About Me

Name: Jax Hawk
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

WILL MORAL LEGITIMACY BE QUESTIONED IN NEW YORK TRIAL?

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

WILL HUMAN RIGHTS FOR TERRORISTS BE THE ISSUE IN NEWYORK?

Ali Dayan Hassan, senior South Asia researcher for the US-based rights watchdog Human Rights Watch is at work in the United Kingdom. He is also the British HRW South East Asia consultant to the the Lord Chilcot inquiry that will try to decide what was the overriding factor that took Britain into the Iraq war. This is a “crucial secret” the Chilcot inquiry could unlock. Key could be what assurances Tony Blair gave George Bush in a series of bilateral meetings, notably at the president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002.


The five man investigation committee that is holding a hearing that the leader says will last most of a year to investigate what actually was the reason for the Iraq war, and was Britain complicit in the torture of captured terrorist suspects.

The session will be televised on the BBC so it appears London will have a “circus” to watch on the “Tellee”about the same time that we have the travesty called a trial in New York for KSM and his four co-conspirators!

It appears the British have the same Human Rights “shill” as we have here in the USA.
What troubles me is the fact he may be called as a witness for the defense of the Terrorist Five” scheduled by Obama and his Attorney General in New York.

The following is an article that Hasan wrote for Dawn, Pakistan’s only English newspaper.

“ISLAMABAD will be sealed off so that President Musharraf can welcome US President George Bush to his capital. Bush is making the journey to compliment and compensate Musharraf on services rendered in the ‘war on terror’.

Musharraf is hosting Bush to bask in the glory of a renewed alliance with the United States and to strengthen his faltering grip on power. Nowhere is human rights on the agenda.

In the run up to the trip, Bush has praised general Musharraf’s “vision for a democratic Pakistan” and his commitment to “free and open elections” Unless Bush knows something that Pakistanis do not, it appears that the continued disregard and undermining of the Pakistani Constitution, the marginalization of mainstream political parties, and the failure to hold a credible election is an odd formula for a democratic Pakistan and the Bush administration’s broader commitment to “fostering democracy in the Muslim world.”

The skewed view of President Musharraf held by Bush is certainly based on shared values. But rather than the shared value of democracy that Bush likes to speak about, what Musharraf and Bush have in common is a shared commitment to the priority, above all else, of the ‘war on terror.’ Bush has been gushing about Musharraf’s role therein, appreciating his “commitment to joining the world in dealing with Islamic radicals who will murder innocent people to achieve an objective.”

Bloggers note: this is the same Musharraf that identified the man scheduled to be tried with four other terrorists in New York as ” the man who had been recruited by the 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, who had trained a 12-man suicide squad intended to hit US interests around the world, and conducted reconnaissance of Heathrow airport in preparation for a possible attack” Source: BBC News.

“Given the conduct of the Bush administration in this context, the US president’s appreciation of the Musharraf government is hardly surprising. International human rights law contains no more basic prohibition than the absolute, unconditional ban on torture and “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.” To date, the Bush Administration’s understanding of the term “torture” remains uncleared. My comment is that torture and beheading by the terrorists is no problem for this Leftist humanist!

And to make your blood boil even more I offer an excerpt from an article written by Ali Dayan Hasan for the Dawn Internet. The only Pakistan Newspaper that is printed in English”.

DOES THIS SOUND LIKE IT MAY BE USED AS A DEFENSE ARGUMENT IN THE TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR NEW YORK?
”British officials knew that Pakistani intelligence agencies routinely used torture, were aware of specific cases and did not intervene,” HRW’s senior South Asia researcher, Ali Dayan Hasan, said.

Such complicity had been confirmed by unnamed UK and Pakistani officials, the report said.
bloggers note: unnamed sources is a way to say this cannot be verified!

”A key lesson from the past eight years of global efforts to combat terrorism is that the use of torture and ill-treatment is deeply counter-productive,” Mr Hasan went on.
”It undermines the moral legitimacy of governments that rely on it and serves as a recruiting tool for terrorist organisations. ”The evil of terrorism does not justify participating in or using the results of torture. Until an independent inquiry is held and those responsible held accountable, Britain’s reputation as a rights-respecting nation will stand tarnished.”

Some one ought to inform Mr Hasan that all WAR is immoral, but unfortunately there is only one option–to surrender to our attackers! Remeber 9/11/01!!

I would remind the reader that those who blow themselves up to kill innocent people, chop heads off Journalists, and plant IEDs to kill anyone who drives the road are religious zealots dedicated to kill anyone they feel is not Islamic! And need I remind you of the Zaccarias Moussaoui trial as an example of the bad result that can happen in the New York trial?.

But a better case for an accurate preview of what can go wrong is that of USA v. Karim Koubriti and his other co-defendants in the Detroit terror trial. As I’ve noted in excruciating detail, after Koubriti was found guilty by a federal jury in Detroit, his lawyers and PC prosecutors conspired to get the verdict overturned. The Justice Department (yes, it was President BUSH’s Justice Department) indicted the prosecutor (who beat the absurd charges). Terrorist Koubriti is now living in my hometown making his way to becoming a U.S. Citizen (with the DOJ’s help). And he’s suing the prosecutor, Richard Convertino. That’s what can happen here with KSM and his buddies.


Winston Churchill said something that is worth quoting at this point. He said; “A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

JUST ANOTHER CAMAIGN SPEECH, WHEN WILL IT END?

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

WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE TO FACTS IS ACCUSATION AND INDIGNATION

Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty...Ronald Reagan
 

Saturday, October 31, 2009

 



Posting its results late yesterday afternoon at Recovery.gov, the White House claimed 640,329 jobs have been created or saved because of the $159 billion in stimulus funds allocated as of Sept. 30.

Even though officials in the White House acknowledged the numbers were not exact, saying that states and localities that reported the numbers have made mistakes.
Assuming their number is right -- 160 billion divided by 1 million. Does that mean the stimulus costs taxpayers $160,000 per job?

