About Me

Name: Jax Hawk
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

AFRICAN-AMERICANS SHOULD BE PRO-LIFE

Posted by Jax Hawk on Friday, November 20, 2009 10:40:43 AM

Friday, November 20, 2009

I moved to South Florida in the late fifties, and was witness to the massive invasion of Cubans that were fleeing from the Communist Castro oppressive take over of Cuba. The thousands of young men and women arrived here with nothing but the clothes on their backs, and were desperate to find work, any kind of work to keep from starving. Many had relatives who had he foresight to leave Cuba before Castro took over, and they provided many with shelter, but many were put in camps for refugees under the massive bridge in downtown Miami. At the time the wave of Cuban immigrants hit South Florida. The bellhop, waiters, parking attendants and all service personnel were African-Americans. But the Cubans were willing to work for less money, and gradually they took most of the Hotel jobs.

Fast forward to the 1980s and the Mexicans seeking work and a better way of life started the illegal crossing of the borders of California, Arizona and Texas. At first it was a trickle but soon became a wave that has grown to and estimated 12 million illegals that successfully crossed the border into the USA! These mexicans also were willing to work for less than Americans in the fields and the many businesses that did not require particular skills.

What has this got to do with the pro-life issue? Well, many Blacks soon became a minority group that accepted abortion as a way to keep from having children despite their pastors protestations that abortion was wrong. Although many joined White people who embraced the concept of being a welfare mother who lived off the State and Federal government subsides. AS a result Hispanics outnumber blacks as the largest minority group in the USA for the first time since the government began counting the nation’s population more than two centuries ago. The U.S. Census Bureau’s anouncement confirmed what many have treated as fact for some time. Even so, it’s a symbolic milestone for a nation whose history has been dominated by black-white racial dynamics. Increased racial and ethnic diversity is adding a new dimension to everything from product marketing to political campaigning. There are 38.8 million Hispanics in the USA, according to the latest Census Bureau estimates released Wednesday. The figures, as of July 1, show a 9.8% increase since the Census was taken in April 2000. The U.S. population grew 2.5% to 288.4 million in the same period. Hispanics accounted for half of the national increase. Non-Hispanic blacks, including people who say they’re black and another race, grew at a much slower rate than Hispanics, up 3.1%, to 36.6 million. Hispanics make up 13% of the nation’s population. The number of Asians also surged. They’re up 9% to 13.1 million. The population gains by Hispanics reflect a society that has already embraced Spanish TV and election ballots in Spanish.

The Hispanic population is soaring because of immigration and higher birth rates. The above illustrates the clout that Hispanics have in Washington. Including the drive for amnesty! While the Hispanics have grown in numbers the Blacks have joined the genocide that is abortion. The following is a report printed in CNSNews.com today by a Black female gynecologist, “(CNSNews.com) – Abortion kills more black Americans than the seven leading causes of death combined, according to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2005, the latest year for which the abortion numbers are available. Abortion killed at least 203,991 blacks in the 36 states and two cities (New York City and the District of Columbia) that reported abortions by race in 2005, according to the CDC. During that same year, according to the CDC, a total of 198,385 blacks nationwide died from heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and chronic lower respiratory diseases combined. These were the seven leading causes of death for black Americans that year. A total of 49 jurisdictions reported their abortion numbers for 2005 to the CDC. These included all 50 states–except California, Louisiana, and New Hampshire–and New York City and the District of Columbia. Of these 49 jurisdiction, only 36 states plus New York City and the District of Columbia reported the number of abortions by race. Of these 36 states, Georgia reported the largest number of abortions–18,325–among African-Americans. Idaho and Montana reported the fewest, 16 and 17 respectively. Among the large states not reporting abortions by race–and thus where the number of blacks killed by abortions is not included in the national total of 203,991–are California, Florida, Illinois and the rest of New York state outside of New York City. According to the CDC, the total of 203,991 blacks killed by abortion in 2005 also does not include those aborted by “private physicians’ procedures.”

Every year since 1969, the CDC has amassed abortion data by state or area of occurrence, requesting information each year from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City. The CDC attempts to collect data on abortions by the age, race and marital status of the women who undergo them as well as the type of abortion procedure. In 2005, a total of 820,151 legal abortions were performed in the 49 jurisdiction that reported abortions to the CDC, according to the “Abortion Surveillance” report, which is published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, or MMWR, for Nov. 28, 2008. (Scroll up to top of report) The report states, “Approximately 1 in 5 U.S. pregnancies have ended in abortion,” and also notes some limitations on the data: “The overall number, ratio, and rate of abortions are conservative estimates; the total numbers of legal induced abortions provided by central health agencies and reported to the CDC for 2005 were probably lower than the numbers actually performed.” The report states that there were 203,991 blacks killed by abortion, which comprises 35.5 percent of all abortions reported for that year.

Rev. Clenard H. Childress, Jr., founder of BlackGenocide.org, told CNSNews.com that according to numbers gleaned from statistics provided by the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion group, 1,784 blacks are aborted each day. Also, he notes on his Web site that three out of five African-American women will obtain an abortion. Childress said the information and sources on his Web site have never been challenged by abortion-access supporters. “This is because they can see that themselves, and they know them probably to be far worse than we’re reporting. The facts come from the pro-abort/pro-choice community,” he said. “You want to go to a reliable source where people can’t dismiss what you’re saying,” Childress said. “Yet the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP, Urban League, and the National Action Committee of Al Sharpton fail abysmally to report not only the decimation but the health ramifications which are questionably very pertinent and provable,” said Childress. “It would be one thing if we were talking about something hypothetically, but these are actual empirical proofs. … We simply want the health issues of abortion to be discussed,” Childress added. Time for Blacks to decide that Right to Life is good for political clout if not just for the moral travesty that abortion is to the most unprotected children in the USA. A child in the mother’s womb!
 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

IT IS TIME TO ADMIT WE HAVE A LIAR IN CHIEF AS POTUS

Posted by Jax Hawk on Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:56:56 AM

Thursday, November 19, 2009

 
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” .GEORGE ORWELL

We expect and receive grandiose statements, promises that the person making them never can make during political campaigns. The truth is lost in the quest to win the votes of the electorate.
But once the campaign is over, we expect our elected representatives to talk straight to us. No lies are accepted. Except it appears from president Obama and his very large “inner circle”.

