Friday, July 17, 2009

EUGENICS HAS APOSITION IN THE WHITE HOUSE

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

Yesterday, Obama gave a speech to the 100th anniversary meeting of the NAACP. In his speech he stressed that racism is still alive in the USA.First of all this is strange for the first Black president to say as he was elected not by the Blacks(although they contributed heavily) but by a predominantly white population.
And he said all during his campaign that he wanted to heal a divided country.
All his speech did was make the point that Black people should hate white people and the RICH!

It would be a good idea for him to look at whom he appointed as the head of his Office of Science and Technology a little closer.
This man is a modern day equivalent of Margaret Sanger. The originator of eugenics. The science of weeding out the "undesirable and infirmed population via abortion and sterilization! And while he is examining those in government who believe in eugenics. He should read what the far left Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg had to say about Roe and abortions.
In an interview last week, Ginsburg said that she thought "at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."
I wonder what race of people she was talking about? Apparently she thinks like the Left wing Democrats who tried to block the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, July 2, 1964), a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment.

Conceived to help African Americans, the bill was amended prior to passage to protect women, and explicitly included white people for the first time. It also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. And it was passed despite the fact that President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. Both Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."[17] Senator Richard Russell, Jr. warned President Johnson that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election."[18] The South indeed started to vote increasingly Republican after 1964.Source: Wikapedia

In "Woman and the New Race," Sanger insisted that women create an enormous "debt to society by creating slums, filling asylums with the insane, and institutions with other defectives.Poverty and the large family generally go hand in hand.The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Of blacks, Sanger wrote, "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the N##ro population, if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

She advocated policies that ensured "more children from the fit, less from the unfit" in order to "to create a race of thoroughbreds." (Remember this quote the next time a liberal tells you that Fascists and Socialists have nothing in common.)

Sanger was certainly the 20th century's most noted American proponent of racist eugenics. However when we remind our liberal friends of the origins of Planned Parenthood, they sputter on about Sanger's support for eugenics being an anomaly of another time and context.

But Sanger's advocacy for the extermination of the "unwanted" is the basis of today's culture of death. Indeed, one of the adherents of eugenics now directs BHO's White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and is the co-chair of Obama's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology.

John Holdren may not be openly advocating racial selection, but he clearly advocates mass sterilization and abortion in order to control human impact on the environment. This is nothing but a contemporary interpretation of Sanger's eliminating "human weeds" and "reckless breeders.
In writing with Paul R. Ehrlich, Holdren claimed that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come." In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many".

Holdren's modern day eugenics program is outlined in a book he co-authored, "Ecoscience," in which he calls for "a comprehensive Planetary Regime [in order to] control the development, administration, conservation and distribution of all natural resources."

One solution, writes Holdren, is "adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods" which would help weed out those "who contribute to social deterioration."

As for the constitutional authority, Holdren writes, "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

Holdren concludes, "This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants' destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world." Source: Mark Alexander, Patriot Post

So what is Obama doing? He is stirring the pot of race hatred. An old trick of Communists and Socialists to gain more power. Blacks have advanced more in the last 30 years than they ever did for the 40 years that Congress was under control of the Democrats. Even the courts have bent over backwards to advance people of color, as evidenced by the Sotomayor decision in the New York fireman's law suit!

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

One of president Obama's favorite phrases is, "you are put on notice" or variations on that type of order. Perhaps it is true what one political sage has said about Obama.
"What Obama's radicalism tells us is that he is not a man who is moved by rational discourse. He is not a man who is willing to be convinced that he is mistaken." --Center for Security Policy Senior Middle East Fellow Caroline Glick

It is not the duty or the prerogative of an elected official of the Federal government, even the president, to give orders to the people who elected him!
He has the constitutional right to give orders to the military commanders as their Commander in Chief, but there is nothing in the Constitution that gives him the right to order the populace to do anything except in a time of declared war. Then he can declare martial law that essentially dictates what his electorate can or cannot due.