Jared Bernstein, chief economist and senior economic advisor to the vice president, called that "calculator abuse."
He graduated from the Manhattan School of Music with Bachelors Degree in Fine Arts where he studied double bass with Orin O'Brien. He earned a Masters Degree in Social Work from the Hunter School of Social Work, and from Columbia University he received a Masters Degree in Philosophy and Ph.D. in Social Welfare. With that kind education he becomes an economist? Why not a brain surgeon while he's at it!


Bernstein's areas of interest include "federal, state and international economic policies, specifically the middle-class squeeze, income inequality and mobility, trends in employment and earnings, low-wage labor markets, poverty, and international comparisons."[2] He is known as a critic of free trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).[3] He has taught at Howard University, Columbia University and New York University. In 1992, he was hired at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a think tank with ties to organized labor and a focus on issues affecting low- and middle-income workers.[3] From 1995-1996, he served in the Department of Labor as Deputy Chief Economist. He then returned to the EPI, where he was senior economist and director of the Living Standards Program when selected by Biden. Source:Wikipedia

This appears to be the modus operandi for the Obama "capos"anytime anyone disagrees with their "messia".Instead of refuting the facts presented in opposition to their "rosy" claims. The acolytes of Obama attacked those who questioned the claims of jobs creation and saved.


And by the way, proving "jobs saved" is like proving "how high is up"!


Thomas Sowel an noted University Professor of economics had this to say in a recent article'
 White house seems to react violently to any suggestion that what they are doing or saying by "indignation, accusations of bad faith and even charges of racism." The White House thinks we should all be nice little sheep and follow any way that OUR SHEPHERD leads us with so much as a bleep! The only problem is that is to the destruction of our economy and a change fre the free enterprise system to a marxist socialism or worse!

Bernstein was not able to say how many of the 640,329 jobs were saved and how many were created. How do they know that government officials asking for stimulus funds to help prevent layoffs were legitimate?

What we have to do is expect that our public officials are honest," Bernstein said. "I know that's a high bar."

After all the lies and mis-information that have come from the White House that bar is a super world class pole vault for all of us that are not members of Obama's worshipers!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE TRUTH IS A STRANGER TO DEMOCRATS IN WASHINGTON

Oct. 30th, 2009 | 10:58 am
At first the pitch to Americans was that we needed a Health Care Bill to cover the 40 plus people who did not have health insurance, but the Bill that Queen Pelosi introduced on the steps of the House of Representatives leaves out 29 million Americans despite the fact that the taxes begin as soon as the Bill is signed by the president and the health care plan is scheduled to begin in 2013!

 The second reason Obama and his minions said was why they needed to pass a Health Care Bill was to save patients and the country from rising health care costs. But the nearly 2000 page bill presented yesterday
added $20 billion in taxes on sales of medical devices like artificial hips and heart stents to the legislation..

In fact the Bill would impose an array of new taxes, fees and government mandates on major players in the health industry, including insurers, doctors and drugs and would cost the tax payers at least $1.05 trillion dollars according to the CBO preliminary estimate.

And Obama said repeatedly that thousands of people die each year because they do not have health insurance. But when Gov. Sara Palin said that the proposed bill would have “death panels” included in it. Every Democrat and the president lied and said there was no such provision in any proposal. The Senate promptly removed the provision from its proposed Bill , but the Medicare end-of-life planning provision that Sarah Palin said was tantamount to “death panels” for seniors is staying in the latest Democratic health care bill unveiled Thursday.by Pelosi!

The provision allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the complex and painful decisions families face when a loved one is approaching death.
President Barack Obama has promised Americans that if they like their current insurance, they can keep it. But Republicans say that’s a promise the president cannot make. I believe he never believed what he said!

“When you set the government up as a competitor, as a funder, as a regulator, all that can happen is, it’s going to drive the private sector out,” Sen. Chuck Grassley told Fox News on Tuesday.

A bill that drives up insurance premiums and taxes and also cuts Medicare is not health care reform. And the Bill the House plans to vote on next week cuts medicare disbursements by 450 billion dollars over a ten-year period! This can only lead to reduction of doctor payments and the resulting decrease in the number of medical providers due to retirement of older doctors, rather than work under a plan that cuts the already low reimbursements to doctors by Medicaid and Medicare..Grandma’s access is being slashed to add illegal immigrants and twenty-somethings into the insurance system.

Here’s the latest shock: Average current health insurance premiums with likely triple under Obamacare.

The new data comes from a well regarded, state-by-state study conducted for WellPoint, Inc. The most dramatic premium boosts will hit young people. These are the actual individuals that often opt out of insurance plans now.

The reason for the dramatic insurance premium increases is the result of Obamacare regulations. First cause is the mandate that insurance companies take any customer. Insurance traditionally is an actuarial business that rates different customers based on risk factors. This is the reason a driver aged 19 with two speeding tickets pays more for auto insurance than a customer aged 35 with no speeding tickets. Nineteen-year-olds have more accidents. Therefore they pose more risk.

Traditionally, health insurance companies charged customers with risk factors and chronic illness more than young, healthy 19-year-olds. Obamacare stands the concept of insurance on its head. Since an insurance company will be forced to sell to any sick patient, the incentive to buy insurance when you are healthy decreases. Why not wait until you are sick; get cancer, diabetes or some other severe illness before you buy? To circumvent this problem, Obama is riddling the program with police-state mandates on healthy, younger citizens. Perverted, negative incentives such as threats of large fines and even prison time will hang over young people’s heads to force them to join and stay enrolled in Obama’s healthcare scheme. Does this sound like America to you? Source: Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

Will the American voters allow the government that has bankrupted Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. Postal Service. WE cannot allow Obama and his ilk in Congress to  let the politicians destroy the greatest healthcare delivery system in the world in the disguise of reducing cost and increasing access to Americans who have no health Insurance. Let the Republican plan to repeals  laws that prohibit selling health insurance across state lines, introduce tort reform and include the legal Americans who do not have health insurance because they cannot afford it. To be included in the medicaid plan.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell also warned that the Democrats’ “trillion-dollar” legislation will raise insurance premiums, raise taxes and slash Medicare to create new government spending programs.He did not include the words, but the increase will be directed toward abortion on demand!

