission. And it would gravely undermine the credibility of NATO, the alliance that has protected this country for six decades.

Negotiations with a fundamentally barbaric organization such as the Taliban will never result in anything good for the people of Afghanistan and will undercut both Britain and America’s long-term security. If NATO talks to the various wings of the Taliban, the Allied coalition will negotiate only with different shades of evil. This is a recipe for failure and defeat as well as a monumental surrender to a totalitarian Islamist ideology based on a doctrine of hatred, fear and destruction.

With the announcement that Obama is using the mess in the Afghanistan election as reason to once more delay the sending of more troops as requested by the Commander in the field. It is feeling to this veteran that the President is putting the lives of the brave men/women in jeopardy, because he would rather spend the tax payers money rewarding those who voted him into the Oval Office than he is to give the General he sent to Afghanistan, the tools he needs to win a victory over the evil Taliban. After all Obama said he has trouble with the word VICTORY!

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NETWORKS ARE USING SAUL ALINSKY'S RULES TO ATTACK RUSH!!

Posted by Jax Hawk on Saturday, October 17, 2009 11:39:40 AM

 


Not since Marge Schott, the managing partner, president and CEO pf the Cincinnati Reds baseball team from 1984-1999 has the " Mean Stream" media stooped so low to destroy a Conservative. ABC, CBS, NBC and MSNBC have all printed and spoke lies that were SPOKEN as actual quotes that Rush limbaugh is a racist and as such should not be part owner of the Saint Louis Rams.
This is a case of character destruction by hearsay as was Schotts case.
One of Saul Alinsky's rules for Radicals is target your enemy and demonize him/her! The networks have done just that!!
 
On November 13, 1992, Charles "Cal" Levy, a former marketing director for the Reds, stated in a deposition for Tim Sabo, a former employee who was suing the team that he'd heard Schott refer to then-Reds outfielders Eric Davis and Dave Parker as "million-dollar ni**ers."[2] Sabo, whose position was "team controller," alleged that his 1991 firing was due to testifying against her in another lawsuit brought against Schott by several limited partners and because he opposed the unwritten policy of not hiring blacks. Schott's countersuit alleged that Sabo wrote unauthorized checks to himself and paid health insurance premiums to retired front-office employees. She asked for $25,000 in damages for defamation. Sabo ultimately lost his suit. source:Wikapedia


The media lies about Limbaugh, alleging that he said "slavery was a good thing" and the lies were repeated on MSNBC, CNN, NBC and ABC. Not satisfied with on lie the once reliable media carried this story to jump on Limbaugh with full force!:

"I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark".

It’s also been spoken on the TV that he said this, about the death of the man who assassinated Martin Luther King: "You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honour? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed". Both statements are blatant lies, but once spoken it becomes the task of the accused to prove that he did not say the lies. You could hold your breath until you pass out before the Media attack dogs would admit they told  bold faced lies to smear a Conservative.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC actually said esentially that Rush should blow-up! CHRIS MATTHEWS: You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we’ll be there to watch. I think he’s Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush? And this man is an ancor man NBC is broud of after he wishes the death of another human being?

This is the main preoccupation of the once major  television networks. To malign all conservatives including past president Bush, and protect and promote any thing that Obama does that couldl destroy our  Free Enterprise Republic. Not since Goebbels was the propaganda minister for the Nazis has the media network been such a cheerleader for a "ruler"!  
And lest we forget the two hustlers Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson who have both encouraged the Black players on  NFL teams to vocally oppose Limbaughs involvement! Some have even appeared on TV to mouth their objections to Rush.It is the owners of NFL teams to decide not the players. I believe they would play for the devil as long as they get their muti-million dollar salaries!
Michael Vick, a convicted felon, was given a second chance as were  many players who have been involved in felonious assualts, but because of inuendo the consortioum that is trying to buy the Rams has dropped Rush from their list of potential owners. He is being unfairly treated because he is a popular radio talk show host who has 50 million listeners!
 
And get this, yesterday it was discovered that the White House staff was responsible for starting at least one of the lies!

TEN TOTALLY REAL AND NOT FAKE QUOTES THAT THE MEDIA SHOULD CONCENTRATE ON!
10. Democrat Fritz Hollings of South Carolina thinks being from Africa makes you a cannibal: “You’d find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they’d just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.”