The following are direct quotes from the President within the last 18 months. Some I have commented on, the others, as they say at Harvard Law, res ipso loquitur.

1) ”…not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t — not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited — I am.” Speech to Congress, February 24, 2009

2) “And that is why I have ordered the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and will seek swift and certain justice for captured terrorists…” Speech to Congress, February 24, 2009

3) “My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs.” I wonder if the President knows he doesn’t have a line item veto.

4) “My immediate task is making sure that the second half of that money, $350 billion, is spent properly. That’s my first job.” Press conference February 9, 2009, talking about TARP money.

5) ”It also contains an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability, so that every American will be able to go online and see where and how we’re spending every dime. What it does not contain, however, is a single pet project, not a single earmark, and it has been stripped of the projects members of both parties found most objectionable.” Press conference February 9, 2009 talking about his own economic bill.

6) “Second is recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge’s job is to interpret, not make law, to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice…” I thought about putting this first because he was introducing Sotomayor who is on tape saying judges make policy, among other things.

7) “It’s not just enough to change the players. We’ve gotta change the game.” He has appointed over 150 recycled Clintionistas

8) ”I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying.” Either this is a lie or his later position where he opposes gay marriage, take your pick for number eight.

9) “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.” In reference to Rev. Wright 42 days before he disowned him.

10) “To those Americans whose support I have yet to earn: I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President, too.”

Here’s a stimulus success story: In Arizona’s 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that’s what the Web site set up by the Obama administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says. The only problem is that there is no 15th district!

There are only eight (8) Congressional districts in the state of Arizona!
.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc, who chairs the powerful House appropriations Committee, issued a paper statement demanding that the recovery.gov Web site be updated.

“The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes.”

Obama and Democratic leaders say that wiping out waste and fraud in Medicare, including the elimination of more than $100 billion in government subsidies for the Medicare Advantage program in which private insurers supplement standard Medicare coverage, will reduce government health care costs by several hundred billion dollars.

HOW CAN WE BELIEVE OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS WHEN THEY SAY THE HEALTH CARE BILL WILL SAVE MONEY. However, the The federal government made $98 billion in improper payments in fiscal 2009, and we still have six weeks to go in 2009!
The 2009 total up to date for improper payments — from outright fraud to misdirected reimbursements due to factors such as an illegible doctor’s signature — was a 37.5 percent increase over the $72 billion in 2008, according to figures provided by Peter Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.
 Yet anotther one of Obama’s campaign promises was he would cut waste and fraud to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit he inherited from Bush. Well It’s another record-high for the U.S. National Debt which today topped the $12-trillion mark. Divided evenly among the U.S. population, it amounts to $38,974.34 for every man, woman and child.

Technically, the debt hit the new high yesterday, but it was posted on the Treasury Department website just after 3:00 p.m. ET today. The exact calculation of the debt is a 16-digit tongue-twister and red-ink tsunami:.
The increase in the deficit and debt is attributed to government spending outpacing revenue – both exacerbated by the recession and the government response to it – including hundreds of billions in bailouts and stimulus spending and tax cuts along with decreased tax revenues due to rising unemployment
And there is another promise that Obama made that was broken. He promised that if the Stimulus bill was passed the unemployment would not exceed 8.5%. It is 10.2%!.

 Mr. Obama has said he hopes the health care plan pending in Congress will serve to curb the growth in the debt by reducing the amount government spends on health care. But it’s a claim disputed by critics who say it will have the opposite effect.

Remember when the president, as a candidate, promised to post all bills online so we could read them first?

Remember when he promised transparency in all legislation? No more closed-door deals?

Remember when he promised to put government meetings with lobbyists online for everyone to see?

Did you remember he made all those broken promises — and more — in less than two minutes of the same speech? (And, actually, if they hadn’t applauded so much, he could have done it in under a minute flat.)

Peter Andrew the author of “Soda Head” lists 14 lies that Obama told when he had a press conference on his Health Care proposal.
President Barack Obama told no fewer than 14 healthcare lies during his press conference on the “ObamaCare nightmare.” From the Official Obama Administration Scandals List…

1.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 1 7/22/9 – Twice during his press conference, Obama lied saying he inherited from President Bush a $1.3-trillion federal budget deficit. Not true. On July 13th, we reported the deficit had just topped $1-trillion for the first time ever. That is Obama’s deficit. Bush never had a deficit anywhere near $1.3-trillion. Does Obama mean instead that the budget plan would have maybe created such a deficit for him in his own term? He’s certainly not wording it that way! For Obama to say so is an outright lie. Even the Associated Press noted: “Obama is…proposing a budget that assumes a jaw-dropping deficit of $1.75 trillion this year, a quadruple increase from the year before.” – More fuzzy math from this socialist administration.

2.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 2 7/22/9 Obama makes the outrageous claim that the USA is “no healthier than any other nation” despite the money we spend on healthcare. Clearly an unsubstantiated claim.

3.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 3 7/22/9 Obama says the “biggest driving force behind the federal deficit is the skyrocketing costs of Medicare and Medicaid.” Not True. Fox News reported on July 13th the real causes for Obama’s huge deficit: “the huge deficit is caused by, “the huge sum the government has spent to combat the recession and financial crisis, combined with a sharp decline in tax revenues. Paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also is a major factor.”