Karen Ignagni, President and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), said the proposed government-run insurance plan “would underpay doctors and hospitals rather than driving real reforms that bring down costs and improve quality. The American people want health care reform that will reduce costs and this plan doesn’t do that.” Source:CNSNews.com

And if this does not convince you that the TRUTH is a stranger to Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Maybe this will tweak your mind!
bama repeatedly has used transparency in government as a campaign slogan and a continuing phrase he used to deprecate the industries like the private Insurance companies. He claimed what they lacked was transparency of their profit that he said were excessive. The fact is the bottom line of health insurance companies shows that they make only 2% profit!
Yet both the House of Representatives and the Senate, both controlled by Democrats, crafted their Bills behind closed doors!

 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

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

 


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

ANOTHER ANTI-AMERICAN MOVE BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

 

Monday, October 12, 2009

 

First Obama promised over the weekend that he would rescind the “don’t ask don’t tell” regulation presently in force in the defense department, and allow gays and lesbians to openly be accepted by the armed forces and serve in all miltary services.

 

Now today there is this news from the Guardian,co,uk that a sherriff in Phoenix Arizona who is trying his best to stem the tide of illegals pouring over the Arizona border, esentialy got a cease and desist order from the White House!
“ Joe Arpaio, a gruff lawman who styles himself as America’s toughest sheriff, has won acclaim from US anti-immigrant( correction, we are against illegals not immigrants!) forces for his relentless pursuit of mostly Hispanic illegal immigrants in Maricopa county, Arizona, a fast-growing county of 4 million people that is home to Phoenix, the nation’s fifth largest city.

Under a two-year-old agreement with the federal department of homeland security, Arpaio and his deputies had been authorised to enforce federal immigration law by arresting suspected illegal immigrants in the field and by checking the immigration status of people arrested on other offences.
But after drawing thousands of complaints and a civil rights investigation from the justice department, Arpaio was this week stripped of his federal authority to make immigration arrests. County attorney Andrew Thomas, one of Arpaio’s supporters, condemned the “setback in the fight against illegal immigration”.

For his part Arpaio has promised to continue chasing illegal immigrants using state laws. In an angry press conference, he called US homeland security officials “liars” and said he would personally drive those caught on the streets to the border if federal officers refused to take arrested illegal immigrants into custody. “I’ll take a little trip to the border and turn them over to the border,” he said. Three cheers for Arpaio!!

“The department of homeland security is making a historic mistake if it continues its relationship with Sheriff Joe Arpaio,” said Paco Fabian, spokesman for immigration reform advocacy group America’s Voice. “The federal government is lending its full force and legitimacy to a rogue cop certain to go down in history as a serial violator of civil rights and an enemy of the Latino community.”

An estimated 12 million illegal immigrants live in the US. The federal government is virtually paralysed over how to react, with conservatives like Arpaio calling for the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants and increased border enforcement. Obama, many Democrats and some Republicans call for a system that will allow most to gain legal status after paying a fine and learning English, but reform efforts in 2006 and 2007 withered under sustained rightwing opposition.(the Democrats want the votes and only those Republicans in heavily Hispanic districts want the amnesty that Obama has promised to the Hispanic caucus)

More than 60 law enforcement agencies across the country have signed onto the same programme under which local officers are effectively deputised to enforce immigration law. But critics of the programme say it wastes police resources needed to fight street crime, promotes racial profiling of Hispanics, targets peaceful workers, breaks up families and breeds distrust of police among immigrants, who become afraid to report crime for fear they will be asked for immigration papers.( Well, then let us have more money for law enforcement officers and less money to create a cradle to grave welfare state!)

Why is Obama he** bent on amnesty?
First of all Latinos care deeply about immigration reform, and their votes trended Democrat in an extraordinary way in 2008, with Obama taking two-thirds of the vote. In states such as Nevada, New Mexico and especially the big prize of Florida, Latino voters were crucial to the result. Political operators are hardly unaware of an 11-million-strong voting bloc and are tantalised by the prospect of defining political change.

The second reason for legislative movement is opportunism. Obama is popular and has large reserves of political capital. But it is less about where we are in the presidential cycle and more about the public mood. Four out of five Americans express deep concern over immigration, but they also share a desire for action. When asked who is to blame, the public let employers and immigrants off the hook and blame government and Congress by a two-to-one margin. The public are anxious about immigration, especially illegal immigration, but they want the problem solved.
That problem is what to do with the huge illegally resident population in the US, estimated at 12 million, or one in three of the total foreign-born population.
In the end, though, the most compelling reason reform can succeed lies in the personality and huge ambition of the current White House occupant, OBAMA!  For the Obama team, immigration reform has become the civil rights issue for the 21st century. This is the prize that makes reform more likely than not, and sooner rather than later.And then we might as well disolve and abandon the Immigration and homeland security offices while we watch our country taken over by La Raza who has proclaimed that America should be Aztlan instaed of the USA!!
Aztlán became a symbol for mestizo activists who believe they have a legal and primordial right to the land. In order to exercise this right, some members of the Chicano movement propose that a new nation be created in South West United States,called The Republic of Aztlán..source: Wikapedia

Under the euphuism ‘Hispanic Homeland’ and ‘Nation of Aztlan,’ activists from numerous organizations including Mexican American Legal Defense and La Raza (The Race) activists are attempting to annex large portions of SW United States to Mexico. “Republica del Norte,” the Republic of the North, which would include the present U.S. states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, plus southern Colorado, along with several current Mexican states, is “an inevitability” says Charles Truxillo, professor, University of New Mexico. He further states the new “Hispanic Homeland” should be brought into being “by any means necessary.”

AMNESTY means never having immigration enforcement! Those ‘undocumented’ are actually ‘highly documented’ with fraudulent documents our government readily accepts.There should be no debate over illegal invasion of OUR country!.