9. Howard Dean(former DNC Chair) reaches out: “I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.”

8. California Democrat Diane Watson thinks interracial marriage is icky: “He’s married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn’t want to be black.”

7. Howard Dean thinks service positions are for minorities, not big fancy white people: “You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? … Only if they had the hotel staff in here.”

6. Joe Biden explains why southern Democrats should vote for him: “My state was a slave state.”

5. “Conscience of the Senate” and former Klansman Robert Byrd on equal opportunity: “I’ve seen a lot of white n*###ers in my time.

4. Hillary Clinton does an impression (complete with accent) of an African-American man who didn’t know what Emily’s List was: “She’s supportin’ all these people. She’s supportin’ Sen. Dianne Feinstein . She’s supported Sen. Barbara Boxer . . . She supported everybody. Why won’t she support me?”

3. Democratic Mayor of New Orleans Ray Nagin denies that white people might live in New Orleans: “I don’t care what people are saying Uptown or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day.””

2. Democrat Steny Hoyer reviews Michael Steele’s career: “[He has] a career of slavishly supporting the Republican Party.”

1. Then Senator Joe Biden fills us in on who works at convenience stores: “You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent .
Every single one of those quotes is a real, legitimate, well-sourced quote. Totally real; not fake.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT OBAMACARE IS A SMOKESCREEN FOR CAP AND TRADE

Posted by Jax Hawk on Monday, August 17, 2009 9:18:06 AM

 

 





There are signed that the president would settle for a health care bill that does not
include the government option , but would accept a co-operative type plan.
despite this apparent sudden shift to a plan that will not be unacceptable to those who do not want a socialization of our medical care system. Was it what Obama and his ilk wanted in the first place, but pushed  socialised medicine  to deflect attention to the real socialization of America, Cap and Trade.
 
I like any other amateur political analyst. have allowed the media fight over Obamacare to occlude my view of what is the big picture of what I think is the plan that the Obama administration has to tax and spend our once strong country into bankruptcy. This while impeding any attempt to make our country independent from OPEC countries who supply the major portion of our present source of energy. Thus slowing if not stopping our country's military ability to defend us, and the ability of the manufacturing industry, that we still have, to provide work for our labor force and keep the USA as the best country to live in.

The Waxman/Markey Cap and Trade bill that is pending in congress could be just the burden that breaks our economic back!

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454, commonly known as Waxman-Markey after its two main sponsors) seeks to limit how much gasoline and other fossil fuels Americans can use. The aim is to cut America's emissions of carbon dioxide from energy use, which proponents of the bill claim is warming the planet to dangerous levels. As with electricity rates, gasoline prices would have to rise high enough so the public would be forced to use less and meet the bill's ever-tightening energy rationing targets. It is literally a deliberate effort by the U.S. government to make gasoline less affordable.

According to a Heritage Foundation analysis,[1] the bill would boost the price at the pump by 20 cents per gallon when the provisions first take effect in 2012. The targets get tougher each year, and by 2035 the increase would be an inflation-adjusted $1.38 per gallon--and that is on top of any other price increases that might occur.

2. Regulation of hydraulic fracturing. Bills have been introduced authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act.[2] This could greatly reduce future onshore drilling for oil (and even more so for natural gas), thus lowering domestic supplies and adversely impacting gasoline prices.[3]

Hydraulic fracturing is a process by which pressurized water and other substances are injected into wells to facilitate the flow of oil and natural gas. It has been widely used for decades and is necessary for the majority of new wells in the U.S. It is currently regulated at the state level, and its environmental and public safety track record is nearly spotless.[4]

Nonetheless, proposed legislation seeks new federal regulation by the EPA based on concerns about contamination of drinking water supplies, even though such water contamination has never occurred and is highly unlikely.

3. Increased red tape and costs on domestic drilling. A draft bill from the House Natural Resources Committee seeks to discourage domestic oil production by adding a host of new regulatory requirements on top of those already in place.[5] The result would be more paperwork, delays, and litigation, but lower domestic supplies of oil.

The bill also creates new regional councils (above and beyond the many existing opportunities for state and local participation) with control over offshore oil and gas leasing. Though couched in terms of allowing public input, these councils would be susceptible to dominance by anti-energy activists not in step with the pro-domestic energy sentiment of the American people.