4.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 4 7/22/9 Obama repeated his pledge that his health care plan “won’t add to the deficit. And I mean it!” Later he even added his plan is “designed to lower it!” – So what of the Congressional Budget Office’s conclusion that the House bill does add to the deficit? Democrats and the Obama administration argue that the $245 billion included for doctors — the approximate 10-year cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don’t face big annual pay cuts — does not have to be counted in the overall cost of the health care bill. Their only in Washington reasoning is that they already decided to exempt it from congressional “pay-as-you-go” rules that require new programs to be paid for. In other words, it doesn’t have to be paid for because they decided it doesn’t have to be paid for“!!!!!

5.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 5 7/22/9 Obama says his plan “lowers healthcare expenses.” The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says that’s not true. How long until he starts firing the CBO guys just like the inspectors generals he has canned?

6.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 6 7/22/9 Obama says his plan will, “slow the growth of healthcare expenses.” What growth?! You just said it is going to lower the expenses! Apparently there will be growth in expenses just like the CBO said this plan would do.

7.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 7 7/22/9 Obama says the Obama care plan will “improve health care for seniors.” Not true. Rationing care means some get it and some don’t. Those with better chances (younger people) will get the care, the seniors won’t. Also, Obama says he’ll save money by getting rid of “things that don’t make you healthier.” HE gets to decide what those things are, not seniors or geriatric doctors!

8.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 8 7/22/9 Obama lies (David Axelrod repeated the lie on 7/23/9) saying his healthcare proposal “promotes choice.” wrong. The plan eliminates choice by 2013. Those seeking new health insurance will have no choice at all in 2013. They will HAVE TO go with the government-run, socialist healthcare plan. See the 7/21/9 scandal on the list where he said he’s “not familiar” with that part of the plan!!

9.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 9 7/22/9 Obama has the audacity to claim that he’ll pay for 2/3rds of his $1.5-Trillion healthcare plan by realizing “savings” from the fact the government will run healthcare!!! Has the government ever saved us a dime running anything?! What makes him think he can do so now? $600 hammer anyone?

10.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 10 7/22/9 Obama was dishonest with the american people when he claimed the “debt and deficit are deep concerns of mine.” We have demonstrated his deficit deception here. Democrats no longer care about deficits. Even the Associated Press noted: “Obama is not simply proposing a budget that assumes a jaw-dropping deficit of $1.75 trillion this year, a quadruple increase from the year before. He’s trying to redirect strong currents in American society.”

11.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 11 7/22/9 Obama used his own “new math” to claim he reduced the deficit! He said doing nothing would mean a budget deficit of $9.3-Trillion over ten years, something he can’t possibly know. But, he said with his changes it will only be $7.1 trillion in ten years. He is already up to $1-trillion in the first year (and climbing rapidly). So, how does he claim that it will go down so dramatically while he increases healthcare spending? CBS News Chip Reed asked him about it at an earlier press conference (click here to see the video) basically “asking what about years 6, 7, 8 and 9 of his budget when the deficits keep going up, up, up. The president said “we’ll make new budgets by then,” and basically not to worry about it since it is so far away!!” – So, the President is using fictitious future budget cuts from a time when he may not even be president to claim that he is reducing the budget deficit! More blazing deficit hypocrisy. We have been Leading the way Right on this story. Check out what we said on 3/21/9.

12.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 12 7/22/9 Obama again used his own “new math” to make the bizarre claim that he has “cut spending.” It’s more of the “Obama Gap” we reported on April 21st: “addressing congress he promised to get rid of government programs that don’t work and cut out that spending, then he proposes the biggest increase in government spending ever, now he asks his cabinet to cut $100-million in spending. He wants to increase the size of government to $4-Trillion a year, and asked for a cut FROM HIS HUGE BUDGET REQUEST of 1/35,000th of the amount he wants to spend.” – And that is how he claims he has “cut” spending…he cut the size of his gigantic increase.

13.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 13 7/22/9 Answering a reporter question from a very hot news babe (who was that lady?), Obama said he wasn’t actually lying about having health care meetings on C-Span. He had said in the past these types of meetings were held in secret but in his new era of transparency, he would put them on C-Span. The reporter babe saw right through that. Obama says it wasn’t a lie though because he put the first meeting about healthcare on C-Span. The rest were all held in secret. Uhmmmmmmmmm….As O’Reilly said, “I have a master’s degree from Harvard and I don’t understand what the president is trying to say.”

14.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 14 – THE BIG ONE 7/22/9 Obama repeated his anti-Jim DeMint lie that the health care debate is “Not about me.” The Fox News Ticker earlier reported that U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley told them the president told a group of democrats, “You’re trying to destroy my Presidency!” The hot-headed response came after the president learned a “large number” of centrist democrats are against his socialist healthcare plan. It really is all about him.

OTHER SOURCES: CALVIN WOODWARD OF THE  AP

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

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

ZEALOTS FOR ECOLOGY MAY DESTROY WORLD ECONOMY

Posted by Jax Hawk on Saturday, November 14, 2009 4:32:00 PM


Nov. 14th, 2009 | 04:27 pm

goreECOLOGYUNGENERALThe Dutch government said Friday it wants to introduce a “green” road tax by the kilometre from 2012 aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent and halving congestion.

“Each vehicle will be equipped with a GPS device that tracks how many kilometres are driven and when and where. This data will be then be sent to a collection agency that will send out the bill,” the transport ministry said in a statement.
Ownership and sales taxes, about a quarter of the cost of a new car, will be scrapped and replaced by the “price per kilometre” system aimed at cutting the Netherlands’ carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent.
“Traffic jams will be halved and it helps the environment,” the ministry said.
Dutch motorists driving a standard family saloon will be charged 3 euro cents per kilometre (seven US cents per mile) in 2012. That would increase to 6.7 cents (16 US cents per mile) in 2018, according to the proposed law.
Every vehicle type will have a base rate, which depends on its size, weight and carbon dioxide emissions.