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

THE ABSURDITY AND DUPLICITY OF OBAMA LED DEMOCRATS

 



Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty...Ronald Reagan



The Washington Times has a picture of Obama calling for bi-patrisan support for his Health Care Bill.
Either Obama is the least informed president we have ever had, or he is a man of deception and you cannot believe anything he says. I suspect it is the latter.
It is a wonder any Democrats, except for the leftist idealogs who would follow Obama to the gates of He**! Despite repeated motions by Republican members of the committee that is voting on the Baucus bill, to publish the text of the bill. The committee and I suspect the whole Senate will be voting on synopsis of the over 1000 page bill that was crafted by four Obama members of a secret group that is kept  secret from all but the group of four , Obama and selected beaurocrats.

This is a bill that was crafted in secret and will be voted on before anyone gets to read the complete bill, as was the case in the almost 800 billion dollar Stimulus package.People who agree to this deception are not upholding their Constitutional obligation as elected officials who supposedly represent those who voted them into their "princely" office!

According to the report just released by the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will cost roughly $829 billion over the next 10 years. And, significantly, it is even projected to reduce the budget deficit over 10 years by $81 billion. Of course, both those numbers are misleading.
as the CBO noted, there's no actual Baucus bill, just some "conceptual language." Actual language, CBO noted, might result in "significant changes" in its estimates. No wonder Democratic congressional leaders killed requirements that the actual language be posted on the Internet for 72 hours before Congress votes.

More significant is the number most publications did not put in their headlines and lead paragraphs: CBO's estimate that the Baucus "conceptual language" would increase federal spending by $829 billion over 10 years. So how do you increase federal spending and cut the deficit at the same time?
One way is taxes. The Baucus conceptual language includes a tax on high-cost insurance plans ($210 billion), penalties for not having insurance ($27 billion) and "indirect offsets" (whatever they are -- $83 billion)!

And if that is not enough to convince you. Consider the fact that under the Democratic bills, federal tax credits to help make health insurance affordable for millions of low- and middle-income households won't start flowing until 2013. After the next presidential election. But Medicare cuts and a sizable chunk of the tax increases to pay for the overhaul kick in immediately.So much for Obama's promise not to raise taxes on the midle class!

The $829 billion cost is for the next 10 years, 2010-2019, but the most expensive provisions of the bill don't take effect until July of 2013. The cost over the bill's first 10 years of actual operation is closer to $1.3 trillion. This a clear attempt by Obama and the Democrats to decieve the public! It must be voted DOWN!

We all know Obama is a great speaker as long as he has a teleprompter, but he is anything but the open and transparent president he promised he would be in his campaign speeches.

A good example of Obam's deceptive nature is the fact that he knew tbe day before he chaired the UN Security Council, that Iran had built anothr uranium enrichment facility. But even though Irans dictator was sitting at the table Obama did not take the opportunity to bring up the subject. No, he proceeded as though nothing was changed in Iran and passed a non-binding resolution relating to nuclear disarmament!
He waited until he was at the G-20 meeting in Pittsburg to reveal what he knew long before his announcement. How can you trust a man who picks and chooses when he will , if ever,reveal important information that the voting public has a right to know in a timely basis.

And the dim ligt bulb from San Francisco that is holding on tightly to the Speakers position in the House, let the cat out of the bag last week, when she said a Value Added tax was on the "drawing board'! A tax that applies to all items bought by all econonomic classes, especially the poor!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE LIES AND CHICANERY OF DEMOCRATS HEALTH SCHEME

Thursday, October 08, 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


Many people will question why I used the title I used for this blog. Read on and you will se just  few of the many reasons I used the terms in the title.
A senior aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told CNSNews.com that it is “likely” that Reid will use H.R. 1586—a bill passed by the House in March to impose a 90-percent tax on bonuses paid to employees of certain bailed-out financial institutions—as a “shell” for enacting the final version of the Senate’s health care bill, which Reid is responsible for crafting.

Under the procedure, the substance of House Resolution 1586 would be removed and replaced with the entire Senate health care package. The maneuver would initially require the support of 60 senators to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 1586 (i.e., end debate on the congressional procedure and move forward).
If Reid wins 60 votes, then debate begins on his health care package. Reid could then decide to block all amendments and attempt to get a vote on the entire package.

The Democrats including Senator Max Baucus of Montana have repeatedly used the American Journal of Public Health claims that 44,789 working-age adults die each year because they lack basic health insurance.

Researchers at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance found that uninsured Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who carry some sort of insurance. This number is up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993. I wonder how they made this assumption. Did they consider the following statistics of the 2,426,264 who died in 2006 to come to their drastic and ominous decision, or where political bias the motivating factor. Any one who has watched Harvard for any time realizes that it is a Left wing Institution.
However, anotrher study done in 2008, Stan Dorn, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute, published another study based on the IOM methodology, again using more recent data, and found that 22,000 die due to lack of insurance. Who can you believe?
Certainly not anyone who carries the water for Obama.
In 2006 the number of people who died and the cause are listed as found in the NHI report.

Heart disease: 631,636
Cancer: 559,888
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
Diabetes: 72,449
Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
Septicemia: 34,234
Source: NIH Deaths: Final Data for 2006,

With so many causes for the death of over 2 million people, the scare tactic of using a claim that almost 50,000 die without Health Insurance(was used by Sen. Baucus yesterday) is suspicious at the very least. But then since  Obama took over the White House and the Democrats gained control of Congress. Claims of crisis and disaster has been the modus operandi!

He(president Obama) has said repeatedly that he will not raise taxes on the midle class, but the Baucus Bill would raise taxes severly!

It will tax medical devices 29 million dollars, that will  not be  absorbed by the manufacturers, but passed on to the consumer.Everything from breast pumps for new mothers to atificial hips will be taxed.
And when the concept of reforming our present health insurance system that comprises 17% of our GNP, it was sold to tthe people as a way  to cover all people who do not have insurance. BUT the Baucus Bill that Obama supports will not cover 25 million people!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

IS POTUS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR??