This country fought a long and costly war to throw off the dictates and abuses of England's King George.Problems began when England passed the Writs of Assistance, which gave British officials the right to seize illegal goods, and to examine any building or ship without proof of cause. This was a powerful weapon against smuggling, but most importantly to the Colonists; it allowed the invasion of their privacy. This was crossing the line and violating the rights of an English man. During the Seven Years War, the British sent over ten thousand troops to America to deal with property problems at the "frontier". This cost a large amount of money, and Britain did not want to see the sum come out of its own pocket. To pay for some of the expense, Britain began to pass acts to tax the colonists and lighten the severe debt the empire was facing.

If this sounds familiar it is. What has happened since Obama took office is that he has run the national debt to an estimated 1.3 trillion dollars. The largest national debt in our history, and to add fuel to the conflagration that Obama and his henchman have created. He tells us Americans, 49% of us did not vote for him, that like it or not he will have National health Care. As he says "you are put on notice that we will have National Health Care"!

In 1765 the British passed a stamp act that required the colonies(America to be)to use specially stamped British paper to print all legal documents and even playing cards. This was because the previously passed Sugar Tax had failed to raise enough money to pay for the troops stationed in the colonies.

The Colonists were angered because they believed that the British Parliament did not care about or understand them and therefore did not have the American people's best interest at heart. The acts imposed by England to try to control and monitor America only succeeded in furthering its Independence. The Colonists were left with two options as a result of the Stamp Act, neither of which were very appealing; either confront parliament, and risk a fight with the much larger and more powerful mother land of England, or succumb to the act without complaining and possibly give up the right to self govern for good.

We Americans are facing legislation in the three hallmarks of Obama's march to socialism. Cap and Trade, Obama Health Care and his economic stimulus that has been estimated at between $700bn and $1 trillion.
If this is not a call to a peaceful revolution against a tyrannical government that appears to not care what type of legacy they leave for coming generations. Nor do they think of the burden that all this debt will cause to the taxpayers who trusted them enough to send them to Washington!

The royalty in Washington, who will never have to face the hardship that their "Spendulus" will bring to the American tax payers, who trusted them to look out for their(voters) interests, have put our interests behind the fear of offending their "messiah"!
Obama is no King, no Emperor and no Messiah except to those who want to see America brought to it's knees and the free enterprise system destroyed. And they will get their wish if voters do not revolt at the polls in November 2010 and throw the "betrayers" out!

Monday, July 13, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As the Canadians as so fond of saying, SORRY, but this is the way medicine is in Canada.
So, I ask the question again. Where are the AARP people demanding that any change in our great health care system, even though expensive, does not include the same odious restrictions and problems that Canada has?

Despite the fact that more scientists deny that the treat of Global Warming is actually a threat, and that we are entering a period of global cooling. People like Al Gore and president Obama are still pushing scare tactics, to what end very few people actually understand.

Is it the quest for wealth and power or is it the new religion of those who have tried their best to destroy Americans belief in the real GOD, and substituting the "mother eath" as their diety.

Perhaps the speech that Al Gore, the pied piper of global warming, gave to the faculty and students at Oxford University in England, will enlighten those of you who are credulous about the minds of people like myself who say there is an evil purpose behind this ecological movement.

"Former Vice President Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.”

“I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times.

“Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth's temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.

Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.

“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” Source: Marc Romano, Climate Depot

In addition,there are calls for a global carbon tax that have been urged at recent UN global warming conferences. In December 2007, the UN climate conference in Bali, urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”

“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, said at the 2007 UN conference after a panel titled “A Global CO2 Tax.”

Schwank noted that wealthy nations like the <strong>U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.</strong>” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”

The 2007 UN conference was presented with a report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled “Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation.” The report stated there was an “urgent need” for a global tax in order for “damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world.”Once again pushing catastopy if we fail to agree to what they want us to do!!

The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would “flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund” to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report.

Schwank said a global carbon dioxide tax is an idea long overdue that is urgently needed to establish “a funding scheme which generates the resources required to address the dimension of challenge with regard to climate change costs.”

'Redistribution of wealth'

The environmental group Friends of the Earth advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations during the 2007 UN climate conference.

"A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

Schwank is a consultant with the Switzerland based Mauch Consulting firm. Schwank said at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax.

In other words, in the manner of hypocritical power grabbers the world over, the method in which they gain the purse strings is less important than the results of gaining control of said purse strings. Source:News Busters

The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations.
“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

I think a more honest name for Brindal's group would be Friends of Taxing the US to Give Money to the Unaccountable UN. The real goal of all these so-called climate change advocates is the taxation of rich nations so that they can transfer money to poor nations- socialism in action.

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned about these types of carbon regulations earlier this year. "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Lindzen said in March 2007. In addition, many critics have often charged that proposed tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science.

I wish I could be optimistic about the possibility that any member of the national press corps will actually write in a negative manner about this attempt. Instead of defending their country against unaccountable bureaucrats and 'activists', it seems to this blogger that they are too busy trying support a President who will assist in the process of giving away US sovereignty!

Saturday, July 11, 2009

This issue of Newsweek magazine has an article written by Kathleen Kennedy that essentially says that Obama represents Catholics in the USA more than the Pope.
She concludes the article with this "pearl" of left wing wisdom that the Kennedy's have demonstrated since they tried to cover up the Chappaquiddick debacle when Mary Jo Kopeckne drowned and Teddy Kennedy survived, after Teddy drove his car off a bridge.
She is correct in one assumption. Apparntly 58% of people who call themselves Catholics voted for a man for President who not only supports abortion but partial birth abortion! Go figure!!

But some one with a family history of sex scandals and chicanery is no one to take seriously when she writes about the moral leadership of Catholics, as I will outline in the following.
The eldest of Robert F. Kennedy and Ethel Skakel's 11 children, she is part of the Kennedy family. She was named for her aunt Kathleen Kennedy Cavendish, Marchioness of Hartington, who died in a plane crash in 1948. And like all elitists and wealthy Liberals she thinks she is a good judge of what all people including the Pope should do and act!
Of course ,Ms. Kennedy Townsend should not be blamed for her family members imprudent acts, but her association with two organisations gives insight to why she wrote this article.

In 1986, Townsend ran for Congress in Maryland's second Congressional district, losing to Helen Delich Bentley 41% to 59%, thus becoming the first Kennedy to lose a general election.

Mrs. Kennedy Townsend is also a member of the contributing staff of the National Catholic Reporter that gave a voice to Father Roy Rourgeois until he was excommunicated by the Catholic Church in 2008.
The paper is based in midtown Kansas City, Missouri. The founding editor in 1964 was Robert Hoyt. In 1968, the NCR was officially condemned by bishop Charles Herman Helmsing. [1] When the paper was first founded, Bishop Helmsing provided diocesan office space and funds until the paper was able to move to the building where it continues to this day. In the late 1960s, Bishop Helmsing objected most specifically to the paper’s strong stands on birth control, priestly celibacy and criticism of the hierarchy, citing an imbalance in news coverage. A total of 66 Catholic journalists signed a petition during this time to support the stances of NCR.

Unlike diocesan publications or those of religious institutes, it is independent of ecclesiastical oversight. Therefore, the NCR often dissents from official Catholic Church teachings in some areas.Catholics like me call the rag The National Catholic Distorter! It is no wonder she took the time to write such a stupid and heretical article!

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is also a member of the Center for American Progress, a Liberal organization that has such other left "wingnuts" as Tom Daschle and John Podesta as members. The Center was often featured prominently on the Al Franken Show on the Air America Radio network, where Christy Harvey and Al Franken criticized the Bush administration at length, accusing it of dishonesty and incompetence.

The Center has no information on its website about its funding, but the Washington Post reported that "seed money pledged by such deep-pocketed Democrats as financier George Soros (and mortgage billionaires Herbert and Marion Sandler)" assisted its formation.[9] The authors of Her Way, a biography of Hillary Clinton, also assert that the Democracy Alliance, a progressive donors collective, has funded the Center. They also assert that the Sandlers and Soros provided seed money.Source: Wikapedia

Then there was the incident in 2006 when Patrick Kennedy crashed his car at 3 a.m. into a security barrier outside the U.S. Capitol, returning to rehab and then pleading guilty to driving under the influence of prescription drugs. He's admitted battling depression, bipolar disorder, an addiction to prescription drugs and bouts of binge drinking.

And before that, in April 2000, when 39-year-old Michael Skakel finally appeared in court to plead not guilty to the charge of murdering a teenaged neighbor named Martha Moxley in Palm Beach, in 1975. The event was reported as the latest scandalous episode in the ongoing dramedy of the self-styled "clan" that has long stood in for royalty in these lamentably egalitarian United States.
Skakel is, of course, a Kennedy. To be precise, he is a nephew of Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert F. Kennedy.
And the continuing saga of the ethically challenged Kennedy clan shows that in 1997the Kennedy family was involved in another scandal. Michael Kennedy's plea for forgiveness for "serious mistakes" he has committed. Kennedy had been accused of having an affair with his family's underage baby sitter. Statutory rape in most States!

Prosecutors decided to drop the investigation against Kennedy in response to the young woman's refusal to cooperate. Michael Kennedy's father was the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.You think maybe she was offered a "offer she could not refuse"?

Norfolk County District Attorney Jeffrey Locke said that he had no compelling evidence that would warrant any further investigations into the statutory rape accusations brought against Kennedy. However, the prosecutor did say that he would be "ready, willing, and able" to reopen the case if the baby sitter, now a 19-year-old college sophomore, decided to cooperate.

Hours after Locke's announcement, Kennedy publicly asked for forgiveness from his wife and family and the family of the baby sitter for his "serious mistakes."

In her article she wrote this absurd statement, despite the fact that most American Catholic Bishops condemned the action of Notre Dame in conferring a honorary degree on Obama!
"Notre Dame awarded the president an honorary degree because it saw the need to highlight the best of Catholic teaching as applied to politics: the ability to open the eyes of those who would prefer to keep them closed, and to open the hearts of those who would prefer not to know the pain that their actions cause. The pope has a lot to learn about Catholic politics in America. Barack Obama can teach him".

She must have ignored the fact that The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2004, specifically forbade giving "awards, honors or platforms" to "those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles." And as a result the Bishop of Fort Wayne/South Bend, Indians Bishop John M. D'Arcy refused to attend the graduation eremony at which Notre Dma gave an honorary degree to Obama.
Abortion is a fundamental violation of Catholic doctrine, and anyone who supports it is in violation of the basic principles of the Church. So be it!

Ms. Kennedy joins a long list of people who call themselves Catholics, but by their actions and words have effectively excommunicated themselves from the Church
Latae sententiae for supporting an abortion advocate.

 



While president Obama states that Israel does not have his permission to attack Iran's nuclear plants. Vice-President Biden said that Israel had a Right to do anything to defend itself.
It appears our present government is schizophrenic about Israel.
At the same time the Jerusalem Post is reporting that the USA Defense Department has once again ordered the Israeli's not to bid on a Swedish project that has been let out for bids to build a multi-purpose jet fighter.

Under pressure from the Pentagon, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) has been forced to back out of a joint partnership with a Swedish aerospace company to compete in a multi-billion dollar tender to sell new multi-role fighter jets to the Indian Air Force,the JAS 39 Gripen fighter aircraft.

The deal is estimated at a whopping $12 billion for over 120 new aircraft,and is being fought over by Lockheed Martin's F-16, Boeing's F-18/Hornet, Russia's MiG-35 and BAE's Eurofighter. IAI was asked by Saab, manufacturer of the Gripen, to jointly develop an advanced model which would compete for the deal.

The Defense Ministry ordered IAI to back out of the deal after the Pentagon expressed concern that American technology, used by Israel, would be integrated into the Gripen offered to the Indians.

"The stated concern was that Western technology in Israeli hands would make its way to the Indians," one Israeli official said.

What was strange with the American request was that Boeing and Lockheed Martin - the two largest US defense contractors - are also competing for the Indian deal. For this reason, Israeli officials said it was more likely that the Americans were concerned that if IAI competed for the deal with Saab, it would force the American companies to lower their prices.

A multi-role fighter, the Gripen is in service in Sweden, the Czech Republic, Hungary and South Africa. IAI was supposed to provide the electronic systems - radar, communications and electronic-warfare - for the plane.

This is not the first time that an Israeli company has been forced out of a deal due to concerns that competing with American companies would endanger Israeli-US relations.

Last summer, the MoD ordered Israel Military Industries (IMI) to back down from submitting a bid for a half-a-billion dollar deal to develop and manufacture a new tank for the Turkish Armed Forces.

At the time, Turkey had informed the MoD of its interest in developing a new tank and asked if IMI would want to submit a bid. SIBAT - the MOD's Foreign Defense Assistance and Defense Export Organization - decided not to submit an Israeli offer so not to compete with the Americans and endanger Israeli-US defense relations.

Apparently the Obama administration does not mind letting the Chinese automaker Geely Automobile Holdings bidding for General Motors Corp.'s Saab brand, a move that would boost the company's ability to compete overseas.

Former U.S. auto giant GM plans to sell off or wind down its Hummer, Saab and Saturn units. And in this case Obama fells it will help him to let a potential enemy have the rights to manufacture these cars. Thus, costing thousands of Americans their jobs!

Geely, based in the eastern Chinese city of Hangzhou, is among several big Chinese automakers viewed as likely candidates to acquire at least one of those brands. It has denied reports it is also bidding for Ford Motor Co.'s Swedish unit Volvo, although the reports persist.

But Israel, the only real friend the USA has in the Middle East is "ordered" by Obama's Defense Department not to bid on the Swedish plane!

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

 

On June 19,2009 “The White House fired Gerald Walpin. The firing apparently stemmed from Walpin’s investigation of a non-profit group, St. HOPE Academy, run by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California (and a big Obama supporter).
Walpin found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car,” the AP reports. In April, the U.S. attorney declined to file any criminal charges in the matter and criticized Walpin’s investigation. But at the same time Johnson and St. HOPE agreed to repay about half of the $850,000 it had received from AmeriCorps.

Bottom line: The AmeriCorps IG accused a prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money.The prominent Obama supporter had to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money. Obama fired AmeriCorps IG, Walpin.
The Congress passed a law to protect Independent Prosecutors from just this kind of underhanded firing. The IIRC bill required that the President would have to notify Congress in writing 30 days prior to any action being taken. Given the reports that Teh One’s staff reportedly tried to force him to resign within the hour or be fired, it appears that they do not pay attention to their own legislation, or, conveniently ignore it.Either way Obama and his henchmen violated the law by firing Inspector General Walpin!

This unlawful act by the Obama administration was a violation of a law passed by the Congress, and as such it should be an affront to all members of Congress regardless of party affiliation. But as predicted it is ignored by the Democrats and some Republicans who support Obama.
As a result, key Republicans in both the House and the Senate are accusing the White House of giving “incomplete and misleading” information to investigators probing the president’s abrupt firing of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin. In return, the White House is hinting that documents concerning its actions in the Walpin affair may be protected by executive privilege.

Both developments are part of an escalating conflict between GOP lawmakers and the Obama administration. Republicans are deeply skeptical of the White House explanation for the June 10 firing of Walpin, a tough investigator who had been probing misuse of AmeriCorps money by Sacramento, Calif., mayor — and prominent Obama supporter — Kevin Johnson. And the administration seems determined to conceal its dealings with AmeriCorps and the organization that oversees it, the Corporation for National and Community Service.

Walpin was dismissed without warning on June 10, when he received a call from Norman Eisen, the special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform. Eisen told Walpin he had one hour either to resign or be fired — an apparent violation of a law giving special job protections to inspectors general. When Walpin refused to quit, he was terminated.

After lawmakers demanded an explanation, the White House said Walpin had been “confused, disoriented [and] unable to answer questions” at a May 20 meeting with the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service. The Johnson case was discussed at that meeting, with Walpin harshly criticizing board members for their support of a decision to let Johnson off easy.

There’s no question that members of the board, both Democrat and Republican, were unhappy with Walpin’s criticism of them. They agreed that Alan Solomont, the Democratic fundraiser appointed by President Barack Obama as chairman of the board, should tell the White House what had happened.

But now, at least three board members have told congressional investigators they did not specifically recommend that the administration fire Walpin. Instead, they simply wanted the chairman to express their concerns.

The White House claims it investigated the matter; Eisen told House and Senate aides that officials did an “extensive review” of complaints about Walpin’s performance before deciding to fire him. But there are serious doubts as to whether the White House did, in fact, conduct a serious investigation before getting rid of Walpin.

The three board members have told Congress that the White House did not contact them during the review. (One was told about Walpin’s firing at about the time it happened, and the other two were contacted days later.) No one from the White House contacted Walpin himself, or his top assistant, as part of the review.

Republican aides want to step up the pressure on the firing, because, as one senior committee aide put it: "What's at stake isn't just one man's job: it's how $6 billion in taxpayer money is going to be used by this Administration on an agency with no independent oversight." The six billion was given to the CNCS this year by Obama. This is tax payers money being used to promote Obama special interest plans!

The aide is referring to the Corporation for National and Community Service's primary entity, AmeriCorps, set up in the 1990s by the Clinton Administration to increase public service among young people -- mostly college grads and young professionals -- largely via grant-making to a network of state and local community nonprofit groups.

"Just how AmeriCorps is going to be used by the Obama Administration -- and what steps the administration has taken to ensure that it can do with AmeriCorps what it wants -- is at the heart of our concern," says the GOP House staffer. "We think that the removal of Walpin was part of that agenda." Source:American Spectator

The resources allocated to CNCS amount to more that $6 billion in funds, and those plans include turning AmeriCorps into a supersized, taxpayer-funded ACORN-like organization, focused on the Obama Administration's policy agenda, including health care reform, targeted stimulus spending, and possible work on the upcoming U.S. census in 2010.
Meanwhile, a White House source says the White House is trying to find out if dispersal of parts of the $6 billion budget for CNCS can be sped up under a Presidential request that the funds be considered part of the economic stimulus program. Stimulus?? Sounds more like war chest funds for Obama!!

In the past, AmeriCorps volunteers lobbied and organized groups against the "three strikes" rule in California, and had plans in place to identify groups to support a second attempt at health care reform after Hillarycare went down in flames. Some AmeriCorps resources have gone to assist ACORN projects around the country, including anti-Republican demonstrations in state capitals and in Washington, D.C.
And you can be sure this group will have an affect on the 2010 and 2012 elections to the detriment of fair and honest election results.
And if you doubt my words. I have enclosed a quote from the head of one of ACORNs affiliates that describes the pupose of ACORN and it's "sinister" organizations very well.
"SOCIAL POLICY asks what is to be done to secure basic structural changes in American society. Its pages will provide a meeting ground — and battleground — where ideas, tactics and strategies for radical reconstruction of American institutions can be expressed and exchanged, tested and debated, expanded and deepened.”

Monday, July 06, 2009

When the Berlin wall fell and the Soviet Union apparently collapsed everyone assumed the Cold War between Russia(USSR) and the USA was over.
Wrong, the Soviet Union collapse was a financial debacle because the dictators thought they could keep up with the USA in the arms race, but since they were a totalitarian country with no free enterprise incentive they were not able to generate enough GDP to stay in Reagan's race to dominance.
But the KGB members just changed their uniforms and mannerisms for business suits and tried to begin a quasi-free Enterprise system.