AND THE TELEGRAPH.UK IS REPORTING TODAY THAT A MEMBER OF THE lABOR PARTY IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS IS PROPOSING THAT ALL BRITISH CITIZENS HAVE A CARBON CREDIT CARD!
.It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel

LORD Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity.

Climate change commitments of different countries Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using.
If their “carbon account” hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.
Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit.

Lord Smith will call for the scheme to be part of a “Green New Deal” to be introduced within 20 years when he addresses the agency’s annual conference on Monday.
An Environment Agency spokesman said only those with “extravagant lifestyles” would be affected by the carbon allowances. Everyone in Britain should have an annual carbon ration and be penalised if they use too much fuel, the head of the Environment Agency will say.

Many In Britain realize that this is just another way of taking money from the earners to support the welfare programs that drag down the economy in England, and soon will destroy our economy here in the USA if Obama and his sycophants prevail in the Cap and Tax Bill.
We still do not know if Obama will visit Copenhagen for the meeting of the Worlds wealth distribution conference, masquerading as Kyoto II. I believe he will attend if his slippery tongue can convince China to go along with the conference agreement, even though they wil never in a million years abide by any agreement they sign.
At any rate, some USA representative will attend and agree to all the redistribitionists want. You can be sure it will cost millions if not billions of dollars from Americans tax payers to pay” tribute”( aka: ransom) to Third World nations for our “polluting the air” that they breath!

As Obama prepares to visit Communist China he made no reference to the lack of co-operation that China has demonstrated for air quality and only vaguely mentioning human rights in the speech he gave in Tokyo.
He said: “On China, Obama called for harnessing China’s clout to make progress on shared interests like weapons proliferation, a more solid global economy and climate agreements.Fat chance the Chinese will curtail their pollution at the cost of slowing down their quest for economic domination!

Obama will receive accolades and be treated in a royal way because the Chinese Communists recognize that he is a Marxist at heart, but the promises and prosaicisms he receives will be the same as he presently gives to his Commander in the field of war in Afghanistan–JUST empty words!

And while the hot air is coming out of the Obama administration, the UN is crafting a plan that makes blood spurt to my brain!
- A new United Nation’s global warming treaty is expected to give some of the world’s worst polluters–such as the communist People’s Republic of China–and some of the world’s wealthiest nations–such as the oil-rich United Arab Emirates–a license to continue freely pumping carbon into the atmosphere while restricting the emissions of the United States.
The United States will be joining other countries next month in attending “climate talks” in Bonn, Germany, in preparation for the United Nations’ Conference of the Parties 15 (COP15) climate-change summit that will take place in Copenhagen in December.


At the meeting, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will oversee the drafting of an international treaty that will allow some of the world’s wealthiest nations and worst polluters to avoid the legally binding regulations on carbon emissions and greenhouse gases expected in the document.

Countries categorized by the United Nations as Annex 1 Parties, including the United States and much of the industrialized world, are considered developed nations that will not be harmed by controlling carbon emissions. Non-annex I Parties, on the other hand, are countries considered to be “developing” or have “economies in transition.”

These Non-annex 1 countries such as China – which emits the most carbon emissions of any country in the world, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Top 20 Countries for CO2 Emissions–will be able “sign on” to the treaty but will not be legally bound by it. And some of the world’s wealthiest nations, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are on the Non-annex 1 Parties list.

“It’s very political,” Ben Lieberman, senior policy analyst on energy and the environment at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told CNSNews.com. “It has as much to do with what nations are willing to accept than per capita wealth or per capita usage of fossil fuels.”
“In an interconnected world, power does not need to be a zero-sum game, and nations need not fear the success of another,” he said.
He also said the United States “will never waver in speaking up for the fundamental values that we hold dear.” And yet, clearly hoping to avoid overly irritating Beijing, Obama named none of the many and serious specific human rights concerns with respect to China, including Tibet, where authorities have suppressed religious freedom and national aspirations. Except for the brutal regime in Myanmar, he spoke only generally about human rights and democratic values.

,

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

ANOTHER PHOTO "OP".,AKA SUMMIT, FOR THE "MESSIA"

Posted by Jax Hawk on Friday, November 13, 2009 12:51:56 PM

Friday, November 13, 2009


Every time I hear Obama pontificate on what he is going to do to improve the very economy he is so busily destroying, I remember the bombastic five-year economic plans under the Soviet Union communist party's centralized planning who were full of rhetoric, but delivered disaster to Russian socialist economies time and time again.

Obama announced yesterday, that he had planned "a forum(aka: summit) at the White House on jobs and economic growth ... to talk about how we can work together to create jobs and get this economy moving again." Isn't this the precise combination of words Obama used to sell his stimulus package in the first place: "creating jobs to get the economy moving again"? The answer is yes.

A few months ago, Obama wasn't looking for experts to tell him how to stimulate the economy. He claimed to be the expert with the magic bullet solution. Having demonstrably failed, Obama is now convening a photo-op summit, designed to deflect blame and personal accountability for his policy failures and to provide an excuse to give us more of the same, because you can bet that he won't be inviting Friedman free marketers, but academic adherents to failed Keynesian thinking and businesspeople whose judgment and policy endorsement he has purchased or will purchase with your money.

Such disasters involved goods and services that nobody wanted or needed but employed millions of workers at subsistence levels, chronic shortages of basic foods, medicines, energy, water, and fuel that required rationing coupons. Such rationing devolved into perennial long lines (people joined lines all the times, often not really knowing what was for sale, but certain that whatever it was, they needed it) and a thriving black market for everything that was unwisely planned during such grandiose spectacles of the five-year planing committee.