September 30, 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

If  you believe half of what an aspiring politician tells and promises during his/her election campaign. I think you are a gullible person who is a candidate for buying a piece of the Brooklyn bridge.
But when a man consistently tells untruths and exaggerates his accomplishments i begin to suspect that he is a person who does not recognize the truth if it bit him. A pathological liar!

The Truth About Deception defines pathological liar as: "A pathological liar is usually defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others. Pathological lying is often viewed as coping mechanism developed in early childhood and it is often associated with some other type of mental health disorder. A pathological liar is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused - it is done to get one's way). Pathological liars have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others. A pathological liar often comes across as being manipulative, cunning and self-centered" Does this sound familiar?

There are too many lies that Obama told to get into the White House and since he got there to enumerate them all, but the two that I think reveals the true nature of Obama's deception are the promise that if elected he would not raise taxes on the middle class and would make the Afghanistan war his main foreign policy.
He promised he would do everything to win in the fight against al Qaeda and their leader Osama bin Laden!

In July 2008, then-candidate Obama told CNN, “We allowed the Taliban and Al Qaeda to regenerate itself when we had them on the ropes. That was a big mistake, and it’s one I’m going to correct when I’m president.”

On Mar. 27, 2009, Obama announced a “comprehensive new strategy” for Afghanistan, saying that this policy came after careful review by military commanders and diplomats, government officials in Afghanistan, NATO allies, and members of Congress. “The situation is increasingly perilous,” said Obama, and “the safety of people around the world is at stake.”

“I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to prevent their return to either country in the future,” said Obama in March.

Last Monday, however, Obama said he was not willing to send troops “beyond what we already have” until he was sure the United States was employing the right strategy in the region. Currently, there are about 56,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. McChrystal says an additional 40,000 is needed to effectively implement a counterinsurgency strategy and bring political and civil order to the country.

On several occasions during the campaign, Obama also said he wanted to treat Afghanistan like the primary front in the war on terror that he believed the Central Asian nation to be.

 Back on Aug. 1, 2007, Obama was already talking about the redeployment he would order as president: “Our troops have fought valiantly there [Afghanistan], but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need -- and deserve. … As president, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counterterrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban.”

On July 20, 2008, Obama took a trip to Afghanistan and told Lara Logan of CBS: “For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three.” He also told Logan he believed “this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism.”

That same month, Obama made a speech on foreign policy outside the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C. There, on July 8, he said he thought Afghanistan was more central to the security of the United States than Iraq. “If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned,” said Obama. “And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.”
He also told the audience that the top-priority mission in Afghanistan was failing because of the troop commitment to Iraq.
“Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq,” Obama said

Despite those comments, Obama recently indicated he may not give McChrystal the 40,000 troops the top military authority in Afghanistan says he needs for success, at least until he is satisfied that the “right strategy” is in place, and apparently in place of the “new comprehensive strategy” he outlined in March.

Now, last Monday, Sept. 21, the president told ABC’s Charles Gibson: “Until I'm satisfied that we've got the right strategy, I'm not going to be sending some young men or women over there beyond what we already have.”Source: CNSNEWS.com

Apparently, Obama cannot remember what he "said" yesterday, let alone the flagrant lies he told on the campaign "trail.". Maybe that is why he carries a pocket teleprompter.?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

IS OBAMA COMMITTED TO WIN IN AFGHANISTAN?

Friday, August 28, 2009





Despite deploying up to 120,000 soldiers, supported by 300,000 Afghan government forces, the Soviets failed to crush the insurgency by Afghan mujahideen fighters who were backed by U.S. guns and money and had bases inside neighboring Pakistan. Some 15,000 Soviet troops were killed before Moscow decided the war could not be won and pulled out its forces in 1989. By that time, 1 million Afghans had lost their lives and another 5 million become refugees in neighboring Pakistan and Iran.

The tables are now turned and the United States is considering whether to send another 25,000 troops to add to the nearly 70,000 Western forces locked in a bitter stalemate with Taliban-led insurgents in south and eastern Afghanistan. "I tell you this for sure, that if NATO and America put all their attention on fighting, and invest only in the military, they will not win," former mujahideen leader and ex-President Burhanuddin Rabbani told Reuters.

And the Soviets also tried to bring progress to deeply conservative and traditional Afghanistan and in many ways their record was more impressive than that of the West so far. Most of Afghanistan's roads, ministries, major schools and hospitals were Soviet-built. Even now, many of the upper echelons of the civil service, army and police are Soviet trained.


But any gains the Soviets made through development and building the Afghan government's capacity were scuppered by the resentment and anger their devastating bombing raids caused. That is a lesson U.S. and NATO forces should learn from the experience of their former Cold War adversary. "I don't think NATO has fully understood just how serious this issue is," said a Kabul-based Western analyst. "They certainly have done what they can to try to avoid civilian casualties from air strikes, but I just don't think they have grasped how central it is to informing the views of the nation." Source:CNSNEWS.com

My question is are those who are sent to fight in Afghanistan being sent to die for a commander in chief who does not believe in victory? He has cut the defense budget,as this report indicates.
The Obama administration has asked the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion.
A senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United States' goal, he said in a TV interview.

"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.First of all Hirohito never left his palace in Tokyo. A senior general of the Japanese arm signed the surrender. Strange such a supposedly smart man does not know this!

This statement from the Commander in Chief of the armed forces is troubling to me. The troops are sent 10,000 miles to potential death or crippling wounds and their CIC does not want victory. Sounds strangely similar to the attitude of McNamara during the Vietnam debacle!!

Obama, apparently is preoccupied with the quest to socialize our health care industry to pay attention to the fact that last month we had 4 killed in Afghanistan, and this month is is worse, casualties in the eight years the USA has been fighting there. More warriors were killed last month(44), and although August is not over it is the worst month (45) than any month in the last 8 years!

We have presently 64,000 troops in Afghanistan in harms way for a commander in chief who apparently does not think victory is the Object of their sacrifice!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

PAY MDs FOR QUALITY NOT QUANTITY?