There were cronies associated with the government a few oligarchs that became billionaires off profits from the vast mineral deposits and oil supplies that are found in the large land mass that is Russia.
But the average person. The so called middle class never really developed to sustain the conversion to a real Free Enterprise system.

In 1991 Yeltsin came to power with a wave of high expectations. On 12 June 1991 he was elected president of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic with 57% of the vote, becoming the first popularly elected president. But Yeltsin never recovered his popularity after a series of economic and political crises in Russia in the 1990s. The Yeltsin era was marked by widespread corruption, economic collapse, and enormous political and social problems. By the time he left office, Yeltsin had an approval rating of two percent by some estimates.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, Yeltsin, vowing to transform Russia's socialist command economy into a free market economy, endorsed price liberalization and privatization programs. Due to corruption and other factors, a good deal of the national wealth fell into the hands of a relatively small group of people. Source:Wikapedia

Today as President Obama pays a visit to the Kremlin to talk nice with President Medvedev, he is talking with the "puppet" of KGB member Vladimir Putin. The real power and aspiring dictator of the Russian people.
In his talks we can assume that Obama will try to smooth over the animus that the Russian leadership has for America. The talk will be pleasant, but all the promises will be for naught if we really think that Putin and his KGB fellow travelers will co-operate in any effort to accommodate the USA!

For decades the Russian leadership and via the propaganda network of government controlled media, the Russian people, are hateful and jealous of US Americans.

The one thing that stands out in all the speeches and news that comes from Russia is that they blame the USA for their problems. Not the degradation caused by Communism and lack of Religion in the country. The Daily Der Spiegel has a revealing article in today's issue that reveals the attitude toward the USA. The following quote should give some insight as to how Russia feels about any concessions or demand( more like requests from Obama) will be received.

"Putin's explicit goal upon assuming power in 2000 was to reverse as much as possible of the geopolitical imbalance imposed upon Russia during the 1990s. He believes that in that decade of Russia's extreme financial weakness, the country effectively lost its sovereignty. The US and its NATO allies, he argued, used the opportunity to re-constitute the world order over Russia's head. They expanded NATO eastward and reshaped other international institutions to serve their agenda. They treated Russia's domestic economic, political and social policies as their own project, engaging in a crusade to shape Russia in their own image for their own interests. Putin's priority during his tenure as president, from 2000-2008, was to reverse the West's leverage over Russia".

"It would be a mistake to believe that the Russians will view any concessions that Obama makes as something that requires counter-concessions on their part. The Russians will be happy to use US concerns about Iran or arms control to elicit concessions if they can. But they will not consider themselves bound by any "deal." Stationing of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, admission of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO and Western involvement in the North Caucasus -- none of these are bargaining chips for the Russians. They oppose them without qualification, and they are non-negotiable".

It is not hard for me to come to the conclusion that the Russians see the softness in the U.S. president by observing his willingness to allow North Korea to provoke war with their violation of the ban on nuclear weapons and their firing of at least 12 missiles in the last few weeks. His willingness to talk to Iranian leadership without any preconditions is also a sign of his timidity toward foreign threats even though he is quick to use intimidation within our own country to establish his socialistic goals.The firing of the special prosecutor over the telephone,and the way he intimidated bond holders of Chrysler Corp. are just a few examples.

In the negotiations going in Moscow, both sides seemed to try to skirt a dispute that should be discussed but could have derailed the summit — the fate of an American missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, which was proposed by the Bush administration.

American officials have said the system is intended to ward off attacks from countries like Iran, but the Kremlin views it as a threat to Russia.How can a missile defense system intended to defend against incoming attacks be a treat? This is just so much verbal bovine excrement!

Before the summit meeting, Mr. Medvedev asserted that the United States would have to compromise on the system before Russia would sign off on an arms control agreement.

All this tells me that the Cold War is still on, we just do not recognize it as such, or we choose to ignore it at our own peril!

Thursday, July 02, 2009