It is nauseating to watch this man lie to the American people while destroying their jobs, their lives, their health care, their futures, and their children's futures for generations to come. The actual rate of unemployment, which includes discouraged workers is around 17%, much more than the promised 8%. Which Americans actually believe that he "saved" or "created" jobs? Just how does one measure such "created" or "saved" jobs? It sounds like voodoo economics to me. Source:Patriot Post

The perception of most economists that are not devoted to Obama, is that the Obama administration is anti-business, and I agree! Newt Gingrich said it well in this quote found in The Washington Examiner. "Last Friday, the unemployment rate jumped to 10.2 percent. The underemployment rate -- including part-time workers who want full-time jobs and those who have simply quit looking for work -- reached 17.5 percent. How did Washington react?

The next day the Democratic-controlled House passed a trillion-dollar increase in government disguised as a health care bill. In the face of the worst jobless rate in 26 years, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats don't seem to realize that adopting bad policies kills jobs. What's most remarkable about this is that the president should know better. We now have proof that the Obama administration's job-killing policies are hurting America.

In an interview with CNBC last January, when he was still trying to sell his massive $787 stimulus bill, President Obama predicted, "If we do nothing, things will get much, much worse. With the plan that we have, we will do better than we would otherwise have done." At the time, the Obama White House predicted that unemployment wouldn't get worse than 8 percent if the stimulus was enacted. By the middle of 2009, they promised, the massive spending bill would be having a positive effect on employment. So much for promises. By the White House's own standards of success, its economic recovery policies have been an abject failure.

That doesn't mean they don't keep touting the stimulus as a success, of course, aided by that most meaningless of economic metrics, "jobs created or saved." In fact, the most accurate measure of jobs under the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress isn't jobs "saved or created," its jobs "lost and dislocated."

American Solutions calculates that the 1 million jobs number cited by the administration as gains for employment actually represents future, additional unemployment. The one million jobs supposedly funded by the stimulus bill -- overwhelmingly in government -- will necessarily end when their government funding ends. Add these one million dislocated workers to the 3.2 million Americans who have lost their jobs since the stimulus was passed and you have an astonishing more than 4 million jobs lost and dislocated since the beginning of the Obama administration's policies.

The one million jobs supposedly funded by the stimulus bill -- overwhelmingly in government -- will necessarily end when their government funding ends. Add these one million dislocated workers to the 3.2 million Americans who have lost their jobs since the stimulus was passed and you have an astonishing more than 4 million jobs lost and dislocated since the beginning of the Obama administration's policies. Democratic economic policies aren't simply ineffective, they are affirmatively job killing. And they're about to get worse. "

 I believe the Obama economic policies are not designed, to create jobs, but to grow government and solidify power by first destroying the Free Enterprise system. And with it destroy our freedoms granted to US in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Americans awake before it is too late!!




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

TEARING THE CONSTITUTION APART PIECE BY PIECE

Posted by Jax Hawk on Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:51:32 AM

Thursday, November 12, 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

For all of those of  US that do not think Obama is the "second coming", we realize he believes the Constitution on which our freedoms and federal government are based, is flawed. Now it appears to me that the Democrats and RHINOS in Congress also believe that the Constitution can be either ignored or manipulated to serve their purposes.

The recent question of whether the Health Care Bill 3200 is even Constitutionally sound was brought up because the Federal government has never mandated that a citizen buy anything, and now the bill passed requires that all citizens buy health insurance approved by the Health Czar or face a fine and possible jail sentence!

When the Senator from Rhode Island ( Reed) was asked by CNSNews where in the Constitution does it give the authority of Congress to demand that a citizen buy health Insurance? He answered with a lame reference to the drafting of people for military service during the time of war.

First reflection on his statement shows the ridiculous concept of comparing the draft to buying health insurance. They only drafted MEN! And they did not have to pay to be drafted! Some paid not to be drafted but that is another story!

The following is a copy of the interview verbatim of Senator Reed by CNSNews

CNSNews asked Senator Reed, where in the Constitution can he find authority or Congress to force all citizens to buy health insurance?

Sen. Jack Reed (D.-R.I.): “Let me see. I would have to check the specific sections, so I’ll have to get back to you on the specific section. But it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft and do many other things too, which I don’t think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution]. It gives Congress a right to raise an army, but it doesn’t say you can take people and draft them. But since that was something necessary for the functioning of the government over the past several years, the practice on the books, it’s been recognized, the authority to do that.”
And to add insult to injury lets look at how Senator Nelson answered the same question.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told CNSNews.com that because he is not a constitutional scholar he was “not going to be able to answer that question” of where specifically the Constitution authorizes Congress to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance.

“Specifically, where in the Constitution does Congress get its authority to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance?” CNSNews.com asked Nelson.

“Well, you know, I don’t know that I’m a constitutional scholar,” said Nelson. So, I, I’m not going to be able to answer that question.” And yet this princely millionaire from Nebraska is going to vote for a Bill that may( many believe it does) violate the Constitution! He might as well have said; what Constitution, who cares?

When asked by CNSNews.com what specific part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to mandate that individuals must purchase health insurance, Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) pointed to the part of the Constitution that he says authorizes the federal government "to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country." In fact, the word "health" appears nowhere in the Constitution.



In an analysis published this July, the CBO said that an attempt to justify a mandate that people buy health insurance by using the Commerce Clause—which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce “among the several states”—raises a “novel issue.”

“Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service,” said the CBO.

In a recent interview with CNSNews.com, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that it was “not constitutionally sound” for Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance.

“But here would be the first time where our [federal] government would demand that people buy something that they may or may not want,” said Hatch. “And, you know, if that’s the case, then we didn’t need a 'Cash for Clunkers,' all we had to do is have the federal government say you all got to buy new cars, no matter how tough it is on you. You know, they could require you to buy anything. And that isn’t America. That’s not freedom. That’s not constitutionally sound.”
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE DISINGENUOUSNESS OF THE LEFT

Posted by Jax Hawk on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:03:22 AM

Wednesday, November 11, 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


Until the Left voted in their "messia", they hated all the provisions of the Patriot Act. Instead of admitting that it provided the tools needed to prevent another 9/11. The Left attacked the Act based on the specious argument that it took away our freedom.