Friday, August 14, 2009





Obama misleads us by denying that bureaucrats would "meddle" in our health care decisions or with the doctor-patient relationship. Yet in almost the same breath, he boasts that he would bundle payments to doctors based on the quality, not the quantity, of the services they provide -- such quality to be determined by his bureaucratic boards. The House bill is replete with provisions conferring such decisions on government bureaucrats.

Obama misleads us when he and his minions cavalierly dismiss the public's genuine concern about the government, under his plan, insinuating itself into end-of-life decisions. Instead of responding to provisions of the bill legitimately generating such concerns, he puts words into our mouths, saying we claim that the bill would require "euthanasia." Even some of Obama's state-run media fact checkers suggested that Reps. Thaddeus McCotter and John Boehner made that claim. In fact, they said provisions of the bill "could create ... a more permissive environment for euthanasia ... and physician-assisted suicide." Someone needs to check the fact checkers.

Of course there are legitimate concerns here, and it insults our intelligence to suggest otherwise. The bill would immediately impose a monumental conflict of interest on government bureaucrats by tasking them to cut costs drastically while simultaneously empowering them to "counsel" people about their end-of-life (and other) medical care. Such a conflict of interest -- over life and death itself -- is unconscionable and unthinkable in the United States of America.

According to a recent analysis by the Lewin Group, the nation's most prominent health policy econometrics firm, assuming full implementation of the House bill, 103.9 million Americans would be covered under the public plan, and 83.4 million people would no longer be covered by private health insurance.Moreover, a federally designed health insurance exchange would consolidate federal control over the financing and delivery of Americans' medical services.

Initially, Americans may respond positively to the idea of a national health insurance exchange, but they are almost certainly unclear about its functions, how it would affect them, or which health policy problems it would solve. The legalese double talk language used in the health care debate can conceal as much as convey the true meaning of proposals embodied in the complex provisions of the mammoth House and Senate health care bills.

And it is obvious to anyone who watches closely the reaction of the media and the Obamanites, to the conservative protests to Obamacare at the Town Hall meetings. That what those who want to push the socialisation of our national health care system is to confuse the issue by calling those who are afraid of Obamacare, Nazis,unamerican and mobs paid by the Insurance industry. Thus attempting to deflect attention of a uninformed public from the myriad of problems with Obamacare, that they refuse to answer, to issues of peoples actions not the facts!

A perfect example of the double talk that Obama is using in his scripted Town Hall meetings is his statement in New Hampshire that the health insurance we now have is broken, immoral and must be fixed. Then he said if you have health insurance and are happy with it you will be able to keep it! Why would he allow people to keep a plan that he says is immoral?

And if that isn't bad enough it was learned that the young girl(11 years old) who asked a question of Obama at his last Town Hall meeting was not just an inquisitive young lady. She was the daughter of a women who has been a big supporter and contributor of Obama. In fact she ran an Obama for president office in Mass. And the really dishonest part of an Obama session was the woman who misrepresented herself as a pediatrician who was not even a doctor!
Is this the Change we can believe in?

A panicked President Obama has resorted to Chicago-style politics of intimidation by essentially declaring war on those who refuse to go along with his "plan". First, he publicly smeared and insulted them like he did Sergeant Crowley on TV when the police man arrested a surly Harvard professor. He called them “angry mobs” and their protests “manufactured.” At a political rally in Virginia last Friday, he referred to those who opposed his plans as the “folks who created the mess” and said that they shouldn’t “do a lot of talking.”

Then, in an act of blatant hypocrisy, he ordered up his own organized army of union members and Democrats to combat those citizens who were doing nothing more than legally expressing their views about the health care bills. Obama gave his troops their marching orders: “punch back twice as hard” at their opponents. Presumably that language was meant to be metaphorical, but it is indicative of a hostility on the part of the White House toward fellow Americans that is wholly unacceptable and unbecoming in their chief executive.

It seems, though, that some of Obama’s supporters in Service Employees International Union (SEIU) took that order literally when they physically assaulted a peaceful Black protester in St. Louis and put him in the hospital. What is especially disturbing is that the day after the attack, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius held a conference call with members of SEIU. She called them her “brothers and sisters,” praised their actions, and told them to “keep doing what you’re doing.” But perhaps Obama’s greatest indignity is his insidious snitch program that encourages his supporters to report their neighbors, family members, and friends when they publicly, whether through blog posts, emails, or in casual conversation, dare to dissent from the Obama party line on health care.And they call the people who are opposed to Obamacre, Nazis!!

Sources: The Heritage Foundation and Pajamas Media.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DISINFORMATION IN THE CONGO AND IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

Wednesday, August 12, 2009





While Secretary of State Hillary was telling an audience in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that government should own business, the president was spreading his disinformation to a partisan crowd in New Hampshire.

His pack of disinformation is too long for this blog, so I will include just the fist two falsehoods that the president spun for not only the crowd in the school but a National Television audience. After all, that is the purpose of these type meetings. Not to convince an adoring audience of Democrats , but to get more propaganda out to the nation watching the "show" on TV!!

“I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter.” This is directly contradicted by candidate Barack Obama’s own website which quotes Obama at a rally in Ames, Iowa form 2008: “If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system. … So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices….Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system.” So there you have in one paragraph the true purpose of Obama’s public option: a vehicle to slowly transition all Americans out of private coverage and into a government-run single payer health care system. This Trojan Horse view of the public option has been reaffirmed by Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

“Under the reform we’re proposing, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” This statement is also plainly false. Again, as demonstrated above, the true purpose of Obama’s public option is to move Americans out of their private coverage and into government run health care. Independent, non-partisan analysis from the Lewin Group has confirmed the House bill, H.R. 3200, will do exactly that: About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.

And because I am a senior citizen chronologically, I have to include this: "“We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors.” This is just plain false. The AARP released a statement late yesterday directly contradicting the President: “While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate.”

“I just want to be clear, again: Seniors who are listening here, this does not affect your benefits. This is not money going to you to pay for your benefits; this is money that is subsidizing folks who don’t need it.” Under the current system, more and more seniors are discovering that it is becoming harder and harder to find and keep doctors who will accept Medicare patients.