The proposal would restore unnecessary and redundant environmental reviews that had been eliminated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This policy change has proven very helpful for new domestic energy production since 2005, and its reversal would be a serious blow to future oil and natural gas drilling.

The bill also raises many fees on oil production in areas with existing leases. These increases would be particularly burdensome for the smaller energy companies that account for most of the domestic oil and gas activity. In some cases, these provisions would be enough to make oil leases too costly to pursue. While discouraging existing oil activities, the bill does nothing to open up currently off-limits areas to new production.

4. Raising energy taxes. Although President Obama has spoken frequently about the need to reduce imports of oil, his first budget proposed a host of punitive taxes aimed at domestic oil and natural gas production. For example, the budget eliminates several deductions against income for energy producers, most notably the manufacturer's deduction under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. Under the budget proposal, this deduction, which applies to all domestic industries, would specifically exclude domestic exploration and production of oil and natural gas.

Overall, the budget uses the domestic oil and natural gas industry as a source of $31 billion over 10 years in additional revenues. It should be noted that this industry already faces effective tax rates that are higher than the manufacturing sector as a whole.[6]

These energy tax hikes, which of course do not apply to foreign sources of oil, also put domestic production at a comparative disadvantage. For example, the 1980 windfall profits tax on oil companies (an excise tax that kicks in when the price of oil exceeds a certain amount) was found by the Congressional Research Service to have "reduced domestic oil production from between 3 and 6 percent, and increased oil imports from between 8 and 16 percent."[7] The newly proposed tax changes would have the same effect.

5. Administrative delays on drilling. Last year, in the wake of public outrage over $4 gas, President Bush and Congress repealed the restrictions on leasing in 85 percent of America's territorial waters. However, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has already reversed the pro-energy momentum from last year, stalling on opening any new areas to leasing and even cancelling some existing leases. He has also blocked the leasing program for oil shale, a promising source of oil trapped in massive deposits of rock under parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. If progress can be made on technologies to efficiently extract the oil from the rock, oil shale could single-handedly supply America's oil needs for many decades and possibly a century or more.[8]

What to Do Instead

Instead of clamping down on domestic energy supplies, American energy policy should embrace these ideas:

Expand offshore and onshore oil production into previously restricted areas, including Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil--16 years of current imports from Saudi Arabia--lie beneath a few thousand acres that can be accessed with minimal environmental impact;
Reduce the regulatory and legal delays that can slow and sometimes stop production;
Allow further progress on oil shale; and
Prevent costly new anti-energy regulations from being imposed in the name of addressing global warming.
These principles are contained in bills such as the American Energy Innovation Act (H.R. 2828), the No Cost Stimulus Act (S. 570 and H.R. 1431), and the American Energy Act (H.R. 2846).

Meanwhile,China, India, and other developing countries have sidestepped demands to limit their own emissions by arguing for years that the U.S. was still on the sidelines. Obviously that’s not the case anymore. In that sense, any U.S. domestic agreement on climate change should improve the chances of getting the world’s fastest-growing emitters to cooperate later this year at the big climate-change confabs.

And It is one of the paradoxes of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change that companies in Russia and other Eastern European countries, which are among the world's largest producers of greenhouse gases, are poised to earn hundreds of millions of dollars through trading their rights to release carbon dioxide into the air.

The Kyoto treaty, negotiated in 1997 and adopted by 36 industrial nations, established a mechanism aimed at finding the cheapest way to curb emissions of gases that contribute to global warming. The idea was that countries that produced more than their treaty-imposed limits could reach their goals by buying rights from producers in other countries where controlling output is easier and less expensive.

It is not clear how successful that approach will turn out to be. But because Russia's companies operate such outdated and inefficient equipment, they can easily and cheaply upgrade. As a result, the Kyoto process has already emerged as a potential source of earnings for the country's big energy and manufacturing companies, according to company executives and analysts. They have hired consultants, inventoried pollution sources to earn credits, and opened carbon-trading divisions.

In my belated opinion this could do more harm to our National defense and our way of life than any legislation proposed or passed by Congress since we became a Republic!
And I still believe we should oppose Obamacare!!
Source: The Heritage Foundation, Andrew E.Kramer of New York Times
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE BIG LIE ABOUT OBAMACARE

Posted by Jax Hawk on Monday, August 10, 2009 2:55:49 PM

Monday, August 10, 2009





It is a fact that president Obama said in 2003, when he was campaigning for a seat in the U.S. Senate, that he desires/wants a single payer health care system.
He said: "I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be, potentially, some transition process: I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out."

Despite the president's statement, the lying Democrats keep telling the people that their plan will allow all people who have health insurance to keep it. What they do not tell you is that no insurance company can compete with a program that is priced so low that employers and individuals will be forced by economics to switch to the government plan.

Why can the government run a health plan that is actuarially unsound? Because they do not pay for the losses, the tax payer does! This has been happening for decades with the Social Security System and the Medicare and Medicaid plans. Not one of the three is actuarially sound or solvent!!
Looking at the costs of Medicare, Medicare is not controlling costs. Rather, it is allowing costs to grow faster than costs for private insurance, but balancing this by shifting an increasing share of those costs onto other payers, including the (seniors)beneficiaries themselves!

Despite the claims of "public plan" proponents, the available evidence from the nation's largest and oldest public plan does not indicate that a new or expanded public plan modeled on Medicare could provide Americans with health care that is comparable to that offered by existing private plans, much less at a lower cost.

The rationale for creating a new public program modeled on Medicare is based on four erroneous beliefs: 1. that Medicare, compared to private-sector health plans, provides comparable access to health care at costs that grow more slowly than those of the private sector; 2. that Medicare has lower administrative costs than private insurance; 3. that Medicare uses superior bargaining power to reduce health care costs without harm to patients; and 4. that public health plans are more innovative, whereas private health plans only follow the government's lead.

All of these assertions are verifiable false. Contrary to the claims of public plan advocates, and the president!

Total per-beneficiary health care costs are growing faster for Medicare patients than for private insurance patients. Medicare's per-beneficiary patient care costs appear to grow more slowly than costs in the private sector only if one ignores the fact that Medicare is paying a rapidly shrinking share of its beneficiaries' total health care costs. Total per-beneficiary patient care costs for Medicare patients are growing faster than total costs for patients with private insurance. However, spending by the Medicare program is growing more slowly than private insurance because much of the growth in health care costs for Medicare beneficiaries is offset by increased out-of-pocket spending by beneficiaries and other sources of private-sector funding.

Medicare's per-beneficiary administrative costs are substantially higher than the administrative costs of private health plans. The illusion that Medicare's administrative costs are lower comes from expressing administrative costs as a percentage of total costs, including patient care. Medicare's average patient care costs are naturally higher because its beneficiaries are by definition elderly, disabled, or end-stage renal disease patients, so its per-person administrative costs are spread over a larger base of health care costs.

Medicare has no "bargaining power." To the extent that the prices that Medicare pays health care providers are lower than prices paid by private health plans, it is because of the government's regulatory power, not because it reduces the actual costs of providing care or has superior bargaining power. Furthermore, lobbyists for physicians have persuaded Congress in each of the past seven years to intervene to block scheduled reductions in the prices that Medicare pays for physician services--and in six of those seven years to replace the reduction with an increase. This experience suggests that Medicare does not in fact have any bargaining power that would enable it to lower prices further, or even to maintain prices at current levels.

Historically, public plans have more often been followers, not leaders, in health care delivery innovation. It is private-sector organizations that have introduced new quality-improvement methods and new customer services, as well as disease management and coverage of preventive care.

A public health care plan would not improve the current health care situation and would likely make matters worse. Far from saving enough to cover the uninsured, it would increase the cost of covering even the presently insured at the current standard of care. A public plan could reduce overall spending only at the cost of substantial harm to patients by rationing or denial of care.

Why do the Democrats and their sycophants like AARP not want these facts known to the "mob" that is attending their propaganda sessions that they call Town Hall meetings?
As the Heritage Foundation's Robert A. Book states in his recent article: "by its nature, any public plan would be driven by congressional interventions, bureaucratic processes, and lobbying rather than by incentives to innovate in the financing and delivery of quality, efficient health care. This same phenomenon was evident with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, "public plan" mortgage companies that were established to compete with private lenders to "keep them honest" and increase levels of home ownership. Driven by congressional interventions, an implicit government guarantee, and lending policies at odds with economic reality, these public mortgage companies collapsed and threw the entire financial system into chaos. A "Freddie Doc" would eventually produce similarly disastrous results".Source:Heritage Foundation

There is a good reason why the "goons" of SEIU and ACORN have shown up at meetings about health Care reform. The Union movement has invested heavily in the passage of Obama Care.
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi received union contributions that totaled the second-largest amount of labor PAC cash, getting $144,000. The California Democrat was followed by another, Rep. George Miller, the Education and Labor chairman, who received $119,540. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was next. His campaign committee collected $115,500.
Trevor Potter, president of the Campaign Legal Center and a former FEC chairman, said it is not surprising that labor leads the pack in giving this year.

“The unions have an agenda in this Congress, and they are trying to move legislation,” Potter said. He added that unions, which give overwhelmingly to Democrats, also may be trying early in the election cycle to shore up the majority party in Congress, particularly its vulnerable members.

Speaking out for what you believe and then you are called a Nazi or a stooge for the Insurance Industry, and be threatened and possibly assaulted by union bullies is something out of the history of tyrants!

Democrats apparently only believe in freedom of speech when you agree with them. They are as intolerant as the Bolshevist thugs who ruled Russia for over 60 years.

Silence is acceptance! Speak out loudly and often. We want our country back! Stop National Health care! Stop Cap and Trade!
Or live with the dire consequences!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMA CHOOSES BUTTER INSTEAD OF GUNS!!!

Posted by Jax Hawk on Saturday, August 08, 2009 12:32:48 PM

Saturday, August 08, 2009

WE CANNOT JUST TALK OUR ENEMIES TO STOP THEIR ATTACKS





No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism...Winston Churchill

You would not know it if you relied on the Obama propaganda network, aka:major newspapers and TV networks,but we are still fighting two wars. Iraq and Afghanistan, with North Korea rattling the nuclear sabres and an Iran that is rapidly approaching nuclear weapon capability. We can little afford to ignore the military needs of our country. After all that is one of the main reasons why we have a federal government!
President Obama is not commander in chief of our health care and economy. He is Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. acting like he is the designate to destroy our military preparedness. Never in the history of my life and it has been a long and lucky life has a president chosen to reduce spending on our defense in a time of war!

But as this report submitted in the Heritage Foundation web site by William Rivers will illustrate, that is what our POTUS is doing!

"President Obama’s purportedly “flat” defense budget is in actuality a declining budget, beginning with 3.81 percent of GDP in 2010 but dropping to 3.01 percent by 2019. Considering that research and development for new weapons programs is taking the brunt of the blow, the United States is staring at a repeat of the 1990’s Clinton procurement holiday from which the military still hasn’t recovered.

Now in 2009, after seven years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, personnel and essential equipment have suffered tremendous strain. The Obama Administration celebrates its victory over cutting seven F-22s from the defense budget, but in 2008 the Air Force had to ground over 300 F-15s in response to an incident where one of the aged fighters “broke in half” during a training exercise. Never mind that the F-22 was supposed to replace those legacy fighters, we’ve still got the F-35. Right?

Already over a trillion dollars, the F-35 program is $38 billion over budget and 27 months behind schedule according to the GAO. And now, Pentagon leaders may decide to make cuts to that program, as well. So after killing the F-22 on the grounds that the F-35 is the silver bullet solution, now we’re eyeing the F-35 for future cuts? What exactly are America’s airmen and women supposed to use, paper planes?

The solution is simple. Heritage has advocated that President Obama commit to spending four percent of the nation’s GDP on core defense programs—excluding funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Obama has already promised three percent of GDP to ‘science,’ so defense would hardly be a stretch. Protecting Americans is the first job of the federal government. A commitment to a larger defense budget will ensure that the military can buy enough next-generation equipment to fight and win for the next 40 years".

Obama was once quoted as saying that "if they bring a knife to a fight we will bring a gun".Well, apparently he doesn't feel that strong about the men and women who go to fight his wars. He might as well send them to battle with sticks and stone for their sling shots!

This man must be stopped by the voters in the voting booths in 2010 and then sent out to write more books in 2114!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE PROFESSOR GATES DEBACLE ON REVIEW

Posted by Jax Hawk on Monday, July 27, 2009 9:35:13 AM

Jul. 27th, 2009 | 09:19 am

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Thomas Paine

The media has spent more time on the arrest of a Black Studies tenured professor at Harvard, than they have on the sinking economy.
My question, that I would like to pose to Dr. Gates and those who claim he was arrested because he was Black, and not because he was abusive to the police who were responding to a call of a possible break in. Who in their right mind puts up a fuss when two people with guns on their hips ask to see some identification?

Will Gates be man enough to stop fanning the flames and tell the full story of how the police respectively did their jobs well and how he threw a hissey fit when asked for his I.D.? I highly doubt it which is why most Americans are weary of false allegations in regards to racical discrimination. Do not hold your breath for more than a second!

Any of us, no matter the color of our skin, should have been asked for our I.D. in the same situation. Any of us, having thrown a “hissey fit??  instead of abiding by the policeman’s request, should have been charged with disorderly conduct. What makes Gates so “above it all??  that he thinks he’s too good to be treated “fairly??  by the police? If he has any integrity, he will go public and put an end to this big hubbub instead of sending America backwards and causing ill will across America. Be a man, Gates!

The policeman was doing his job. The law says that in the USA I must I D myself if the officer believes that I am commiting a crime, like opening a locked door without a key. I wonder how many times a black person feels that they have been singeled out because they are black, when it is the circumstance and not the color of their skin that is the issure.It sound too much like the hate sermons that were given periodically by the Reverend Wright when Obama was in a pew!

The police reports indicate that when asked to step out onto the porch to discuss the situation, Gates responded “I’ll see your momma out on the porch?? . I wonder what course at Harvard he learned that..
Actually there are no “facts??  in this case, just the contradictory words of men. We cannot assume all black professors never lie, or that all policemen never lie, or that there is no gray area in this case. For the President to assume that he knows what happened and to attempt to try this case in the press is absolutely irresponsible.
The only fact I know is that Gates is a professor at Harvard and Obama is a graduate of Harvard Law School!

The lefties continue to reveal their inner racism and demonstrate bully tactics. When will they come to their senses and realize what frauds they have become?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SPENDING THE USA INTO BANKRUPTCY ?

Posted by Jax Hawk on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:59:32 PM

Tuesday, July 21, 2009





The special inspector general for TARP Niel Barofsky will testify Tuesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The office of the special inspector general was created to serve as an auditor of the federal bailout by the same legislation that launched the TARP program itself.

Originally, TARP was intended, Barofsky writes, to facilitate “the purchase, management, and sale of up to $700 billion of “toxic” assets, primarily troubled mortgages and mortgage-backed securities.”

But that plan was soon rejected, and the TARP instead became a grab bag of bailout initiatives, including bailouts for GM, Chrysler and auto parts suppliers as the federal government struggled in real time to contain a spiraling economic disaster.

Barofsky reports that TARP has come to include 12 separate programs that include a total of as much as $3 trillion, “including TARP funds, loans and guarantees from other agencies, and private money.” Of the initial $700 billion allocated by Congress, Barofsky found that the Treasury has so far announced how $643.1 billion will be spent, and it has actually spent $441 billion as of June 30

Barofsky’s calculation of a $23 trillion figure took into account a wide-ranging group of federal programs set up by disparate agencies within the federal bureaucracy. Secretary of Treasury, Timothy Geitner, will probably have him waterboarded for saying things like "Yeah, nobody at Treasury even knows where the banks put all that money we gave them."
The special inspector general counted approximately 50 initiatives or programs launched since 2007 to fight the economic collapse.

The Federal Reserve, he found, has increased its balance sheet from $900 billion to more than $2 trillion, and Barofsky estimated that the total amount of support to the economy by the Fed. is at least $6.8 trillion, because it is exposed to significant losses if many of the assets guaranteed by the Fed deteriorate in value.

Barofsky points out the non-TARP programs, which are far larger than the TARP itself, do not come with the strings that the high-profile TARP money itself comes with, including executive compensation, and they don’t necessarily require congressional approval. And beyond the ability to tally their costs, Barofsky has no authority as an auditor over the non-TARP programs.

I believe that if your aim is to "remake America" as Obama has promised to do, you must first examine the following definitions. Then you will realize that the "CHANGE" is a radical turn toward socialism at the very least!

Socialism - when Government owns the means of production.
Fascism - When the Government controls the means of production.
Marxism - when the workers own the means of production

This quote by Obama illustrates that you can not judge a man by what he says, but what he has done and proposes to do.

Obama has said this: “I want to disabuse people of this notion that somehow we enjoy, you know, meddling in the private sector,” Any thoughtful person will quickly note that for a man who profess to not want to "meddle" in the private sector.His Health Care Plan, Cap and Trade, and take over of General Motors put the LIE to his protestations!
In particular, the actions in dealing with Chrysler and GM, this seems to be true. The main problem is, for those that believe in the Rule of Law, the Right to Private Property, in fairness and equality, and the free market of capitalism (which has created more wealth for more people than any other system in the world's history!), this headline from John At Powerline seems to say it all.

"The Chrysler reorganization was another milestone in the decline of the rule of law under Barack Obama. We've said for quite a while that bankruptcy is the only viable option for Chrysler and General Motors, not--as Obama claims--because they don't know how to make the right kinds of vehicles, but because their unsustainable union contracts make it impossible for them to be profitable. That reality has now been turned on its head, as the administration has tried to bully Chrysler's secured creditors into going away, while the United Auto Workers Union, solely on the basis of political clout, would be paid at an implied rate of 50 percent and would emerge owning 55 percent of the company, with the government also holding a stake.
When some of the secured creditors refused to be intimidated, Obama libeled them in the press, saying, outrageously, "I don't stand with those who held out when everyone else is making sacrifices." Actually, under Obama's plan the politically favored parties, principally the UAW, will benefit--will steal money, to put it crudely--from the parties who held out. Those parties call themselves the "non-TARP lenders", and instead of getting placed in the front of the line for re-reimbursement as the Constitution demands. Obama put them literally, "in the back of the Bus"!

Not only is this an act that shreds the Constitution, but shows how people who have the temerity to oppose Obama will be treated--intimidation!
Remember this - the Obama's Government HAS to make these Trillions of our dollars actually work or he AND the Congressional Democrats are toast! They have to have private investment to assist in order to be successful. Ask yourself this question: while the lure of profits is strong, what sensible fund manager is going to partner with the Destroyer-of-Wealth-in-Chief as long as Obama keeps throwing our money away?

There was supposed to be a midsummer budget report released a few days ago, the middle of July. But Obama has conveniently hidden it away for an extra month. Why? Health care legislation. Global warming cap-and-trade legislation. He is hiding the fact that these initiatives, futile as they are anyway, simply cannot be paid for under any scenario whatsoever. Not the best-case rosy scenario that Obama and his minions painted back in February, and certainly not under the worst-case, which is far closer to where we are. The White House has been forced to paint an economic picture that is at best smoke and mirrors, and at worst an outright fraud! Source:thebogproof;Obama

There was no stimulus in the stimulus bill. Most of the money is to be spent in 2010, an election year! The facts are in the numbers that "porkulus" was and is an utter failure. Even worse is that the actual unemployment rate is only as low as it is because many of the unemployed have simply given up on finding a job and are thus off of the statistics.Nationally we are at 105, BUT IN MANY STATES THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATES ARE APPROACHING 12except for Michigan that stands at 15%!

The nation's debt ( the total of accumulated annual budget deficits ) now stands at $11.6 trillion. In the scheme of things, that's more important than talking about the "deficit," which only looks at a one-year slice of bookkeeping and totally ignores previous indebtedness that is still outstanding.

This is supposed to be a representative government, and facts such as the mid-summer budget report should not be hidden from the population to foist upon them something they would not want if they had been informed. But that is exactly what is happening under Obama. Wasn't this supposed to be the most transparent administration in U.S. history? The only transparency here is in the seeing of the dishonesty at every step of the way. When will the electorate finally wake up? In fact, when will most of the MSM wake up? They've been in bed, with a smooth-talking Obama, and if and when the wake up.That next morning will be a doozy for them!

And as I bring this tome to a close I just learned that the Senate has voted to strip $1.75 billion on seven additional F-22 jets that President Obama said was unnecessary and would doom a $680 bill authorizing defense spending plans for the coming fiscal year.

The 58-40 vote prevents Obama from carrying out a threat to use the first veto of his presidency if senators had kept the designation in the defense bill.

Obama thanked the senators for approving the amendment that he says will "better protect our troops." Absurd statement or a Commander in Chief!

Obama said he rejected the notion that the country has to "waste billions of taxpayers dollars" on outdated defense projects.
When has the newest fighter jet, that is operational, an outdated weapon? This president is dangerous!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHY IS AARP SO SILENT ON THE THREAT OF OBAMA CARE?

Posted by Jax Hawk on Monday, July 13, 2009 4:29:00 PM

Monday, July 13, 2009





There are as of this moment 306,904,829 people alive and living in the USA.Of these rapidly approaching 400 million people just under 13% are 65 years or older!
This is equal to the total Black population in the USA and just two percent less that the Latino population according to the latest census reports.

My question, being in the age group over 65, is why do we not hear more alarm bells from the organisation that claims to represent seniors.
Many of the 41 million Americans with Medicare feel betrayed by AARP.

The Washington leadership of the powerful senior citizens' organization has opted to join forces with the White House to steamroll legislation through Congress. It is legislation that may irrevocably damage Medicare.

Most of the 35 million people who belong to AARP are drawn to the group's insurance programs, prescription drug deals and hotel discounts. These and other businesses bring AARP hundreds of millions of dollars annually in revenue. Despite this membership, it isn't clear that many older Americans have retained AARP's Washington politicos to serve as their political voice. We have not. AARP is a big business; it shouldn't pretend to represent its members' political interests, few of whom have been asked their view of this dangerous Medicare overhaul.With a revenue of $1.08 billion in 2006, and expenditures of 1.14 billion AARP is a lot like the Federal government. They spend more money than they have!

Health care costs are escalating out of controi. Families are finding it.-harder .to obtain needed medical care. Spending on health care is taking a huge and growing bite out of federal and local government budgets, and the recession has made those budgets tighter. The spread of AIDS, the need for beper treatment of drug and alcohol diction, a chronic shortage of doctors in rural areas and an aging population are imposing further burdens on the nation's health system calls for. health care reform thus are growing. Faced with demands for more government spending on health care, but with limited or dec1ining to meet those demandsd, a number of governmerq commissions are busy studying the mounting health care problem.
Both in and out of government, critics complain there is too much waste in the system. They say it is too bureaucratic; that doctors make too much money; that they perform too many ,unnecessary tests and procedures.
A snapshot of America's health care crisis? No, it is a description of the heath care debate in Canada-the very same Canada to which some American look to for a solution to America's health care problems!

So just how bad is the Canadian Health Care system. This report from a Canadian doctor should give you some insight as to what Obama care will be like if we let it pass!
"Taxes are very high in Canada. I worked 2 months last year and 20% of my earnings were withheld specifically for Canada health and pension. This can be as high as 33-42%, not counting the infamous PST and GST charges for everything and every service you purchace.
2. There is a huge medical bureaucracy that laymen rarely see-it is highly discouraging to any new doctors to the country.
3. It is much more expensive. There are no $4 Walmart prescriptions, the cheapest generic med starts around $20. Most notably not paid for are long term meds after heart attacks and chemotherapy.4. Waiting lists decide who gets health care. There are about 10-12,000 people here in a city about the size of Greeley who do not even have a family doctor to get them onto a list as there are not enough family doctors. There are no cardiologists or neurosurgeons for over 400 miles. The local orthopedists and ophthalmologists are full and will not take any more referrals.
5. See above. The orthopedists closed their waiting lists as they are 2-3 years behind.
6. Canadians not only go to the US for medicine, they go to Germany and Mexico.
7. Doctors are paid less than $30 each to see a patient who is in for a visit. Average time spent by a Canadian doctor with a patient: 6 minutes.
8. See #4, also Toronto Sun newspaper last week, headlines where Nova Scotia ERs to close this summer for lack of doctors.

This letter to the editor of the Denver Post illustrates what type of problems come with beauracrat controlled medicine!
"If you really want to know about the nightmare of Canada's health-care system, you just have to study the Natasha Richardson case. She died because Quebec had no Flight-For-Life helicopter system, no nearby hospital that had a trauma center or neurology department, and after being taken to a hospital with neither of these, she then had to be driven to the nearest trauma center, which was 50 miles away. All the while, she was bleeding in her brain during a needless 2.5 hour delay. According to Tarek Razek, the director of trauma services for six hospitals in the Montreal area, "Our system isn't set up for traumas and doesn't match what's available ...in the States".

Natasha Richardson died because she decided to go skiing in a country with a Third World health-care system. Would you be willing to take that kind of risk?

As the Canadians as so fond of saying, SORRY, but this is the way medicine is in Canada.
So, I ask the question again. Where are the AARP people demanding that any change in our great health care system, even though expensive, does not include the same odious restrictions and problems that Canada has?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123456Next »