Well, now that they control Congress, the White House and all branches of the Federal government it appears that they like the power that the Patriot Act gives them to gag anyone who prints or speaks against the power grab Obama and his "capos"from Chicago are steam rolling on the USA.

In order to understand the position change the Left has taken it is important to review a little recent history.
On April 8, 2008,working with the Bush administration, Congressional Republicans were maneuvering to make permanent the sweeping anti-terrorism powers granted to federal law enforcement agents after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The Patriot Act

The move touched off strong objections from many Democrats and even some Republicans(RINOS) in Congress who believed that the Patriot Act, as the legislation that grew out of the attacks is known, has already given the government too much power to spy on Americans.

The landmark legislation expanded the government's power to use eavesdropping, surveillance, access to financial and computer records and other tools to track terrorist suspects.

Justice Department officials credited the Patriot Act with allowing the F.B.I. to move with greater speed and flexibility to disrupt terrorist operations before they occur, and they say they wanted to see the time limit on the legislation lifted.

"The Patriot Act has been an extremely useful tool, a demonstrated success, and we don't want that to expire on us," a senior department official said on condition of anonymity.
Despite this endorsement from an agency that protects Americans from another 9/11. Democrats opposed the extension when Bush was president.

The Kyl-Schumer measure eliminated the need for federal agents seeking secret surveillance warrants to show that a suspect is affiliated with a foreign power or agent, like a terrorist group.
The proposal was approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, added amendments that would require the Justice Department to give detailed information about how the secret warrants are being used and that could give defense lawyers access to some information generated by the warrants in criminal cases.

Fast forward to this week, and this story will demonstrate how opinions change when power changes hands!
In a case that raises questions about online journalism and privacy rights, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day.

The grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us Web site "not to disclose the existence of this request" unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization.

Kristina Clair, a 34-year old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us, said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department's subpoena. (The Independent Media Center is a left-of-center amalgamation of journalists and advocates that – according to their principles of unity and mission statement – work toward "promoting social and economic justice" and "social change.")

The subpoena (PDF) from U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded "all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us" on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to "include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information," including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers' Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.

"I didn't think anything we were doing was worthy of any (federal) attention," Clair said in a telephone interview with CBSNews.com on Monday. After talking to other Indymedia volunteers, Clair ended up calling the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, which represented her at no cost.

Under long-standing Justice Department guidelines, subpoenas to members of the news media are supposed to receive special treatment. One portion of the guidelines, for instance, says that "no subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media" without "the express authorization of the attorney general" – that would be current attorney general Eric Holder – and subpoenas should be "directed at material information regarding a limited subject matter."

Still unclear is what criminal investigation U.S. Attorney Morrison was pursuing. Last Friday, a spokeswoman initially promised a response, but Morrison sent e-mail on Monday evening saying: "We have no comment." The Justice Department in Washington, D.C. also declined to respond.

Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney at the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, replied to the Justice Department on behalf of his client in a February 2009 letter (PDF) outlining what he described as a series of problems with the subpoena, including that it was not personally served, that a judge-issued court order would be required for the full logs, and that Indymedia did not store logs in the first place.

Morrison replied in a one-sentence letter saying the subpoena had been withdrawn. Around the same time, according to the EFF, the group had a series of discussions with assistant U.S. attorneys in Morrison's office who threatened Clair with possible prosecution for obstruction of justice if she disclosed the existence of the already-withdrawn subpoena -- claiming it "may endanger someone's health" and would have a "human cost."

Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of The Press, said a gag order to a news organization wouldn't stand up in court: "If you get a subpoena and you're a journalist, they can't gag you."

My fear is that this kind of bogus gag order is much more common than one would hope, considering they're legally baseless," Bankston says. "We're telling this story in hopes that more providers will press back and go public when the government demands their silence." After all we still have the freedom to speak even it is opposition to what Obama and Pelosi want!

Update 1:59pm E.T.: A Justice Department official familiar with this subpoena just said that the attorney general's office never saw it and that it had not been submitted to the department's headquarters in Washington, D.C. for review. If that's correct, it suggests that U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison and Assistant U.S. Attorney Doris Pryor did not follow department regulations requiring the "express authorization of the attorney general" for media subpoenas -- and it means that neither Attorney General Eric Holder nor Acting Attorney General Mark Filip were involved. I wouldn't be surprised to see an internal investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility. As usual, the deniability game is being played by the Obama administration. Things just happen and no one appears to know about it at the top of the chain of Command!

How long will Americans stand by while the Marxist Liberals destroy our money and freedoms as they incrementally take away pieces of our Constitutional rights?
SOURCE: CBSNEWS.COM
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS COMPLICIT IN FORT HOOD MURDERS

Posted by Jax Hawk on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:40:18 AM

 

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

The U.S. Army doctor(Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan) who shot and killed 13 people and  wounded 31 others at Fort Hood ,made two contacts via email during the past six months with the American hating Iman Anwar al-Awlaki, who is in Yemen.
Even though U.S. intelligence agencies monitored the emails that were sent.They decided that they did not require following up. This disclosure has caused US members of Congress to criticise that the intelligence agency’s failed to recognise warning signs about Hasan, and failed to notify the U.S. ARMY or the FBI and Homeland Security.
This revelation shows that Major Hasan was in contact with other extremists abroad prior to the shootings!

 

In a posting on his website on Monday, headed ”Nidal Hasan Did The Right Thing”, Al-Awlaki said Hasan had carried out a “heroic and virtuous” act and the only way a Muslim could justify serving in the US Army was to “follow in the footsteps of Nidal Hasan”.

He said: ”Nidal Hasan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.” The US Department of Homeland Security has described Al-Awlaki as an “al-Qaeda supporter, and former spiritual leader” to the two hijackers. He is also mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report as knowing them. He is not accused of knowing they were terrorists. Source: Nick Allen @ Fort Hood

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the US army psychiatrist who went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, had come to the attention of authorities six months ago because of internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats.

One of the web postings that authorities reviewed is a blog that equates suicide bombers with a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.

“To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its  more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause,” said the internet posting. “Scholars have parallel  this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers.”
The file of apparent missed clues in this case is already thick: besides the apparent connection to Mr al-Awlaki, there is a presentation he gave to fellow combat-stress specialists in Maryland in 2007 in which he reportedly said that his faith trumped the US Constitution.

And despite repeated counseling sessions with his superior officers while he was at Walter Reed Hospital. He was promoted! Had he been a white American, he would have been “passed over” and told he had no future in the Army! But political correctness raised it’s ugly head as it is wont to do in this Country lately,  and he was ignored as a potential time bomb that exploded at Fort Hood!
In Europe, the Muslims are already DEMANDING that Sharia Law be instilled/represented in their government!! They have “attempted” to do this in Canada and Australia as well.

At some point, they will attempt the same thing in the US as well. If the loony left are still in power/control in the US—they could possibly be successful.

The Oklahoma bombing was a terrorist act.This shooting was a terrorist act and a treasonous act because it happened on a military base against the U.S.. The Islamic contacts and extremism confuses and complicates the acts .The acts should be taken at face value.He is an American citizen and joined the American forces.He is a traitor to those responsibilities by his actions, and he should be tried, convicted and sentenced. There are over one hundred witnesses to his act of terrorism, and PC is no defense!

 

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

THE HIT MEN AND WOMEN COMMIT THE MURDER OF HEALTH CARE

Posted by Jax Hawk on Monday, November 09, 2009 10:03:07 AM
November 09, 2009

'Prima facie' is a latin phrase meaning 'at first sight.' In law, it is used to refer to a body of evidence sufficient to establish guilt unless the suspected guilty party is able to refute it. In essence, it means that there is a case to answer, and the ability of a prosecuting authority to establish a 'prima facie' case against a defendant would normally be a prerequisite for a trial to take place.

Well, 219 Democrats and one RHINO committed the murder of health care as OUR country has known it for the last sixty years. The health care system that has attracted millions of sick and dying people from foriegn countries was murdered to satisfy the Socialist in the Oval office who made National Health Care his primary objective shortly after he was sworn in as President.
The 219 Democrats and RHINO Rep. Joseph Cao, a first-term Republican who holds an overwhelmingly Democratic seat in New Orleans, committed the murder!. Opposed were 176 Republicans and 39  Democrats. The vote came late Saturday night, and cleared the way for the Senate to begin a long-delayed debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.
I can only hope that the Senate will realize this for what it is, a power grab, and defeat it!

A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi compared the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.
That is an apt description, because both programs have cost more than the Congress predicted and both are financial disasters! A fine example of what the Obama power grab disguised as a health care bill will be!
To pay for the expansion of coverage, the bill cuts Medicare's projected spending by more than $400 billion over a decade. It also imposes a tax surcharge of 5.4 percent on income over $500,000 in the case of individuals and $1 million for families.


And Drudge reported yesterday that the Bill passed includes the provision that if individuals or familys fail to buy health insurance they will be subject to a fine of thousands of dollars and a jail term!
 Morris & Eileen McGann have posted an article on the net at NEWSMAX.com that explains why AARP. the AMA, and the Drug Industry signed on to Obama's power grab.
As the  Democratic congressmen/women proceed to rubber-stamp the Obama health care reform despite the drubbing their party took in the recent '09 elections in Virginia and New Jersey, the president trotted out the endorsements of the AMA and the AARP to stimulate support. But these and the other endorsements in his" package" are all bought and paid for.
Each one of the three were warned that if they did not support Obama's powergrab they would pay the price!
In the AMA's case The American Medical Association (AMA) was facing a 21 percent cut in physicians' reimbursements under the current law. Obama promised to kill the cut if they backed his bill. The cuts are the fruit of a law requiring annual 5 percent to 6 percent reductions in doctor reimbursements for treating Medicare patients. Bravely, each year Congress has rolled the cuts over, suspending them but not repealing them. So each year, the accumulated cuts threaten doctors. By now, they have risen to 21 percent. With this blackmail leverage, Obama compelled the AMA to support his bill...or else!

The AARP got a financial windfall in return for its support of the healthcare bill. Over the past decade, the AARP has morphed from an advocacy group to an insurance company (through its subsidiary company). It is one of the main suppliers of Medi-gap insurance, a high-cost, privately purchased coverage that picks up where Medicare leaves off. But President Bush-43 passed the Medicare Advantage program, which offered a subsidized, lower-cost alternative to Medi-gap. Under Medicare Advantage, the elderly get all the extra coverage they need plus coordinated, well-managed care, usually by the same physician. So more than 10 million seniors went with Medicare Advantage, cutting into AARP Medi-gap revenues.

Presto! Obama solved their problem. He eliminates subsidies for Medicare Advantage. The elderly will have to pay more for coverage under Medigap, but the AARP -- which supposedly represents them -- will make more money.

The drug industry backed ObamaCare and, in return, got a 10-year limit of $80 billion on cuts in prescription drug costs. (A drop in the bucket of their almost $3 trillion projected cost over the next decade.) They also got administration assurances that it will continue to bar lower-cost Canadian drugs from coming into the U.S. All it had to do was put its formidable advertising budget at the disposal of the administration.

The only industry that refused to knuckle under was the medical device makers. They stood for principle and wouldn't go along with Obama's blackmail. So the Senate Finance Committee retaliated by imposing a tax on medical devices such as automated wheelchairs, pacemakers, arterial stents, prosthetic limbs, artificial knees and hips and other necessary accoutrements of healthcare. Even the Catholic Bishops group endorsed the Bill despite the fact that if you read the fine print abortion will be payed for by tax payers. Many of whom are Catholics, and consider abortion murder!

So these endorsements are not freely given, but bought and paid for by an administration that is intent on passing its program at any cost.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

IS THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR JUST AN ACT OF COERCION?

Posted by Jax Hawk on Saturday, November 07, 2009 11:39:21 AM
PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail
Friday, November 06, 2009

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail.  The JCT letter  makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

In response to the JCT letter, Camp said:  “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail.  It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”

Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

                                                         - - - - - - - - - -                                                   

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]

                                                         - - - - - - - - - -    
                                                

“Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses.  Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]

When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties.  The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.

“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration.  Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates.  Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.

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

PLANNED "PARENTHOOD"GETS PRESENT FROM PELOSI

Posted by Jax Hawk on Friday, November 06, 2009 9:32:22 AM

Friday, November 06, 2009

Speaker Pelosi’ Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium

Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life - not end it.

Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page government takeover of health care does just that. On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan. The Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan. It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

Even more blatantly, Speaker Pelosi took out a key provision that would ensure that when patients are given information on end-of-life options it would not include physician-assisted suicide. Instead, she offered the new bill that includes end-of-life 'counseling' without ensuring that such 'counseling' will not encourage physician-assisted suicide as already occurs in Oregon and Washington.

"From womb to tomb, this legislation would use funds garnered from taxpayers to fund abortions and encourage seniors to end their lives early in states such as Oregon and Washington. Consequently, it is paramount that Members of both parties support amendments to prevent a massive new wave of federal funding for abortion, to permanently prevent abortion funding in Indian Health and to re-insert the language preventing physician assisted suicide 'counseling'."


Section 213 describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.

This is in direct opposition to the Hyde Bill! Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Leadership introduced a new version of the "Affordable Health Care for America Act" which provides federal funds for elective abortion, reauthorizes Indian Health Care without adding the Hyde Amendment, and mandates providing information about physician-assisted suicide in certain states.


"Speaker Pelosi might as well rename her bill the 'Government Funded Abortions for America Act.' This almost 2,000 page bill, which will cost more than one trillion dollars, guts the Hyde Amendment abortion funding ban by explicitly authorizing federal funding for elective abortion funding in the government option. The bill also subsidizes health plans that cover all elective abortions.


"Speaker Pelosi's commitment to federally funded abortion is, apparently, absolute. She is ignoring the roughly 70 percent of the American people who, polls show, consistently oppose federal funding of elective abortion, which indisputably is what this new health bill does! Source: Family Resource Council



Despite the zeal Pelosi has for killing babies in their mother's womb there are people who are turning away from Americas genocide as this story tells.
"Watching an ultrasound of an abortion changed Abby Johnson forever. She is now pro life and has quit her job as director of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Texas. Johnson describes her conversion this way:

“I just thought I can’t do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought that’s it.”
She also says that there was pressure on her to increase revenues for Planned Parenthood by increasing the number of abortions. She explains in The Houston Chronicle:
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | 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

WILL THIS BE OUR FUTURE? RIP THE USA

Posted by Jax Hawk on Thursday, November 05, 2009 10:10:50 AM

Thursday, November 05, 2009

Born 1776, Died 2008

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning last November’s Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29

Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low-income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency”

Obama’s election brought the United States astronomical public debt, a slumping currency, increasing government control of the economy, continued job losses, radical judges, a disastrous foreign policy, a proposed government takeover of health care and a job-killing energy bill. Americans — some unwittingly — put in place the most radical government in generations, and they now are realizing what they have wrought.”

And if American freedom dies it will be the enablers in academia, left -wing religion and journalism that are partly responsible for its demise.The underlying myth in much of their “reporting,”and teaching has been that free market capitalism was a greater threat to human happiness than communism or socialism!

In many ways the USA is rapidly approaching the economic situation that precipitated the rise in power of Adolph Hitler in Germany. With the massive spending of money that the Treasury is printing on a 24 hour cycle to fund the outlandish social programs the Congress is passing to satisfy the Marxist in the White House. We are setting ourselves up for this scenario as described in Wikipedia.

In 1922 and 1923 Germany was hit by Hyperinflation. This means massive rise in prices, everyone was affected by this. Te confusion caused by the hyperinflation led Adolf Hitler to believe that he could take power in Munich in November 1923. The attempt failed. Hitler believed that the government was so unpopular that Germans would be on his side. Hitler was arrested for high treason. While Hitler was in prison he wrote a book called my struggle(Mein Kamp), he became very popular with the Germans.

When Hitler left prison he set up a proper political with a national organization. He set up different sections for the party teachers, women and children. He appointed Josef Goebbels as head of propaganda.

There was bad employment IN Germany as we have here in the USA, and the prdictions are that it will get worse!. From 1929 support for the Nazis grew steadily. Most of what Hitler did in his quest for power was legal. Such as his move to centralize all aspects of German government, social life and its economy. Sound familiar!

The nazi party was well organised and had the support of Alfred Hugenberg who was a millionaire and owned 53 newspapers.And Hitler was an eloquent speaker who could motivate people not unlike the man we have in the White House!


The career of Adolf Hitler was marked by a spectacular rise to power. He went from being a nobody in the streets of Vienna to the supreme leader of one of the most powerful nations on earth. Hitler came to power through a combination of legal means and backroom politics. The events leading up to the rise of the Nazis and Hitler are prime examples of the myriad of factors intertwining in the area of social action. Economists view the economic conditions as the major reason for the downfall of the Weimar republic and the rise of the Nazis. Are we heading toward the fate of the Weimar Republic?



Posted in
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910…6364Next »