A 2008 survey found that 29% of the Medicare beneficiaries it surveyed who were looking for a primary care doctor had a problem finding one to treat them. Obamacare will only make this problem worse by cutting $313 billion in Medicare reimbursements to health care providers over the next 10 years. This will only force more doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients. Obama also mentioned yesterday that he wants to pay for subsidized health care by killing the Medicare Advantage program. Medicare Advantage plans cover all of the traditional Medicare benefits and much more, including coor?dinated care and care-management programs for enrollees with chronic conditions as well as additional hospitalization and skilled nursing facility stays. 22% of all Medicare patients, which translates to 10.5 million seniors, are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans.

Apparently Obama does not know how to sell his health Care dismantling plan, so he must resort to the one thing he is good at "spin"! Some would call it lying!!
But the fact remains that the four facts that are listed above are just some of the falsehoods and misinformation peddled by President Obama yesterday. It doesn’t even include his choice to sell Obamacare as The “Post Office” of Health Care Plans. No wonder so many Americans are skeptical.

According to a new Gallup poll, 66% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they would tell their member of Congress to vote against Obamacare, while only 59% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would do the same.
Source: Conn Carroll of the Heritage Foundation
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WITH ACCESS TO NSA COMPUTERS, WHY THE REQUEST FOR ANTI-OBAMACARE EMAILS??

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

 





There has been a lot of "barn yard droppings" coming out of the White House and their spokesperson Gibbs, but probably the "topper" was uttered by Gibbs yesterday.
When asked by a White House press corps member why the White House was asking for anyone who received an email that was against Obamacare, to send it to their website.

Gibbs answered that they were just trying to correct any erroneous information about the health Care plan that Congress is trying to pass, because there is a lot of erroneous information out there!

The words are not a direct quote, but essentially illustrate the point that Gibbs was making. They were not gathering a list of opponents of Obama Care.OH,NO!!
And to reinforce that position the new director of media for the White House said this: "There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care,” wrote Macon Phillips, director of New Media for the White House in a blog posting.

“These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain e-mails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an e-mail or see something on the Web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

The big lie is that they even need these emails, the NSA, Secret Service and numerous other government agencies controlled by the president are gathering information 24/7 with the intent of locating any email or printed material that is threatening to the president.NSA spying programs track personal phone and Internet communications daily!There is no need for this snitch plan except to make a list to hand over to some government agency like the IRS to stop dissent!!

At least one member of the U.S. Senate was not satisfied with the answers coming from Gibbs and the White House, Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) wrote a letter to the president expressing that the White House request for flagging opposition to the health care plan was alarming to him. His letter asked Obama to “cease this program immediately.”

“By requesting that citizens send ‘fishy’ e-mails to the White House, it is inevitable that the names, e-mail addresses, IP addresses and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported to the White House,” Cornyn’s letter said. “You should not be surprised that these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program. As Congress debates health care reform and other critical policy matters, citizen engagement must not be chilled by fear of government monitoring the exercise of free speech rights.”

Comments by Obama have circulated through the Internet. In a 2003 speech posted on the Internet, Obama said, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan.”

“But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately, because first we've got to take back the White House, and we've got take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House,” Obama said.

Cornyn wanted to know how restating what the president said six years ago, when he was an Illinois state legislator, was disinformation. He also asked the White House to explain how they “intend to use the names, e-mail addresses, IP addresses, and identities of citizens reported to have engaged in ‘fishy’ speech?”

Cornyn also wanted to know if the White House would notify citizens who were reported for “fishy” speech, and, “What action do you intend to take against citizens who have been reported for engaging in ‘fishy’ speech?”

One can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had president Bush asked Americans to forward e-mails critical of his policies to the White House.
The media and ACLU would be screaming "totalitarian tactics" in condemning such a program.

To illustrate the hypocracy of what has been put in place by the White House. I am including an article from the ACLU web site that illustrates how the Left reacts to any attempt to monitor suspected terrorists.

"HELENA, MT – The American Civil Liberties Union of Montana today filed a Freedom of Information Act request on behalf of eight Montana grassroots organizations that fear they may have been monitored because they have questioned federal policies including the war in Iraq.

“These Montana organizations have real concerns that their civil liberties are being violated by sweeping and overbroad government eavesdropping on their legitimate political activities,” said ACLU of Montana Executive Director Scott Crichton. “We want to help them determine whether their meetings have been monitored and their members targeted for surveillance by one of several agencies of the government.”

The request was filed simultaneously with the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense seeking records collected by the surveillance and monitoring of legitimate grassroots organizations exercising their constitutional rights to meet, associate, and organize.

The groups, including the Montana ACLU, are the Helena Peace Seekers; the Billings Peace Seekers; the Butte-based TAPS (Taking Action for Peaceful Solutions); the Helena-based “Just Don’t Go”; the Missoula-based University of Montana Students for Peace and Justice and the Jeannette Rankin Peace Center; and the Hamilton-based environmental group Friends of the Bitterroot.

“NSA spying programs tracking personal phone and Internet communications are deeply troubling, but they are only the tip of the iceberg,” Crichton said. “We are inquiring of multiple agencies because we know, for example, that the Pentagon’s Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) has been keeping tabs on organizations speaking against the pre-emptive war in Iraq, with complete disregard for human rights and the rule of law.”
Apparently what is going on in the Obama White House is O.K. ,but when Bush was in the White House everyone on the Left was appalled!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CAP AND TRADE IS A MONEY MAKING SCAM!!





We have seen news reports that Al Gore stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars in CO2 credits trading via his new trading organisation. And I suspect most of the politicians who have jumped on to the band wagon of Cap and Trade have visions of dollars floating in their empty heads!

Despite the fact that more than half the real climatologists who were surveyed, said the world is actually cooling not getting warmer. The politicians all over the world are pushing this new Ponzi scheme.

Well, the fly in the ointment just may have spoiled there vision of control and riches for themselves. A report by a respected organisation was introduced to the members of the G8 meeting in Italy that may start people thinking about flushing CAP and Trade!

The Kyoto Protocol requires leading economies, by 2012, to cut by specified amounts carbon dioxide (CO2) and other “greenhouse gases” blamed for climate change. It allows for trading in carbon “credits” among lighter and heavier emitters.

A conference in Copenhagen late this year aims to deliver a global agreement for action after 2012, the end of the Kyoto-applicable period. Activists are pushing for much bigger emission-reduction targets and more stringent timetables than those set by Kyoto.

But the new report says Kyoto and its underlying approach have had no meaningful impact at all. To the contrary, cap-and-trade schemes – which set a limit on emissions and allow trading in emissions permits or carbon offsets – had seen emissions continue rising.

The report comes from a consortium of research institutes in Europe, North America and Asia, led by the London School of Economics’ (LSE) Mackinder Program and the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society at the University of Oxford.

It says the only policies that will work are those focusing directly on improving energy efficiency (reducing the amount of energy needed to provide the same service) and decarbonizing the energy supply (finding ways to reduce the amount of carbon released per unit of energy consumed), through developing and deploying technology.

“Policy should focus directly on decarbonization rather than on emissions; on causes instead of consequences,” the authors say.

“Worthwhile policy builds upon what we know works and upon what is feasible rather than trying to deploy never-before implemented policies through complex institutions requiring a hitherto unprecedented and never achieved degree of global political alignment,” lead author Gwyn Prins of the LSE Mackinder Program said in a statement.
Source:CNSNEWS

Prins and his co-authors find fault with initiatives like the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation – passed by the House of Representatives late last month – as well as the European Union’s emission trading scheme and Britain’s Climate Change Act.

Instead, they point to Japan’s climate strategy – setting a realistic, concrete target, “to be met by real-world efficiency gains and decarbonization through deployment of efficient and low-carbon technologies.”

“The Japanese target does not depend on the froth of purchased offsets,” they add.

The report notes that Japan, ironically, was slammed by environmentalists and the U.N. climate panel for what were seen as unambitious targets, even though its policy is actually working.

“Evidence from the best studied and most efficient example, namely the Japanese iron and steel industry, shows a 19 percent reduction in CO2 1991-2008 as a result of direct efficiency gains.”

‘Don’t put dogmatism ahead of pragmatism’

Despite the experts’ appeals, carbon trading looks set to stay ,there is too much money invested in the trading of CO2 credits to allow it to fail. And it will expand! To the average citizens detriment and to fill the pockets of the political aristocracy!

Obama met with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt at the G8 gathering Wednesday and, according to Reinfeldt, expressed interest in linking a U.S. carbon trading market with one run by the E.U. and, possibly, Australia. Sweden holds the rotating E.U. presidency.

Writing on a Nature magazine Web site, Jeff Tollefson voiced doubt that the idea of reversing course put forward by Prins and his co-authors would garner much enthusiasm.
How much money will Obama and his henchman make off this canard we will never know. But one thing we all know is that it will cost US a lot more in the cost of living because of the incumbent increase costs of energy
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HAS OBAMA AND NEW DRUG CZAR SURRENDERED TO DRUG LORDS??

Friday, May 08, 2009




It is clear that the Obama plan for the United States is to move it from a free society to a "statist" cradle to grave collective, at least it is in my mind.
The fact that during the first one hundred days of the Obama administration, Obama and the Congress have spent 100 billion dollars a day to advance the welfare state in the disguise of saving the banks and the economy.What he and Congress has done to our children and grandchildren could be called economic child abuse!

Now he has selected a man who is the current police chief of Seattle, Washington for the new Drug Czar. Chief Gil Kerlikowske is a friend of Attorney General Eric Holder, and served in the Clinton administration, will no longer have Cabinet-level status,( Obama gave that to Biden) a White House official said, but Kerlikowske "will have a seat at the table( what table, when?) when important decisions are being made ... and full access and a direct line to the president and vice president."

In the Clinton administration, Kerlikowske worked on ways to monitor grants the agency gave to local police efforts, and he frequently emphasized analysis and data, looking for "ways to prevent crime rather than reacting to it," said Tim Quinn, the COPS program's acting director.

John Carnevale, an official in the drug office from its inception in 1989 until 2000, met Kerlikowske while working on ways to measure the agency's effectiveness. "He's big on accountability," said Carnevale. Kerlikowske's Washington and local policing background is a plus, particularly if other appointees bring a strong treatment and prevention background, he said.

Seattle activists who work on drug-reform issues called Kerlikowske smart and reasonable, and they noted that his police department has largely abided by a voter-approved initiative that made marijuana possession the city's lowest law enforcement priority.

Even at the city's annual Hempfest protest and festival, police arrested only a few people despite the open-air pot smoking, said Vivian McPeak, director of the event.

Douglas Hiatt, an attorney who defends medical marijuana patients, said the chief has tried "to do the right thing on medical marijuana. He's trying to get it across to his officers not to hassle patients." My question is what are people who he considers patients doing out on the streets rather than in treatment centers or hospitals. What these people are doing is sending a message to the drug lords that they have Cart Blanche because we will be targeting users of drugs rather than stopping the flow of drugs into our country.

Colleagues expect Kelikowski to ramp up efforts to stem demand for illegal narcotics by emphasizing prevention and treatment.
He comes from a state whose citizens voted not to enforce the federal law if marijuana is used as medicine. He also comes from a city whose people voted to make marijuana possession the lowest priority for police work.

Kerlikowske didn't support that measure, but he learned to live with it. His police force has been tolerant at Seattle's annual Hempfest.

Concerning the stronger drugs, Kerlikowske has tolerated needle-exchange programs. He has supported drug court, which offers treatment to low-level offenders as an alternative to prison. He has a son who has been arrested for drugs, so he has seen the drug war from that angle, too.

I suspect that this man will find opposition to his confirmation in the Senate from those who believe that treatment is fine, but stopping the flow of drugs at our borders is still more important. The recent violence in the border cities of Texas and Arizona that have claimed hundreds of lives and seen kindnapping escalate is a priority that the Obama seems to have ignored!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »