I THOUGHT PERHAPS SOME WOULD SEE SOME VALUE IN THIS, SO I COPIED AND PASTED IT HERE, HAPPY THANKSGIVING FROM LASTMANSTANDING. THIS IS FROM THE DESK OF FLOYD BROWN, MY HERO FOR HIS ATTEMPT TO IMPEACH OBAMA.
As we all prepare for Thanksgiving, I thought you might enjoy reading a column Mary Beth (my wife) penned this week on the true meaning of Thanksgiving. Enjoy and Happy Thanksgiving!
The True Reason for ThanksgivingOver time, myths and distortions have arisen, twisting the reason for Thanksgiving Day. For starters, the Pilgrims did not hold their harvest festival to thank the local Indians. Unfortunately, this myth is often perpetuated in schools and textbooks. Many children and adults now believe we celebrate the help given to the Pilgrims by Native Americans. If the Pilgrims were to visit this Thanksgiving, they would be shocked. The Pilgrims focused on thanking and praising God for His love, for all that He had done for them, and for the freedom they enjoyed in the New World.
A glimpse into the history of Thanksgiving Day gives a greater appreciation of this great American holiday. Even earlier than the Pilgrims, people of faith set aside days for prayer and thanksgiving to God. Many times rather than a feast, they were a time dedicated to prayer. It may come as a surprise to some that the word holiday is actually from old English compound word combining holy and day. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines holiday as a day set aside for special religious observance. The ancient Hebrews had many days set apart to worship, praise and thank God. Passover and Succoth are holy days of gratitude to God for His loving-kindness and deliverance from Egypt.
Early Americans often held days of thanksgiving in the various states and commonwealths. Washington and Madison each proclaimed a day of thanksgiving while president. In October 1789, President George Washington signed a proclamation requested by Congress to recommend to the people of the United States a Day of Public thanksgiving and Prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to form a government for their safety and happiness. Washington then assigned the twenty-sixth day of November to be devoted by the people to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; and to all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country It was to remember, Washington said, Gods manifold mercies and providence, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and, in general, for all the great and various favors. He gave them.
In the dark days of the Civil War in 1863, Lincoln proclaimed, by Act of Congress, an annual National Day of Thanksgiving following a letter campaign promoting the idea by Sarah Hale. As a mother, widowed at the age of 34, Hale was the editor of the first womans magazine in America and campaigned for over 40 years to make Thanksgiving a national holiday. Lincolns words are especially timely now with our soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign land, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.He recommends that we commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers from the war and to look at the many blessings we have been given by God including which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come Almighty God...
But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagine, by the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessing were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own...In conclusion, Lincoln says, It has seemed to me fit and proper that God should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people Even amongst the pain, upheaval and difficulties of the Civil War, the nation came together for a day of thanksgiving and praise. Sadly, someone erroneously wrote in Wikipedia, Thanksgiving Day is a time to give thanks for the harvest and express gratitude in general. While perhaps religious in origin, Thanksgiving is now primarily identified as a secular holiday. Maybe this is true for some Americans, but certainly not for all. And definitely not the way the Mother of the American Thanksgiving, Sarah Hale visualized it. Hale wrote, Let this daybe the grand Thanksgiving Holiday of our nation, when the noise and tumult of worldliness may be exchanged for the laugh of happy children, the glad greeting of family reunion, and the humble gratitude of the Christian heart. And Edward Martin wisely reminds us, "Thanksgiving Day comes, by statute, once a year; to the honest man it comes as frequently as the heart of gratitude will allow."
Warm regards, Floyd Brown
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
SOUNDS KINDA LIKE THE TAX STIM U LOST PLAN
The Plan, The Scam, The Man, Don't ya just love it when a plan comes together? The ScamHere is what a learned friend had to say about my Democratic Math e-mail. It's even worse apparently than I first thought:
It's way worse than that. Ignore all the gas crap and just look at how the stupid car buyer got taken to the cleaners:
If you traded in a clunker worth $3500, you get $4500 off for an apparent "savings" of $1000.
However, you have to pay taxes on the $4500 come April 15th (something that no auto dealer will tell you). If you are in the 30% tax bracket, you will pay $1350 on that $4500.
So, rather than save $1000, you actually pay an extra $350 to the feds. In addition, you traded in a car that was most likely paid for. Now you have 4 or 5 years of payments on a car that you did not need, that was costing you less to run than the payments that you will now be making.
But wait; it gets even better: you also got ripped off by the dealer. For example, every dealer here in LA was selling the Ford Focus with all the goodies, including A/C, auto transmission, power windows, etc for $12,500 the month before the "cash for clunkers" program started.
When "cash for clunkers" came along, they stopped discounting them and instead sold them at the list price of $15,500. So, you paid $3000 more than you would have the month before... (Honda, Toyota , and Kia played the same list price game that Ford and Chevy did).
So let's do the final tally here:
You traded in a car worth: $3500 You got a discount of: $4500 ---------Net so far +$1000But you have to pay: $1350 in taxes on the $4500 --------Net so far: -$350And you paid: $3000 more than the car was selling for the month before ---------- Net -$3350
We could also add in the additional taxes (sales tax, state tax, etc.) on the extra $3000 that you paid for the car, along with the 5 years of interest on the car loan, but let's just stop here.
So who actually made out on the deal? The feds collected taxes on the car along with taxes on the $4500 they "gave" you. The car dealers made an extra $3000 or more on every car they sold along with the kickbacks from the manufacturers and the loan companies. The manufacturers got to dump lots of cars they could not give away the month before. And the poor, stupid consumer got saddled with even more debt that they cannot afford.
Obama and his band of merry men convinced Joe consumer that he was getting $4500 in "free" money from the "government" when in fact, Joe was giving away his $3500 car and paying an additional $3350 for the privilege. Think this was stupid for those who were crazy enough to swallow this wonderful scheme?
Just wait until we get health care with no additional costs over what most of us now pay for health insurance and the best medical care in the world. Think that scheme might be designed by the same people who came up with Cash for Clunkers?
It's way worse than that. Ignore all the gas crap and just look at how the stupid car buyer got taken to the cleaners:
If you traded in a clunker worth $3500, you get $4500 off for an apparent "savings" of $1000.
However, you have to pay taxes on the $4500 come April 15th (something that no auto dealer will tell you). If you are in the 30% tax bracket, you will pay $1350 on that $4500.
So, rather than save $1000, you actually pay an extra $350 to the feds. In addition, you traded in a car that was most likely paid for. Now you have 4 or 5 years of payments on a car that you did not need, that was costing you less to run than the payments that you will now be making.
But wait; it gets even better: you also got ripped off by the dealer. For example, every dealer here in LA was selling the Ford Focus with all the goodies, including A/C, auto transmission, power windows, etc for $12,500 the month before the "cash for clunkers" program started.
When "cash for clunkers" came along, they stopped discounting them and instead sold them at the list price of $15,500. So, you paid $3000 more than you would have the month before... (Honda, Toyota , and Kia played the same list price game that Ford and Chevy did).
So let's do the final tally here:
You traded in a car worth: $3500 You got a discount of: $4500 ---------Net so far +$1000But you have to pay: $1350 in taxes on the $4500 --------Net so far: -$350And you paid: $3000 more than the car was selling for the month before ---------- Net -$3350
We could also add in the additional taxes (sales tax, state tax, etc.) on the extra $3000 that you paid for the car, along with the 5 years of interest on the car loan, but let's just stop here.
So who actually made out on the deal? The feds collected taxes on the car along with taxes on the $4500 they "gave" you. The car dealers made an extra $3000 or more on every car they sold along with the kickbacks from the manufacturers and the loan companies. The manufacturers got to dump lots of cars they could not give away the month before. And the poor, stupid consumer got saddled with even more debt that they cannot afford.
Obama and his band of merry men convinced Joe consumer that he was getting $4500 in "free" money from the "government" when in fact, Joe was giving away his $3500 car and paying an additional $3350 for the privilege. Think this was stupid for those who were crazy enough to swallow this wonderful scheme?
Just wait until we get health care with no additional costs over what most of us now pay for health insurance and the best medical care in the world. Think that scheme might be designed by the same people who came up with Cash for Clunkers?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
MAKES YOU WONDER
Poll Watch: The Latest ABC News Polls
Swine Flu Poll: Problems With Vaccine Supply and Safety Concerns
Nearly half of parents now don't intend to have their children vaccinated against the swine flu virus ? and among those who do plan to get the vaccine, more than half say they've been deterred by supply problems, a new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds.
Others, meanwhile, continue to steer clear as a result of undiminished skepticism about the safety of the vaccine itself. Despite federal reassurances, a third of Americans say they're not confident it's safe, much like the 30 percent who said so last month. And 66 percent of adults say they themselves don't plan to get vaccinated ? slightly up from 62 percent last month.
NOT GOING TO GET ONE MYSELF.
Swine Flu Poll: Problems With Vaccine Supply and Safety Concerns
Nearly half of parents now don't intend to have their children vaccinated against the swine flu virus ? and among those who do plan to get the vaccine, more than half say they've been deterred by supply problems, a new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds.
Others, meanwhile, continue to steer clear as a result of undiminished skepticism about the safety of the vaccine itself. Despite federal reassurances, a third of Americans say they're not confident it's safe, much like the 30 percent who said so last month. And 66 percent of adults say they themselves don't plan to get vaccinated ? slightly up from 62 percent last month.
NOT GOING TO GET ONE MYSELF.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
JUST ONE OF A THOUSAND LIES FROM BHO AND COMPANY
Recovery.gov Shows Taxpayer Money Going to Congressional Districts That Don’t Exist(CNSNews.com) – The 86th congressional district of Rhode Island received $10.2 million in federal economic stimulus funds to save 57.9 jobs, according to the Obama administration’s Recovery.gov Web site. In neighboring Connecticut, the state’s 42nd congressional district did not receive any stimulus money, but 25 jobs were still saved or created. The problem is that R.I. has only two congressional districts and Connecticut has just five.
Monday, November 16, 2009
THE B.H.O. INDIAN GIVER TAX RELEIF TRICK
I found this AP release and copied and pasted it here. Hopfully some of the links at the bottom will help those who did not know this was going to happen. I know THEY say THEY cautioned people last spring but, how many of you heard about it. I did, but that is because I have the connections to information like this at my disposal. Actually until I saw this report I had forgotten about it. It was a topic of conversation on the Jason Lewis radio program one afternoon, if you google Jason Lewis, you will find if he is carried on a station near you. Believe me he is worth listening to. This should just about kill Christmas for many millions of people who have to give the money back. Of course you can pretend you did not know and just wait for Obama to bail you out. Trust me folks, it aint gonna happen, this was an intentional ploy to get you to think you made a good choice last Nov. Now we get the door slamed in our face. He has more up his sleave than a good magician, watch close, now you see it, now you don't. It is called misdirection, and he is not going to take the blame when the trick fails. ICE CREAM ANYONE?
WASHINGTON — More than 15 million taxpayers may owe the government $250 or more because of how the IRS last spring set up President Barack Obama's tax break that was designed to help consumers spend the U.S. economy out of recession.
Individuals with more than one job and married couples in which both spouses work may have to repay the government $400, either through a smaller tax refund or a larger tax bill, according to a report released Monday by the Treasury Department's inspector general for tax administration. Social Security recipients who also earn taxable wages may have to repay $250.
The tax credit, which is supposed to pay individuals up to $400 and couples up to $800, was Obama's signature tax break in the massive stimulus package enacted in February. The credit has increased weekly paychecks for 95 percent of working families, giving them cash to help boost consumer spending during the worst economic recession in decades.
Workers concerned about whether they are withholding enough taxes can use a calculator on the IRS Web site to find the appropriate amount that should be withheld.
Taxpayers can adjust their withholding by filing a new W-4 form with their employer. But with only a month and a half remaining in the 2009 tax year, it's getting late to make adjustments.
Most workers started receiving the credit through small increases in their paychecks in April. The tax credit was made available through new tax withholding tables issued by the Internal Revenue Service.
The withholding tables, however, do not take into account several common categories of taxpayers. And that could force some people to repay what the government gave them.
For example, a worker with two jobs gets a $400 boost in pay at each job, for a total of $800. That worker, however, only is eligible for a maximum credit of $400, so the remaining $400 will have to be paid back at tax time — either through a smaller refund or a payment to the IRS.
The IRS recognized there could be a similar problem for married couples if both spouses work, so it adjusted the withholding tables. The fix, however, was imperfect.
A married couple is eligible for an $800 credit. However, if both spouses work and make more than $13,000, the new withholding tables give them each a $600 boost — for a total of $1,200.
There were 33 million married couples in 2008 in which both spouses worked. That's 55 percent of all married couples, according to the Census Bureau.
Also, a single student with a part-time job gets a $400 boost in pay. However, if students are claimed as dependents on their parents' tax returns, they don't qualify for the credit and would have to repay it when they file their returns.
Some retirees face even bigger headaches.
More than 50 million Social Security recipients received $250 payments in the spring as part of the economic stimulus package. Those lump sum payments were intended to provide a boost for people who didn't qualify for the tax credit.
However, the payments were sent to many retirees who also received the tax credit. Those retirees will have the $250 payment deducted from their tax credit — but not until they file their tax returns next year, long after the money may have been spent.
"More than 10 percent of all taxpayers who file individual tax returns for 2009 could owe additional taxes," said J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration.
Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, called problems with the tax credit "another unfortunate example of what can happen when Congress and the White House rush through legislation like the stimulus without thinking through the consequences."
The tax credit is also available for 2010. George said the problems will continue if workers don't adjust their withholding for next year.
For many, the new tax tables will simply mean smaller-than-expected tax refunds. The average tax refund this year was about $2,800. A little more than three-fourths of the 143 million taxpayers filing a return last spring received refunds, according to the IRS.
But for 15.4 million taxpayers, the new tax tables will mean an unexpected tax bill, according the IG report.
The IRS was aware of the issues when the withholding tables were released last spring and waged a public awareness campaign to get people to check their tax withholding, said Michael Mundaca, acting assistant treasury secretary.
"It's just technically how withholding works," Mundaca said. "It's an approximation and therefore for some people there will be overwithholding and for some people there will be underwithholding."
Separately, the IRS estimated that about 65,000 taxpayers could face penalties for not withholding enough taxes in 2009 because of the Making Work Pay tax credit. However, those taxpayers will be eligible to have the penalty waived, IRS spokeswoman Michelle Eldridge said.
The credit pays workers 6.2 percent of their earned income, up to a maximum of $400 for individuals and $800 for married couples who file jointly. Individuals making more than $95,000 and couples making more than $190,000 are ineligible.
ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT THESE PEOPLE HANDLING YOUR HEALTH CARE?
__YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT BACK TO MAKE THE DOWN PAYMENT ON YOUR WONDERFUL GOVERNMENT HEALTH PLAN, YOU KNOW TO COVER THE COST OF THE ILLEGALS WHO DO NOT PAY TAXES.
On the Web:
IRS Making Work Pay tax credit: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/ap_on_bi_ge/storytext/us_tax_credit_pickle/34107690/SIG=10m74tvmd/*http://tiny.cc/g7d83
IRS withholding calculator: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/ap_on_bi_ge/storytext/us_tax_credit_pickle/34107690/SIG=10mqnel17/*http://tiny.cc/AtuhO
Related Searches:
irs withholding calculator
new tax withholding tables
economic stimulus
WASHINGTON — More than 15 million taxpayers may owe the government $250 or more because of how the IRS last spring set up President Barack Obama's tax break that was designed to help consumers spend the U.S. economy out of recession.
Individuals with more than one job and married couples in which both spouses work may have to repay the government $400, either through a smaller tax refund or a larger tax bill, according to a report released Monday by the Treasury Department's inspector general for tax administration. Social Security recipients who also earn taxable wages may have to repay $250.
The tax credit, which is supposed to pay individuals up to $400 and couples up to $800, was Obama's signature tax break in the massive stimulus package enacted in February. The credit has increased weekly paychecks for 95 percent of working families, giving them cash to help boost consumer spending during the worst economic recession in decades.
Workers concerned about whether they are withholding enough taxes can use a calculator on the IRS Web site to find the appropriate amount that should be withheld.
Taxpayers can adjust their withholding by filing a new W-4 form with their employer. But with only a month and a half remaining in the 2009 tax year, it's getting late to make adjustments.
Most workers started receiving the credit through small increases in their paychecks in April. The tax credit was made available through new tax withholding tables issued by the Internal Revenue Service.
The withholding tables, however, do not take into account several common categories of taxpayers. And that could force some people to repay what the government gave them.
For example, a worker with two jobs gets a $400 boost in pay at each job, for a total of $800. That worker, however, only is eligible for a maximum credit of $400, so the remaining $400 will have to be paid back at tax time — either through a smaller refund or a payment to the IRS.
The IRS recognized there could be a similar problem for married couples if both spouses work, so it adjusted the withholding tables. The fix, however, was imperfect.
A married couple is eligible for an $800 credit. However, if both spouses work and make more than $13,000, the new withholding tables give them each a $600 boost — for a total of $1,200.
There were 33 million married couples in 2008 in which both spouses worked. That's 55 percent of all married couples, according to the Census Bureau.
Also, a single student with a part-time job gets a $400 boost in pay. However, if students are claimed as dependents on their parents' tax returns, they don't qualify for the credit and would have to repay it when they file their returns.
Some retirees face even bigger headaches.
More than 50 million Social Security recipients received $250 payments in the spring as part of the economic stimulus package. Those lump sum payments were intended to provide a boost for people who didn't qualify for the tax credit.
However, the payments were sent to many retirees who also received the tax credit. Those retirees will have the $250 payment deducted from their tax credit — but not until they file their tax returns next year, long after the money may have been spent.
"More than 10 percent of all taxpayers who file individual tax returns for 2009 could owe additional taxes," said J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration.
Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, called problems with the tax credit "another unfortunate example of what can happen when Congress and the White House rush through legislation like the stimulus without thinking through the consequences."
The tax credit is also available for 2010. George said the problems will continue if workers don't adjust their withholding for next year.
For many, the new tax tables will simply mean smaller-than-expected tax refunds. The average tax refund this year was about $2,800. A little more than three-fourths of the 143 million taxpayers filing a return last spring received refunds, according to the IRS.
But for 15.4 million taxpayers, the new tax tables will mean an unexpected tax bill, according the IG report.
The IRS was aware of the issues when the withholding tables were released last spring and waged a public awareness campaign to get people to check their tax withholding, said Michael Mundaca, acting assistant treasury secretary.
"It's just technically how withholding works," Mundaca said. "It's an approximation and therefore for some people there will be overwithholding and for some people there will be underwithholding."
Separately, the IRS estimated that about 65,000 taxpayers could face penalties for not withholding enough taxes in 2009 because of the Making Work Pay tax credit. However, those taxpayers will be eligible to have the penalty waived, IRS spokeswoman Michelle Eldridge said.
The credit pays workers 6.2 percent of their earned income, up to a maximum of $400 for individuals and $800 for married couples who file jointly. Individuals making more than $95,000 and couples making more than $190,000 are ineligible.
ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT THESE PEOPLE HANDLING YOUR HEALTH CARE?
__YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT BACK TO MAKE THE DOWN PAYMENT ON YOUR WONDERFUL GOVERNMENT HEALTH PLAN, YOU KNOW TO COVER THE COST OF THE ILLEGALS WHO DO NOT PAY TAXES.
On the Web:
IRS Making Work Pay tax credit: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/ap_on_bi_ge/storytext/us_tax_credit_pickle/34107690/SIG=10m74tvmd/*http://tiny.cc/g7d83
IRS withholding calculator: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/ap_on_bi_ge/storytext/us_tax_credit_pickle/34107690/SIG=10mqnel17/*http://tiny.cc/AtuhO
Related Searches:
irs withholding calculator
new tax withholding tables
economic stimulus
BURKA ANYONE?
I HAVE SPOKE OF THIS IN A PAST POST HERE, THERE IS EVEN MORE A STAKE THEN THE AUTHOR WHO WROTE THIS INDICATES, YES I COPIED AND PASTED, SO SUE ME.
Islamic Nations Seek Legally Binding Way to Counter Religious ‘Defamation’Monday, November 16, 2009By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor
Support at the U.N. for OIC-sponsored resolutions on religious 'defamation' has been dropping over the past four years. (CNSNews.com graph)
As support wanes for its campaign to secure controversial but non-binding "defamation of religion" resolutions at the United Nations, the Islamic bloc is pushing ahead with an alternative route – one that would carry the weight of international law.The OIC is now attempting to have a key U.N. panel amend an existing international treaty to encompass supposedly religiously defamatory speech.Unlike the resolutions, changing the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) to cover religion would be legally enforceable.The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has for the past decade overseen the passage of non-binding resolutions at the U.N. General Assembly and human rights bodies.Last week, the most recent effort passed in the General Assembly’s Third Committee, which deals with social, cultural, and humanitarian issues. It will go before the full General Assembly for a vote next month, but the committee vote indicates a continuing, measurable decline in support.Eighty-one countries voted for the resolution, 55 opposed it and 43 abstained. The result showed less support for and more opposition against the resolution than for those introduced by the OIC over the last three years.
As in past years, most support came from the 57-member OIC (although two members, Burkina Faso, and Cameroon, abstained) plus non-Muslim allies in the developing world, led by China, Russia, Cuba and Venezuela.Comparisons of voting records from 2006 to date reveal a continuing erosion of support in Latin America. Chile, Mexico, Panama, Uruguay all voted against the OIC-led resolution this year, having abstained in 2008. Elsewhere, Lesotho and Sri Lanka were among those who moved from supporting the resolution in 2008, to abstaining this year.The OIC argues that religion needs to be protected from "defamation" – acts such as the publication of newspaper cartoons satirizing Mohammed, or the suggestion that the Koran promotes violence against non-Muslims. (WHICH IT DOES) Although its resolutions purport to cover all religions, Islam is the only one cited by name. The text passed by the Third Committee voices concern that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."The OIC campaign has been confronted by freedom of expression advocates who say the bloc is trying to shield Islam, its teachings, practices, institutions and leaders, from legitimate criticism or scrutiny.Critics say defamation prohibitions should cover individuals, not religions. They charge that resolution proponents are trying to introduce in Western societies similar restrictions to those enforced in some Islamic countries, where converts from Islam or those with dissident views risk trial for apostasy or blasphemy.‘Binding normative standards’Unlike the nonbinding U.N. resolutions, the OIC’s alternative strategy proposes to develop "new binding normative standards relating to religious ideas, objects and positions," including "legal prohibition of publication of materials that negatively stereotypes, insults or uses of offensive language on matters regarded by followers of any religion or belief as sacred."
Organization of the Islamic Conference Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. (OIC)
Its target in this part of the campaign is a panel known as the "ad hoc committee on the elaboration of complementary international standards." The committee’s function is to update ICERD and other existing international human rights conventions, filling in "gaps" and ensuring that the conventions cover "all forms of contemporary racism, including incitement to racial and religious hatred."Article four of the ICERD prohibits the "dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred" as well as "incitement to racial discrimination, as well as acts of violence or incitement to such acts."The OIC wants the "ad-hoc committee" to expand the racial focus to include religion.In a position paper earlier this year, the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom said expanding provisions like the ICERD to cover religion "would undermine international human rights guarantees, including the freedom of religion" and "undermine the institutions that protect universal human rights worldwide."The U.S. commission also noted that the U.N. treaty body established to oversee the ICERD, the Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, said in a 2007 opinion paper that the drafters of the convention never meant to include religion, and that "discrimination based exclusively on religious grounds was not intended to fall within the purview of the Convention."In a statement issued Sunday to mark the "International Day for Tolerance," OIC secretary general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said that "Muslims continue to suffer from the rising trend of Islamophobia and the acts of incitement of hatred and stereotyping and discrimination based on their faith and culture in the West."He complained that "some media outlets" were misusing freedom of speech and expression "to justify their acts of incitement to hatred."Ihsanoglu said he wanted to reiterate that "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance" and "Islamic teachings promote peaceful coexistence and respect for human dignity and honor."
IF YOU READ THE KORAN IN ARABIC INSTEAD OF THE TRANSLATED VERSION, YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT THEY PREACH AND WHAT THEY TEACH ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, IT IS EITHER JOIN THEM OR DIE.
Islamic Nations Seek Legally Binding Way to Counter Religious ‘Defamation’Monday, November 16, 2009By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor
Support at the U.N. for OIC-sponsored resolutions on religious 'defamation' has been dropping over the past four years. (CNSNews.com graph)
As support wanes for its campaign to secure controversial but non-binding "defamation of religion" resolutions at the United Nations, the Islamic bloc is pushing ahead with an alternative route – one that would carry the weight of international law.The OIC is now attempting to have a key U.N. panel amend an existing international treaty to encompass supposedly religiously defamatory speech.Unlike the resolutions, changing the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) to cover religion would be legally enforceable.The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has for the past decade overseen the passage of non-binding resolutions at the U.N. General Assembly and human rights bodies.Last week, the most recent effort passed in the General Assembly’s Third Committee, which deals with social, cultural, and humanitarian issues. It will go before the full General Assembly for a vote next month, but the committee vote indicates a continuing, measurable decline in support.Eighty-one countries voted for the resolution, 55 opposed it and 43 abstained. The result showed less support for and more opposition against the resolution than for those introduced by the OIC over the last three years.
As in past years, most support came from the 57-member OIC (although two members, Burkina Faso, and Cameroon, abstained) plus non-Muslim allies in the developing world, led by China, Russia, Cuba and Venezuela.Comparisons of voting records from 2006 to date reveal a continuing erosion of support in Latin America. Chile, Mexico, Panama, Uruguay all voted against the OIC-led resolution this year, having abstained in 2008. Elsewhere, Lesotho and Sri Lanka were among those who moved from supporting the resolution in 2008, to abstaining this year.The OIC argues that religion needs to be protected from "defamation" – acts such as the publication of newspaper cartoons satirizing Mohammed, or the suggestion that the Koran promotes violence against non-Muslims. (WHICH IT DOES) Although its resolutions purport to cover all religions, Islam is the only one cited by name. The text passed by the Third Committee voices concern that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."The OIC campaign has been confronted by freedom of expression advocates who say the bloc is trying to shield Islam, its teachings, practices, institutions and leaders, from legitimate criticism or scrutiny.Critics say defamation prohibitions should cover individuals, not religions. They charge that resolution proponents are trying to introduce in Western societies similar restrictions to those enforced in some Islamic countries, where converts from Islam or those with dissident views risk trial for apostasy or blasphemy.‘Binding normative standards’Unlike the nonbinding U.N. resolutions, the OIC’s alternative strategy proposes to develop "new binding normative standards relating to religious ideas, objects and positions," including "legal prohibition of publication of materials that negatively stereotypes, insults or uses of offensive language on matters regarded by followers of any religion or belief as sacred."
Organization of the Islamic Conference Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. (OIC)
Its target in this part of the campaign is a panel known as the "ad hoc committee on the elaboration of complementary international standards." The committee’s function is to update ICERD and other existing international human rights conventions, filling in "gaps" and ensuring that the conventions cover "all forms of contemporary racism, including incitement to racial and religious hatred."Article four of the ICERD prohibits the "dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred" as well as "incitement to racial discrimination, as well as acts of violence or incitement to such acts."The OIC wants the "ad-hoc committee" to expand the racial focus to include religion.In a position paper earlier this year, the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom said expanding provisions like the ICERD to cover religion "would undermine international human rights guarantees, including the freedom of religion" and "undermine the institutions that protect universal human rights worldwide."The U.S. commission also noted that the U.N. treaty body established to oversee the ICERD, the Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, said in a 2007 opinion paper that the drafters of the convention never meant to include religion, and that "discrimination based exclusively on religious grounds was not intended to fall within the purview of the Convention."In a statement issued Sunday to mark the "International Day for Tolerance," OIC secretary general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said that "Muslims continue to suffer from the rising trend of Islamophobia and the acts of incitement of hatred and stereotyping and discrimination based on their faith and culture in the West."He complained that "some media outlets" were misusing freedom of speech and expression "to justify their acts of incitement to hatred."Ihsanoglu said he wanted to reiterate that "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance" and "Islamic teachings promote peaceful coexistence and respect for human dignity and honor."
IF YOU READ THE KORAN IN ARABIC INSTEAD OF THE TRANSLATED VERSION, YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT THEY PREACH AND WHAT THEY TEACH ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, IT IS EITHER JOIN THEM OR DIE.
Impeachment is too good for him
“Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government,” according to the Random House Dictionary. By that definition, Barack Hussein Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder should be impeached.
By ordering that the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on America, be in a federal courtroom, Barack Obama’s administration has seriously undermined your safety.
If these trials are allowed to go forward, they will do more damage to America than any single act since our withdrawal from Vietnam dooming Saigon and the people of Southeast Asia to communism and genocide.
For seven years after the 9-11 attack, the US Government has done an outstanding job of keeping us safe. Under the leadership of the Bush Administration with the approval of the US Congress, our soldiers and CIA operatives scoured the world for terrorists. They brought those terrorists to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and kept them from killing more Americans.
Last year, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his band of thugs tried pleaing guilty to murder and asked to be sent to Allah.
At the time under pressure from the Left, the Bush Administration created a military commission designated with the task of bringing them to justice.
By canceling this process for the Islamic radicals in Guantanamo, Obama has guaranteed that the CIA and the other foreign and domestic government agencies will have their secrets paraded before the largest television audience in world history.
According to legal experts, it may be impossible to present evidence that would confirm their guilt, and the reputation of America will once again be dragged through the mud. K. S. Mohammed will be particularly difficult to prosecute in the US because his defense lawyers will twist it and put the United States on trial, arguing that he was illegally tortured by the CIA. America learned vital information that thwarted additional attacks by waterboarding him.
Writing in National Review, Andrew McCarthy said:
“We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.”
The damage that Barack Hussein Obama is continuing to afflict on the brave men and women who are protecting and defending us is unconscionable. How could you not call providing these murdering thugs all of the legal protections afforded an American Citizen anything but aid and comfort? If no earlier action demanded his impeachment, this sole act of treason does.
This is proof that BHO hates the America we love. No wonder he failed to salute the honored dead at a recent ceremony. Don’t believe me. Believe your own eyes.
Friends let us be straight forward here, President Obama is a lawyer, he knows the rules of presenting evidence, he knows what evidence will have to brought forward in a public court, he knows the damage that it will do to our intelligence gathering network, he knows it will help our enemy in their terrorist attacks, he knows what he is doing. I know what he is. BHO IS A TREASONIST TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. They have already plead guilty, what other reason could he have for having these trials in New York City. I will tell you, as this turmoil of conflicting feelings washes accross this nation, he is planning to slip something else through as law while we are distracted, but those of us who know are watching and waiting, he will screw up somewhere and we will catch him with the smoking gun. More important GOD is watching him and saying, tisk tisk, naughty boy, is off to the woodshed for you.
By ordering that the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on America, be in a federal courtroom, Barack Obama’s administration has seriously undermined your safety.
If these trials are allowed to go forward, they will do more damage to America than any single act since our withdrawal from Vietnam dooming Saigon and the people of Southeast Asia to communism and genocide.
For seven years after the 9-11 attack, the US Government has done an outstanding job of keeping us safe. Under the leadership of the Bush Administration with the approval of the US Congress, our soldiers and CIA operatives scoured the world for terrorists. They brought those terrorists to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and kept them from killing more Americans.
Last year, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his band of thugs tried pleaing guilty to murder and asked to be sent to Allah.
At the time under pressure from the Left, the Bush Administration created a military commission designated with the task of bringing them to justice.
By canceling this process for the Islamic radicals in Guantanamo, Obama has guaranteed that the CIA and the other foreign and domestic government agencies will have their secrets paraded before the largest television audience in world history.
According to legal experts, it may be impossible to present evidence that would confirm their guilt, and the reputation of America will once again be dragged through the mud. K. S. Mohammed will be particularly difficult to prosecute in the US because his defense lawyers will twist it and put the United States on trial, arguing that he was illegally tortured by the CIA. America learned vital information that thwarted additional attacks by waterboarding him.
Writing in National Review, Andrew McCarthy said:
“We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.”
The damage that Barack Hussein Obama is continuing to afflict on the brave men and women who are protecting and defending us is unconscionable. How could you not call providing these murdering thugs all of the legal protections afforded an American Citizen anything but aid and comfort? If no earlier action demanded his impeachment, this sole act of treason does.
This is proof that BHO hates the America we love. No wonder he failed to salute the honored dead at a recent ceremony. Don’t believe me. Believe your own eyes.
Friends let us be straight forward here, President Obama is a lawyer, he knows the rules of presenting evidence, he knows what evidence will have to brought forward in a public court, he knows the damage that it will do to our intelligence gathering network, he knows it will help our enemy in their terrorist attacks, he knows what he is doing. I know what he is. BHO IS A TREASONIST TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. They have already plead guilty, what other reason could he have for having these trials in New York City. I will tell you, as this turmoil of conflicting feelings washes accross this nation, he is planning to slip something else through as law while we are distracted, but those of us who know are watching and waiting, he will screw up somewhere and we will catch him with the smoking gun. More important GOD is watching him and saying, tisk tisk, naughty boy, is off to the woodshed for you.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
GLOBAL WARMING, NOT!!!!!!!!!
IS THIS JUST BEEN AN EXCUSE FOR THE LIBERALS TO PUSH CAP AND TRADE? YEP!
A team of scientists has sent a letter to all U.S. senators warning that a claim there is "consensus" in the scientific community on the climate change issue is false.
The letter dated Oct. 29 reads in part: "You have recently received a letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a 'consensus' of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe. . .
"The claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years. There is no consensus, and even if there were, consensus is not the test of scientific validity. Theories that disagree with the facts are wrong, consensus or no."
The five signees of the letter include professors from Princeton University, the University of Virginia and the University of California, Santa Barbara.
The letter refers to an earlier open letter sent to Congress by those five signees and others declaring: "The sky is not falling. The earth has been cooling for 10 years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them. . .
"We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc., but in fact there is no such evidence. It doesn't exist."
The Oct. 29 letter also notes that the American Physical Society, an organization of physicists, did not sign the AAAS letter and states the society is "at this moment reviewing its stance on so-called global warming, having received a petition from its membership to do so. That petition was signed by 160 distinguished members and fellows of the society, including one Nobelist and 12 members of the National Academies. Indeed a score of the signers are Members and Fellows of the AAAS, none of whom were consulted before the AAAS letter to you."
The petition reads in part: "Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth's climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate.
"The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the effects of all processes — natural and human — on the Earth's climate."
The 160 signees of the petition range alphabetically from Harold M. Agnew, former White House science councilor and former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, to Martin V. Zombeck, a physicist formerly with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and include Ivar Giaever, who shared the Nobel Prize in physics in 1973.
A team of scientists has sent a letter to all U.S. senators warning that a claim there is "consensus" in the scientific community on the climate change issue is false.
The letter dated Oct. 29 reads in part: "You have recently received a letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a 'consensus' of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe. . .
"The claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years. There is no consensus, and even if there were, consensus is not the test of scientific validity. Theories that disagree with the facts are wrong, consensus or no."
The five signees of the letter include professors from Princeton University, the University of Virginia and the University of California, Santa Barbara.
The letter refers to an earlier open letter sent to Congress by those five signees and others declaring: "The sky is not falling. The earth has been cooling for 10 years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them. . .
"We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc., but in fact there is no such evidence. It doesn't exist."
The Oct. 29 letter also notes that the American Physical Society, an organization of physicists, did not sign the AAAS letter and states the society is "at this moment reviewing its stance on so-called global warming, having received a petition from its membership to do so. That petition was signed by 160 distinguished members and fellows of the society, including one Nobelist and 12 members of the National Academies. Indeed a score of the signers are Members and Fellows of the AAAS, none of whom were consulted before the AAAS letter to you."
The petition reads in part: "Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth's climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate.
"The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the effects of all processes — natural and human — on the Earth's climate."
The 160 signees of the petition range alphabetically from Harold M. Agnew, former White House science councilor and former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, to Martin V. Zombeck, a physicist formerly with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and include Ivar Giaever, who shared the Nobel Prize in physics in 1973.
U.S. Rep. Steve King suggests there is more than a coincidence between the resignation of White House communications director Anita Dunn and a raid on ACORN's national office — pointing out that Dunn's husband is "a leading ACORN defender."
Dunn, who is stepping down at the end of the month, created controversy when she led an Obama administration attack on Fox News, calling it "a wing of the Republican Party."
King, an Iowa Republican and a vociferous critic of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, issued a statement on Tuesday under the headline "King: Dunn Departure a Coincidence?" It read in part:
"Four days after Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell raided ACORN's national office in New Orleans, seizing paper records and computer hard drives, White House communications director Anita Dunn — the wife of a leading ACORN defender — has resigned abruptly from her position.
"Dunn was the lead critic of Fox News for reporting on the ACORN prostitution scandal, which originally broke on September 10. Dunn subsequently launched a public attack against Fox News on October 11, and she even stated 'let's not pretend they're a news network' in reference to Fox. . .
"Not only has Dunn lavished praises on Chairman Mao and compared him to Mother Teresa, Dunn’s husband has a public record of protecting ACORN and protecting President Obama’s relationship to ACORN. . .
"Anita Dunn is married to Robert Bauer, who served as general counsel for Obama for America. In 2008, Bauer sent a letter to then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey arguing that Department of Justice should not investigate election-related fraud allegations against ACORN. . .
"The letter also claims that Republican concerns regarding ACORN-related fraud were 'manufactured.' Subsequent revelations have validated these Republican concerns and proven the existence of additional fraudulent activities."
Bauer may have figured into Dunn's resignation in another way. On Friday, he was named to replace Greg Craig as White House counsel, and the prnewser Web site observed: "Did [Dunn] have to clear room for her husband to join the administration and remove any potential concerns about conflict of interest?"
Dunn, who is stepping down at the end of the month, created controversy when she led an Obama administration attack on Fox News, calling it "a wing of the Republican Party."
King, an Iowa Republican and a vociferous critic of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, issued a statement on Tuesday under the headline "King: Dunn Departure a Coincidence?" It read in part:
"Four days after Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell raided ACORN's national office in New Orleans, seizing paper records and computer hard drives, White House communications director Anita Dunn — the wife of a leading ACORN defender — has resigned abruptly from her position.
"Dunn was the lead critic of Fox News for reporting on the ACORN prostitution scandal, which originally broke on September 10. Dunn subsequently launched a public attack against Fox News on October 11, and she even stated 'let's not pretend they're a news network' in reference to Fox. . .
"Not only has Dunn lavished praises on Chairman Mao and compared him to Mother Teresa, Dunn’s husband has a public record of protecting ACORN and protecting President Obama’s relationship to ACORN. . .
"Anita Dunn is married to Robert Bauer, who served as general counsel for Obama for America. In 2008, Bauer sent a letter to then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey arguing that Department of Justice should not investigate election-related fraud allegations against ACORN. . .
"The letter also claims that Republican concerns regarding ACORN-related fraud were 'manufactured.' Subsequent revelations have validated these Republican concerns and proven the existence of additional fraudulent activities."
Bauer may have figured into Dunn's resignation in another way. On Friday, he was named to replace Greg Craig as White House counsel, and the prnewser Web site observed: "Did [Dunn] have to clear room for her husband to join the administration and remove any potential concerns about conflict of interest?"
BOW, BOW, BOW AGAIN, SHOW YOUR TRUE COLORS, NO PRIDE IN YOUR OWN OFFICE OR COUNTRY
There is no doubt about it, he was at belly button height looking at the floor. I guess he must know he does not belong in this company, he is a pretender to the office of PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA. A WARM HANDSHAKE IS WHAT IS REQUIRED, THATS IT.
This was just a one hand handshake with Japans Emperor, no reason to bow, but he did anyway.
Remember when Barack Obama bowed before the King of Saudi Arabia at the G-20 summit in London last April? Even though the bow was captured by still and video photographers, the White House denied that it had taken place. "It wasn't a bow," an unnamed White House official told the Politico's Ben Smith. "He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah."
The controversy raged in the blogosphere, but most of the old press ignored the question -- especially after the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee injected a bit of partisanship when it said Obama had "paid fealty" to Abdullah with the bow. Obama's defenders, while not conceding that the president had bowed to the king, said George W. Bush had done the same thing earlier. The issue festered for a few days until a CNN reporter asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about it:
QUESTION: When the President met with King Abdullah, there was something that took place which I believe the White House explained was just the president being taller than the king. We took a look at the video, and it does appear that the president actually bowed to King Abdullah. Did he bow or didn't he?
GIBBS: No, I think he bent over with both, to shake -- with both hands to shake his hand, so I don't--
QUESTION: Did he bow or didn't he?
GIBBS: No.
So the official word was: Obama didn't bow. Now, we have a new photo of the president bowing to the emperor of Japan. It's the kind of image that just doesn't sit well with many Americans. The president, as the elected representative of the United States, should not be in the habit of bowing to foreign leaders, royal or not. Obama's deep, subservient bow makes it even worse; this was no little nod.
What will the White House explanation be? Emperor Akihito is certainly shorter than Obama, so perhaps the White House will roll out the old "he's taller than King Abdullah" story. Perhaps Gibbs will deny that it happened at all. Neither will fly. This is something the president should explain.
UPDATE: White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and some other senior administration officials held a press briefing a few hours ago in Singapore. No reporter asked about the bowing matter, and neither Gibbs nor the other officials mentioned it.
However, the Politico's Mike Allen says he received a "raft of email" about the bow, and so, on the urging of readers, asked a "senior administration official" about it. That official said the president "observes protocol," suggesting -- but not actually saying -- that the bow itself was part of protocol. The full response: "I think that those who try to politicize those things are just way, way, way off base. [Obama] observes protocol. But I don’t think anybody who was in Japan -- who saw his speech and the reaction to it, certainly those who witnessed his bilateral meetings there – would say anything other than that he enhanced both the position and the status of the U.S., relative to Japan. It was a good, positive visit at an important time, because there’s a lot going on in Japan."
There is, in fact, no protocol calling for an American president to bow to the emperor of Japan, or anyone else, for that matter.
Dem senator opposes trying terrorists in civilian courts
The coming campaign: Obama will sell himself as deficit hawk. Really.
Dems' slick fix: $210 billion of fiscal restraint
This was just a one hand handshake with Japans Emperor, no reason to bow, but he did anyway.
Remember when Barack Obama bowed before the King of Saudi Arabia at the G-20 summit in London last April? Even though the bow was captured by still and video photographers, the White House denied that it had taken place. "It wasn't a bow," an unnamed White House official told the Politico's Ben Smith. "He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah."
The controversy raged in the blogosphere, but most of the old press ignored the question -- especially after the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee injected a bit of partisanship when it said Obama had "paid fealty" to Abdullah with the bow. Obama's defenders, while not conceding that the president had bowed to the king, said George W. Bush had done the same thing earlier. The issue festered for a few days until a CNN reporter asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about it:
QUESTION: When the President met with King Abdullah, there was something that took place which I believe the White House explained was just the president being taller than the king. We took a look at the video, and it does appear that the president actually bowed to King Abdullah. Did he bow or didn't he?
GIBBS: No, I think he bent over with both, to shake -- with both hands to shake his hand, so I don't--
QUESTION: Did he bow or didn't he?
GIBBS: No.
So the official word was: Obama didn't bow. Now, we have a new photo of the president bowing to the emperor of Japan. It's the kind of image that just doesn't sit well with many Americans. The president, as the elected representative of the United States, should not be in the habit of bowing to foreign leaders, royal or not. Obama's deep, subservient bow makes it even worse; this was no little nod.
What will the White House explanation be? Emperor Akihito is certainly shorter than Obama, so perhaps the White House will roll out the old "he's taller than King Abdullah" story. Perhaps Gibbs will deny that it happened at all. Neither will fly. This is something the president should explain.
UPDATE: White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and some other senior administration officials held a press briefing a few hours ago in Singapore. No reporter asked about the bowing matter, and neither Gibbs nor the other officials mentioned it.
However, the Politico's Mike Allen says he received a "raft of email" about the bow, and so, on the urging of readers, asked a "senior administration official" about it. That official said the president "observes protocol," suggesting -- but not actually saying -- that the bow itself was part of protocol. The full response: "I think that those who try to politicize those things are just way, way, way off base. [Obama] observes protocol. But I don’t think anybody who was in Japan -- who saw his speech and the reaction to it, certainly those who witnessed his bilateral meetings there – would say anything other than that he enhanced both the position and the status of the U.S., relative to Japan. It was a good, positive visit at an important time, because there’s a lot going on in Japan."
There is, in fact, no protocol calling for an American president to bow to the emperor of Japan, or anyone else, for that matter.
Dem senator opposes trying terrorists in civilian courts
The coming campaign: Obama will sell himself as deficit hawk. Really.
Dems' slick fix: $210 billion of fiscal restraint
I'LL TAKE 3 SCOOPS
THE COW AND THE ICE CREAM ONE OF THE BEST EXPLANATIONS OF WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION --
From a teacher in the Nashville area "We are worried about 'the cow' when it is all about the 'Ice Cream.' The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year... The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot. The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Everyone applauded and he sat down. Now is was Olivia's turn to speak. Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down. The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream." She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn't know. The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide. Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 52 percent of the people reacted like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other 48 percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess." Remember, the government cannot give you anything until it taxes it from you to start with and you never get back as much as you give. ICE CREAM ANYONE?
From a teacher in the Nashville area "We are worried about 'the cow' when it is all about the 'Ice Cream.' The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year... The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot. The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Everyone applauded and he sat down. Now is was Olivia's turn to speak. Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down. The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream." She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn't know. The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide. Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 52 percent of the people reacted like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other 48 percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess." Remember, the government cannot give you anything until it taxes it from you to start with and you never get back as much as you give. ICE CREAM ANYONE?
ARE WE GOING TO SIT AND TAKE THIS?
Opinion
Climate bill's 'emergency provision' gives Obama strong-man powers UPDATED!
By: EXAMINER EDITORIAL HOT ZONE ALERT -November 10, 2009
Both the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade energy approved earlier this year and the version just okayed by Sen. Barbara Boxer’s Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Democrats (Republicans boycotted the vote) contains an obscure but nasty bureaucratic provision that requires President Obama to act like Venezuelan strong man Hugo Chavez.
Here’s how: The bills require a federal declaration of a “climate emergency” if world greenhouse gas levels reach 450 parts per million. Guess what? The Pacific Northwest National Lab says it is a virtual certainty that level will be reached within a few months. The bill then requires the president to “direct all Federal agencies to use existing statutory authority to take appropriate actions...to address shortfalls" in achieving needed greenhouse gas reductions.
When Vitter asked EPA Administrator what would be done in such a situation, she refused to say. So it must be asked: Would the president be empowered to do things like nationalize whole sectors of industry, ban coal use, restrict private automobile use, or anything else the “emergency” requires?
The Examiner's David Freddoso reports that Sen. David Vitter, R-LA, is holding a news conference later today concerning this provision. Vitter wonders if companies that support cap-and-trade in the hope they will profit from going green realize what could happen to them soon after enactment. More to the point, we wonder what the American people will do when they realize what is actually going on here.
UPDATED: CEI's Horner says it's about power, not climate
In a detailed post on BigGovernment.com, Competitive Enterprise Institute scholar and environmental expert Chris Horner warns that this provision is clearly intended to concentrate power in an unprecedented manner:
"But as we have been warning you in detail, this agenda transparently is not about GHG concentrations, or the climate. It’s about what this provision would bring: Almost limitless power over private economic activity and individual liberty for the activist president and, for the reluctant leader, litigious greens and courts that in this case would only have two choices. Those are follow the law, or declare it unconstitutional knowing the predilections of the appellate courts and what will very soon be Obama’s Supreme Court."
UPDATE II: Foundry sees more regs on top of cap-and-trade
The Heritage Foundation's sagacious blog authors at The Foundry took a look at this issue and concluded that the provision will lead to more regulations on top of the cap-and-trade bill's mandates. Yeah, that's the ticket - the economy is suffocating under regulatory weight now, so let's add more to it.
Climate bill's 'emergency provision' gives Obama strong-man powers UPDATED!
By: EXAMINER EDITORIAL HOT ZONE ALERT -November 10, 2009
Both the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade energy approved earlier this year and the version just okayed by Sen. Barbara Boxer’s Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Democrats (Republicans boycotted the vote) contains an obscure but nasty bureaucratic provision that requires President Obama to act like Venezuelan strong man Hugo Chavez.
Here’s how: The bills require a federal declaration of a “climate emergency” if world greenhouse gas levels reach 450 parts per million. Guess what? The Pacific Northwest National Lab says it is a virtual certainty that level will be reached within a few months. The bill then requires the president to “direct all Federal agencies to use existing statutory authority to take appropriate actions...to address shortfalls" in achieving needed greenhouse gas reductions.
When Vitter asked EPA Administrator what would be done in such a situation, she refused to say. So it must be asked: Would the president be empowered to do things like nationalize whole sectors of industry, ban coal use, restrict private automobile use, or anything else the “emergency” requires?
The Examiner's David Freddoso reports that Sen. David Vitter, R-LA, is holding a news conference later today concerning this provision. Vitter wonders if companies that support cap-and-trade in the hope they will profit from going green realize what could happen to them soon after enactment. More to the point, we wonder what the American people will do when they realize what is actually going on here.
UPDATED: CEI's Horner says it's about power, not climate
In a detailed post on BigGovernment.com, Competitive Enterprise Institute scholar and environmental expert Chris Horner warns that this provision is clearly intended to concentrate power in an unprecedented manner:
"But as we have been warning you in detail, this agenda transparently is not about GHG concentrations, or the climate. It’s about what this provision would bring: Almost limitless power over private economic activity and individual liberty for the activist president and, for the reluctant leader, litigious greens and courts that in this case would only have two choices. Those are follow the law, or declare it unconstitutional knowing the predilections of the appellate courts and what will very soon be Obama’s Supreme Court."
UPDATE II: Foundry sees more regs on top of cap-and-trade
The Heritage Foundation's sagacious blog authors at The Foundry took a look at this issue and concluded that the provision will lead to more regulations on top of the cap-and-trade bill's mandates. Yeah, that's the ticket - the economy is suffocating under regulatory weight now, so let's add more to it.
IS HILARY THROWING THE U.S. UNDER THE BUS TOO?
It’s bad enough that President Obama could not be bothered to attend the celebrations marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. But Hillary Clinton’s refusal to even acknowledge the role played by Ronald Reagan in the Wall’s demise as well as the downfall of Communism was highly insulting towards one of the greatest figures of our time, and reeked of petty and partisan mean-spiritedness.
The Secretary of State’s remarks yesterday in Berlin completely erased from history the huge contribution played not only by President Reagan but also by the United States in confronting the Soviet Empire. In her speech she applauded half of Europe, but could not bring herself to thank those Americans who bravely served their country and in many cases laid down their lives in defeating Communism, under Reagan’s leadership.
Here is what Clinton said in Berlin on behalf of the Obama administration:
“We remember the allies who conducted the largest humanitarian airlift in history, completing more than a quarter million flights to sustain the people of West Berlin. We remember the Poles – (applause) – who waged a campaign for liberty that began with a strike in the shipyards of Gdansk and ended by shattering a system of tyranny. We remember a Polish Pope who spoke out for the aspirations of people across Europe and the world. (Applause.) We remember the people of the Baltics who joined hands across their lands and helped to break the chains that held their nations captive. We remember the students of Prague who propelled a dissident playwright from a jail cell to the presidency of a free republic. And tonight, we remember the Germans on both sides of the wall, but particularly the Germans in the East who stood up and finally were able to say, “No more. Freedom is our birthright and we will take it by our own hands.”
Incredibly, Clinton ended her remarks, with a tribute not to the tens of millions of victims of Communism, but to Barack Obama!
“I am deeply honored to introduce now a message from someone who represents the fall of different kinds of walls – of walls of discrimination, of stereotype, of character, the walls that too often are inside minds and hearts. Let me introduce a message from President Barack Obama.”
Hillary Clinton would do well to learn from Margaret Thatcher, a great friend of the United States, whom I had the privilege of working for in her private office. Like Ronald Reagan she is a statesman who understands that evil must be confronted and defeated, and a true leader who believes in the greatness of America as a force for good on the world stage.
As Lady Thatcher observed in her eulogy to Reagan at his funeral service at the National Cathedral in Washington in June 2004:
“We live today in the world that Ronald Reagan began to reshape… It is a very different world, with different challenges and new dangers. All in all, however, it is one of greater freedom and prosperity, one more hopeful than the world he inherited on becoming president. .. With the lever of American patriotism, he lifted up the world. And so today, the world – in Prague, in Budapest, in Warsaw and Sofia, in Bucharest, in Kiev, and in Moscow itself, the world mourns the passing of the great liberator and echoes his prayer: God bless America.”
These were the words that Clinton should have echoed in front of the Brandenburg Gate – a recognition of President Reagan’s huge contribution to the advancement of freedom in Europe and across the world.
Recent Posts
Hillary Clinton scrubs Ronald Reagan from history
November 10th, 2009 17:41
40 Comments
Barack Obama’s shameful absence from Berlin: Four Key Reasons why the President stayed away
November 9th, 2009 17:13
54 Comments
The Secretary of State’s remarks yesterday in Berlin completely erased from history the huge contribution played not only by President Reagan but also by the United States in confronting the Soviet Empire. In her speech she applauded half of Europe, but could not bring herself to thank those Americans who bravely served their country and in many cases laid down their lives in defeating Communism, under Reagan’s leadership.
Here is what Clinton said in Berlin on behalf of the Obama administration:
“We remember the allies who conducted the largest humanitarian airlift in history, completing more than a quarter million flights to sustain the people of West Berlin. We remember the Poles – (applause) – who waged a campaign for liberty that began with a strike in the shipyards of Gdansk and ended by shattering a system of tyranny. We remember a Polish Pope who spoke out for the aspirations of people across Europe and the world. (Applause.) We remember the people of the Baltics who joined hands across their lands and helped to break the chains that held their nations captive. We remember the students of Prague who propelled a dissident playwright from a jail cell to the presidency of a free republic. And tonight, we remember the Germans on both sides of the wall, but particularly the Germans in the East who stood up and finally were able to say, “No more. Freedom is our birthright and we will take it by our own hands.”
Incredibly, Clinton ended her remarks, with a tribute not to the tens of millions of victims of Communism, but to Barack Obama!
“I am deeply honored to introduce now a message from someone who represents the fall of different kinds of walls – of walls of discrimination, of stereotype, of character, the walls that too often are inside minds and hearts. Let me introduce a message from President Barack Obama.”
Hillary Clinton would do well to learn from Margaret Thatcher, a great friend of the United States, whom I had the privilege of working for in her private office. Like Ronald Reagan she is a statesman who understands that evil must be confronted and defeated, and a true leader who believes in the greatness of America as a force for good on the world stage.
As Lady Thatcher observed in her eulogy to Reagan at his funeral service at the National Cathedral in Washington in June 2004:
“We live today in the world that Ronald Reagan began to reshape… It is a very different world, with different challenges and new dangers. All in all, however, it is one of greater freedom and prosperity, one more hopeful than the world he inherited on becoming president. .. With the lever of American patriotism, he lifted up the world. And so today, the world – in Prague, in Budapest, in Warsaw and Sofia, in Bucharest, in Kiev, and in Moscow itself, the world mourns the passing of the great liberator and echoes his prayer: God bless America.”
These were the words that Clinton should have echoed in front of the Brandenburg Gate – a recognition of President Reagan’s huge contribution to the advancement of freedom in Europe and across the world.
Recent Posts
Hillary Clinton scrubs Ronald Reagan from history
November 10th, 2009 17:41
40 Comments
Barack Obama’s shameful absence from Berlin: Four Key Reasons why the President stayed away
November 9th, 2009 17:13
54 Comments
HEALTH CARE, OVER MY DEAD OR JAILED BODY
Another post from Floyd Brown, another warning. I am not going to hold my breath that any one will read this and wake up! America has chosen the ice cream and they cannot see past the dish. even though it is still empty. Well here is a flash, when it gets here, it will be the flavor of rotten apples. And talk about making you sick.
The cat is out of the bag... under Pelosi-Care, American citizens who refuse to purchase an Obama-approved health insurance plan will face fines of up to 250,000 dollars and up to five years in jail.
When asked what gave Congress the right to institute such a tyrannical mandate, Democratic Senator Jack Reed actually had the nerve to tell CNS News that it was constitutionally justified.
Why? Because, according to Reed, it was no different than making people “sign up for the draft.”
Got that?
As far as Nancy Pelosi and Barack Hussein Obama and Jack Reed and radical leftists in Congress are concerned, they have every right to force you to purchase a Pelosi-Obama-approved health care plan under penalty of law.
And apparently, like the draft, it's your solemn duty to purchase their so-called health care plan... or else.
If you cross them... if you are not covered by a health care plan that has the Obama-Pelosi Seal Of Approval, the IRS will assess a penalty of up to 2.5 percent and if you resist paying this penalty, you can go to jail for up to five years and/or be fined up to 250,000 dollars.
Congressman Dave Camp, the Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee, put it this way:
“This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail.”
Specifically, when asked for the justification, under the Constitution, for Congress to make the draconian requirement, Reed told CNS News:
“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]."
"Get back to you?" ... on the Constitution? ... Is this man actually a United States Senator? ... it should be obvious, Reed has no idea what's in the Constitution. And it should be equally obvious that leftists like Reed and Pelosi and Barack Hussein Obama have little regard, if any, for the Constitution anyway.
And lastly, it should be painfully obvious exactly why Pelosi-Care (the spawn of ObamaCare) must be stopped.
Oh... one more thing just recently became obvious... it seems Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will try to ram Pelosi- Care down our throats before we even know what hit us after all.
Right after some Senior Democrats claimed last week that so-called "health care reform" would not be resolved in the Senate this year, Reid immediately (and quietly) moved to bring Pelosi-Care to the Senate floor.
Debate will start on Tuesday... even though Reid has not even finalized the Senate version of the legislation.
Whoa... just last week, Reid said, "They want us to do this the right way, not the fast way."
What a turnaround.... Why the rush Harry?
If we're going to stop Pelosi-Care, we must act now, because time is short.
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent, personalized and individual Blast Faxes to Barack Hussein Obama and each and every one of the Democratic and Republican Leaders of the House and Senate.
Tell them that you, and the overwhelming majority of Americans, are tired of the stealth tactics... the intimidation tactics... the deceptions that are being employed to pass Pelosi-Care behind the the American people's back... behind closed-doors... and against the will of the American people.
Tell them that whether it's called ObamaCare... or Pelosi-Care... or anything else for that matter... the overwhelming majority of Americans flat-out reject government-run health care… period. Tell them that no American should be threatened with fines or imprisonment for refusing to purchase a government-regulated commodity (in this case, an inferior government-run health care plan). And finally, remind them that the American people fought a revolution over 200 years ago under similar circumstances.
The cat is out of the bag... under Pelosi-Care, American citizens who refuse to purchase an Obama-approved health insurance plan will face fines of up to 250,000 dollars and up to five years in jail.
When asked what gave Congress the right to institute such a tyrannical mandate, Democratic Senator Jack Reed actually had the nerve to tell CNS News that it was constitutionally justified.
Why? Because, according to Reed, it was no different than making people “sign up for the draft.”
Got that?
As far as Nancy Pelosi and Barack Hussein Obama and Jack Reed and radical leftists in Congress are concerned, they have every right to force you to purchase a Pelosi-Obama-approved health care plan under penalty of law.
And apparently, like the draft, it's your solemn duty to purchase their so-called health care plan... or else.
If you cross them... if you are not covered by a health care plan that has the Obama-Pelosi Seal Of Approval, the IRS will assess a penalty of up to 2.5 percent and if you resist paying this penalty, you can go to jail for up to five years and/or be fined up to 250,000 dollars.
Congressman Dave Camp, the Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee, put it this way:
“This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail.”
Specifically, when asked for the justification, under the Constitution, for Congress to make the draconian requirement, Reed told CNS News:
“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]."
"Get back to you?" ... on the Constitution? ... Is this man actually a United States Senator? ... it should be obvious, Reed has no idea what's in the Constitution. And it should be equally obvious that leftists like Reed and Pelosi and Barack Hussein Obama have little regard, if any, for the Constitution anyway.
And lastly, it should be painfully obvious exactly why Pelosi-Care (the spawn of ObamaCare) must be stopped.
Oh... one more thing just recently became obvious... it seems Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will try to ram Pelosi- Care down our throats before we even know what hit us after all.
Right after some Senior Democrats claimed last week that so-called "health care reform" would not be resolved in the Senate this year, Reid immediately (and quietly) moved to bring Pelosi-Care to the Senate floor.
Debate will start on Tuesday... even though Reid has not even finalized the Senate version of the legislation.
Whoa... just last week, Reid said, "They want us to do this the right way, not the fast way."
What a turnaround.... Why the rush Harry?
If we're going to stop Pelosi-Care, we must act now, because time is short.
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent, personalized and individual Blast Faxes to Barack Hussein Obama and each and every one of the Democratic and Republican Leaders of the House and Senate.
Tell them that you, and the overwhelming majority of Americans, are tired of the stealth tactics... the intimidation tactics... the deceptions that are being employed to pass Pelosi-Care behind the the American people's back... behind closed-doors... and against the will of the American people.
Tell them that whether it's called ObamaCare... or Pelosi-Care... or anything else for that matter... the overwhelming majority of Americans flat-out reject government-run health care… period. Tell them that no American should be threatened with fines or imprisonment for refusing to purchase a government-regulated commodity (in this case, an inferior government-run health care plan). And finally, remind them that the American people fought a revolution over 200 years ago under similar circumstances.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Free Speach
I just got banned from the blog "Crooks and Liers" if it wasn't so sad that one cannot express an opinion and not get sanctioned, I would laugh for even though I did not curse or use any objectionable language, they decided my point of veiw could not be tollerated. That is not the purpose of a blog, it is to exchange veiw points, to argue your side, to hear and maybe learn from the other side. I want any and all who agree or disagree with what I publish, to make their point in the comment box. The site monitor first told me my post had been pulled because it was all in caps. So I redid it and submitted it again. Then I was told I had been banned from the sight. Please feel free to fire away at my postings, but please keep it clean, no swearing. I will tollerate name calling if it does not get into my family relationships. Ok, Ok.
THERE WILL BE NO CHOICE IF HEALTH CARE PASSES
A Declaration of Dependence
By Tom Doheny
Created 11/10/2009 - 15:16
There is an ancient Chinese proverb that says “give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” The proverb encompasses two philosophies of the role of government: nanny state vs. infrastructure. By ramming through the House version of the healthcare bill on Saturday night, the message is clear from the government: “Gone Fishing”.
The government is involved in a delicate tango between convincing the American public that it will have the tools and funding necessary for the healthcare bureaucracy to pay for itself while establishing a system of permanent dependency. It is the latter element that is so troubling that it verges on sinister.
Last week, John Cassidy the left-leaning columnist for the New Yorker Magazine explained the real goals of the healthcare movement. In a surprising admission, he revealed what free market opponents had thought all long: that the eventual goal is to create a permanent middle class dependency on government entitlements. The party pushing these so-called reforms is actually creating a political movement where vast sectors of the population become trapped. The left no longer needs to sugar coat their proposals with false assumptions of fiscal responsibility. This has never been their goal, their goal has been to manage and provide…permanently.
It is now or never for the 21st century socialists. As the tide of public anger and opposition to the healthcare proposals continues to escalate, the only option is to force it through while they are still in power. And as we have seen with government programs of the past fifty years, once it has passed it will never go away.
I’ll leave you with Mr. Cassidy’s own words:
( “But let’s not pretend that it isn’t a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won’t.
Many Democratic insiders know all this, or most of it. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration before it (and many other Administrations before that) is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind. At some point in the future, the fiscal consequences of the reform will have to be dealt with in a more meaningful way, but by then the principle of (near) universal coverage will be well established. Even a twenty-first-century Ronald Reagan will have great difficult overturning it.” )
Write to tdoheny@afphq.org
Source URL: http://www.americansforprosperity.org/node/17895
By Tom Doheny
Created 11/10/2009 - 15:16
There is an ancient Chinese proverb that says “give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” The proverb encompasses two philosophies of the role of government: nanny state vs. infrastructure. By ramming through the House version of the healthcare bill on Saturday night, the message is clear from the government: “Gone Fishing”.
The government is involved in a delicate tango between convincing the American public that it will have the tools and funding necessary for the healthcare bureaucracy to pay for itself while establishing a system of permanent dependency. It is the latter element that is so troubling that it verges on sinister.
Last week, John Cassidy the left-leaning columnist for the New Yorker Magazine explained the real goals of the healthcare movement. In a surprising admission, he revealed what free market opponents had thought all long: that the eventual goal is to create a permanent middle class dependency on government entitlements. The party pushing these so-called reforms is actually creating a political movement where vast sectors of the population become trapped. The left no longer needs to sugar coat their proposals with false assumptions of fiscal responsibility. This has never been their goal, their goal has been to manage and provide…permanently.
It is now or never for the 21st century socialists. As the tide of public anger and opposition to the healthcare proposals continues to escalate, the only option is to force it through while they are still in power. And as we have seen with government programs of the past fifty years, once it has passed it will never go away.
I’ll leave you with Mr. Cassidy’s own words:
( “But let’s not pretend that it isn’t a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won’t.
Many Democratic insiders know all this, or most of it. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration before it (and many other Administrations before that) is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind. At some point in the future, the fiscal consequences of the reform will have to be dealt with in a more meaningful way, but by then the principle of (near) universal coverage will be well established. Even a twenty-first-century Ronald Reagan will have great difficult overturning it.” )
Write to tdoheny@afphq.org
Source URL: http://www.americansforprosperity.org/node/17895
Friday, November 13, 2009
WHAT DO YOU MEAN, GRAFT?
Just another tidbit to think about.
At the top right hand corner of Page 17 of the New York Post of January 24th, 2009 , was a short column entitled “Replacing Michelle” in the National Review “The Week” column.. So here it is, word for word, as it appeared:
Some employees are simply irreplaceable. Take Michelle Obama: The University of Chicago Medical center hired her in 2002 to run “programs for community relations, neighborhood outreach, volunteer recruitment, staff diversity and minority contracting” .
In 2005 the hospital raised her salary from $120,000 to $317,000 - nearly twice what her husband made as a Senator.
Oh did we mention that her husband had just become a US Senator? He sure had. In fact, he requested a $1 million earmark for the University of Chicago Medical Center. Way to network Michelle!
But, now that Mrs. Obama has resigned, the hospital says her position will remain unfilled. How can that be, if the work she did was vital enough to be worth $317,000?
Let me add that Michelle’s position was a part time, 20 hour a week job. And to think they were critical of Blagojevich’ s wife for taking $100,000 in fuzzy real estate commission.
My thoughts: How did this bit of quid pro quo corruption escape the sharp reporters that dug through Sarah Palin’s garbage and kindergarten files? Unbelievable!
I hope this is forwarded so many times that the media will HAVE to cover it. (
At the top right hand corner of Page 17 of the New York Post of January 24th, 2009 , was a short column entitled “Replacing Michelle” in the National Review “The Week” column.. So here it is, word for word, as it appeared:
Some employees are simply irreplaceable. Take Michelle Obama: The University of Chicago Medical center hired her in 2002 to run “programs for community relations, neighborhood outreach, volunteer recruitment, staff diversity and minority contracting” .
In 2005 the hospital raised her salary from $120,000 to $317,000 - nearly twice what her husband made as a Senator.
Oh did we mention that her husband had just become a US Senator? He sure had. In fact, he requested a $1 million earmark for the University of Chicago Medical Center. Way to network Michelle!
But, now that Mrs. Obama has resigned, the hospital says her position will remain unfilled. How can that be, if the work she did was vital enough to be worth $317,000?
Let me add that Michelle’s position was a part time, 20 hour a week job. And to think they were critical of Blagojevich’ s wife for taking $100,000 in fuzzy real estate commission.
My thoughts: How did this bit of quid pro quo corruption escape the sharp reporters that dug through Sarah Palin’s garbage and kindergarten files? Unbelievable!
I hope this is forwarded so many times that the media will HAVE to cover it. (
FORT HOOD, IS THIS A WAKEUP CALL?
THE FOLLOWING IS FROM THE DESK OF FLOYD BROWN, HE IS ACTIVE IN THE IMPEACHMENT OF OBAMA MOVEMENT AND HAS YEARS OF INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING EXPERIENCE.
Please take the time right now to add impeachobama@impeachobamacampaign-news.com to your Contacts List, Buddy List or Safe Senders List so you do not miss a single issue.
I have always enjoyed watching the mainstream media play catch up. It put a smile on my face to see that ABC News was courageous enough to call Major Nidal M. Hasan a Soldier of Allah.
I have been glued to the coverage of the Ft Hood shootings because it shows so clearly why Barack Obama cannot handle the job of president. This is prime material for those of us demanding his impeachment.
Here is what ABC News reported:"United States Army Major Nidal Hasan proclaimed himself a 'soldier of Allah' on private business cards he obtained over the Internet and kept in a box at his apartment near Fort Hood, Texas.Hasan, the alleged perpetrator of last week's fatal shootings in Fort Hood, TX, was charged Thursday with 13 counts of premeditated murder under Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which can carry a sentence up to death or life imprisonment.The cards make no mention of his military affiliation, but underneath his name he listed himself as SoA (SWT). SoA is commonly used on jihadist Web sites as the acronym for Soldier of Allah, according to investigators and experts who have studied such sites. SWT is commonly used by Muslims as an acronym for Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala, Glory to God.'He was making no secret of allegiances,' said former FBI agent Brad Garrett, an ABC News consultant."Funny, those of us following the FT Hood Jihad online learned the tale of the business card on the November 9th just after the shooting, thanks to the excellent work over at the blog Atlas Shrugs. I thank you Pamela Geller even if the arrogant “msm” types at ABC won’t reference your blockbuster early story.Here is a column I penned for WorldNetDaily.com this morning on the whole Ft Hood bloodbath and what it says about BHO. I hope you enjoy it.Jihad: Not in BHO's lexiconPresident Obama needs to throw his "Muslims can do no evil" rose-colored glasses off and see the real world. After listening to remarks by Barack Hussein Obama in Fort Hood, Texas, we were struck by how unemotional he is to tragedy. That is, Obama appears to be genuinely mourning the victims of the brutal jihad-inspired massacre that left 13 dead; but even now, he refuses to understand the gravity of the events and underlying reasons that lead to this terrorist attack on America's valiant soldiers.To Obama, terrorism and Islamist jihad are words stricken from his presidential lexicon. Without these words, you cannot adequately understand these brutal events on America's homeland. Jihad flows from very specific Islamic teachings. This attack was a premeditated act of unspeakable terrorism, including the ritual pre-jihad (pre-attack) cleansing routine caught in part on convenience store cameras. Politically correct denial of Islam's role in this bloodletting is foolishness and dangerous. And Obama and his administration will not be able to protect us against further similar acts if they continually refuse to admit reality.What is the evidence to substantiate our claims?The FBI knew that Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had communicated with a radical, extremist imam nearly a year before the attack. Yet, they wrongly determined the Army officer was no threat. Why was he categorized as a nonthreat? What official or officials cleared him? For what reason did they clear him?We have learned from Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, that the Obama administration knew months ago that Hasan and the radical Yemeni imam "had exchanged 10 to 20 e-mails."The imam influencing the Muslim shooter is Anwar al-Awlaki. He was released from a jail in Yemen last year. Al-Awlaki writes an anti-American blog that repeatedly denounces the war on terror. He presided at the mosque in Falls Church, Va., that Hasan attended, a center known for radical Islamic teaching.When will these radical mosques on American soil be shut down? We expect radical pro-jihad teaching and Islamic-fascism in the Middle East, but we don't need to accept it in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. We all enjoy freedom of religion, but not the freedom to incite others to violence, which is exactly what is happening in some American mosques.The news that FBI Director Robert Mueller ordered "an internal investigation into whether the agency mishandled an 'assessment' of Hasan" is not enough. This investigation shouldn't be handled internally. We need an independent investigation to assess why the Obama administration's intelligence was so inadequate. No cover-ups to protect themselves this time. They're paid to protect American citizens, not themselves.Why was no FBI agent still tracking Islamic extremist Hasan's activities and website postings?Another scary thought. What other targets of investigations have been ruled nonthreats by these same officials who misjudged Hasan?The Army is under intense pressure from liberals to become politically correct proponents of Islam and other so-called downtrodden minorities. Servicing pet causes of the Washington elite is not, nor has it ever been, the proper role of the military. They are a fighting machine with the very specific job of killing enemies. It is imperative that Americans be better informed about how the Obama administration is changing the military and allowing it to be infiltrated by Islamists.A number of complaints were made to commanding Army officers about Hasan. What officer in the Army ignored those complaints and cleared Hasan for duty? Since Hasan is a psychiatrist, what was he saying to American soldiers when he counseled them? According to the Washington Post, Hasan "warned a roomful of senior Army physicians a year and a half ago that to avoid 'adverse events,' the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars against other Muslims. As a senior-year psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Maj. Nidal M. Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic of his choosing as a culminating exercise of the residency program. Instead, in late June 2007, he stood before his supervisors and about 25 other mental health staff members and lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan." Clearly, the Army cannot say they didn't know his views. The innocent souls murdered at Fort Hood will only rest in peace when the politically correct thought police who protected Hasan are court-martialed by the Army and Obama trashes his rose-colored glasses while he is president.
Warm regards, Floyd Brown
ImpeachObamaCampaign.com is a project of the Policy Issues Institute.Contributions are not deductible for tax purposes.30011 Ivy Glenn Dr., Suite 223Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
Please take the time right now to add impeachobama@impeachobamacampaign-news.com to your Contacts List, Buddy List or Safe Senders List so you do not miss a single issue.
I have always enjoyed watching the mainstream media play catch up. It put a smile on my face to see that ABC News was courageous enough to call Major Nidal M. Hasan a Soldier of Allah.
I have been glued to the coverage of the Ft Hood shootings because it shows so clearly why Barack Obama cannot handle the job of president. This is prime material for those of us demanding his impeachment.
Here is what ABC News reported:"United States Army Major Nidal Hasan proclaimed himself a 'soldier of Allah' on private business cards he obtained over the Internet and kept in a box at his apartment near Fort Hood, Texas.Hasan, the alleged perpetrator of last week's fatal shootings in Fort Hood, TX, was charged Thursday with 13 counts of premeditated murder under Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which can carry a sentence up to death or life imprisonment.The cards make no mention of his military affiliation, but underneath his name he listed himself as SoA (SWT). SoA is commonly used on jihadist Web sites as the acronym for Soldier of Allah, according to investigators and experts who have studied such sites. SWT is commonly used by Muslims as an acronym for Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala, Glory to God.'He was making no secret of allegiances,' said former FBI agent Brad Garrett, an ABC News consultant."Funny, those of us following the FT Hood Jihad online learned the tale of the business card on the November 9th just after the shooting, thanks to the excellent work over at the blog Atlas Shrugs. I thank you Pamela Geller even if the arrogant “msm” types at ABC won’t reference your blockbuster early story.Here is a column I penned for WorldNetDaily.com this morning on the whole Ft Hood bloodbath and what it says about BHO. I hope you enjoy it.Jihad: Not in BHO's lexiconPresident Obama needs to throw his "Muslims can do no evil" rose-colored glasses off and see the real world. After listening to remarks by Barack Hussein Obama in Fort Hood, Texas, we were struck by how unemotional he is to tragedy. That is, Obama appears to be genuinely mourning the victims of the brutal jihad-inspired massacre that left 13 dead; but even now, he refuses to understand the gravity of the events and underlying reasons that lead to this terrorist attack on America's valiant soldiers.To Obama, terrorism and Islamist jihad are words stricken from his presidential lexicon. Without these words, you cannot adequately understand these brutal events on America's homeland. Jihad flows from very specific Islamic teachings. This attack was a premeditated act of unspeakable terrorism, including the ritual pre-jihad (pre-attack) cleansing routine caught in part on convenience store cameras. Politically correct denial of Islam's role in this bloodletting is foolishness and dangerous. And Obama and his administration will not be able to protect us against further similar acts if they continually refuse to admit reality.What is the evidence to substantiate our claims?The FBI knew that Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had communicated with a radical, extremist imam nearly a year before the attack. Yet, they wrongly determined the Army officer was no threat. Why was he categorized as a nonthreat? What official or officials cleared him? For what reason did they clear him?We have learned from Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, that the Obama administration knew months ago that Hasan and the radical Yemeni imam "had exchanged 10 to 20 e-mails."The imam influencing the Muslim shooter is Anwar al-Awlaki. He was released from a jail in Yemen last year. Al-Awlaki writes an anti-American blog that repeatedly denounces the war on terror. He presided at the mosque in Falls Church, Va., that Hasan attended, a center known for radical Islamic teaching.When will these radical mosques on American soil be shut down? We expect radical pro-jihad teaching and Islamic-fascism in the Middle East, but we don't need to accept it in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. We all enjoy freedom of religion, but not the freedom to incite others to violence, which is exactly what is happening in some American mosques.The news that FBI Director Robert Mueller ordered "an internal investigation into whether the agency mishandled an 'assessment' of Hasan" is not enough. This investigation shouldn't be handled internally. We need an independent investigation to assess why the Obama administration's intelligence was so inadequate. No cover-ups to protect themselves this time. They're paid to protect American citizens, not themselves.Why was no FBI agent still tracking Islamic extremist Hasan's activities and website postings?Another scary thought. What other targets of investigations have been ruled nonthreats by these same officials who misjudged Hasan?The Army is under intense pressure from liberals to become politically correct proponents of Islam and other so-called downtrodden minorities. Servicing pet causes of the Washington elite is not, nor has it ever been, the proper role of the military. They are a fighting machine with the very specific job of killing enemies. It is imperative that Americans be better informed about how the Obama administration is changing the military and allowing it to be infiltrated by Islamists.A number of complaints were made to commanding Army officers about Hasan. What officer in the Army ignored those complaints and cleared Hasan for duty? Since Hasan is a psychiatrist, what was he saying to American soldiers when he counseled them? According to the Washington Post, Hasan "warned a roomful of senior Army physicians a year and a half ago that to avoid 'adverse events,' the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars against other Muslims. As a senior-year psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Maj. Nidal M. Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic of his choosing as a culminating exercise of the residency program. Instead, in late June 2007, he stood before his supervisors and about 25 other mental health staff members and lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan." Clearly, the Army cannot say they didn't know his views. The innocent souls murdered at Fort Hood will only rest in peace when the politically correct thought police who protected Hasan are court-martialed by the Army and Obama trashes his rose-colored glasses while he is president.
Warm regards, Floyd Brown
ImpeachObamaCampaign.com is a project of the Policy Issues Institute.Contributions are not deductible for tax purposes.30011 Ivy Glenn Dr., Suite 223Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
Thursday, November 12, 2009
TERRORIST HITS FORT HOOD
I AGREE WITH MR. MORRIS, THIS WAS AN ACT OF TERRORISIM AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS KEPT THOSE WHO HAD SUSPICIONS FROM COMEING FORTH AND THAT COST MANY FAMILIES, THOSE WHO WHERE VICTIMS AND THOSE WHO REALISE WHAT THE IMPORT OF THIS EVENT REALLY MEANS. NONE OF US ARE SAFE. WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PROFILING ANYMORE, IT IS NOT POLITICALY CORRECT, SURE THING, IT IS NOT POLITICALY CORRECT, BUT IT WORKS, IT WORKS SO WELL THAT THAT IS THE REASON IT GREW INTO COMMON USE BY POLICE DEPARTMENTS AT EVERY LEVEL NOW IT WILL GET YOU A LAW SUIT TO EVEN LOOK LIKE YOUR PROFILING. NOW THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE IF THERE HAD NOT BEEN THE FEAR OF BEING ACCUSED OF PROFILING, A LOT OF LIVES WOULD BE BETTER TODAY. PROFILING WORKS, SORRY BUT IT DOES. THE DEGREE OF ACCURACY, THE RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. SO HERE IS DICK MORRIS AND WHAT HE HAS TO SAY.
Dick Morris: Obama Handcuffs Terror Probers
Thursday, November 12, 2009 5:06 AMBy: Jim Meyers
Article Font Size
Veteran political analyst Dick Morris tells Newsmax that the Obama administration is "deliberately mischaracterizing" the Fort Hood massacre by refusing to admit it was a terrorist attack.
Morris also said the failure to recognize the danger posed by Major Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of the killings, points to "Obama's failures in the war on terror."
Newsmax.TV's Kathleen Walter asked why President Obama, when he visited Fort Hood on Tuesday, stopped short of calling the massacre of 13 Americans an act of terrorism.
See Video: Dick Morris looks at how the Obama administration is dodging the real meaning behind the Fort Hood massacre - Click Here Now
"I think that ever since the gunfire ceased, the administration has been engaged in a shameful attempt to disguise the true nature of this attack," Morris said. "It was a terrorist attack.
"The difference between terror and murder does not relate to whether you're part of an organized group or not. It relates to the motivation behind the killing. If the motivation is political, it's terrorism. If it's not, it's just ordinary vanilla murder.
"Obviously this guy was motivated by the same passions that animate the terrorists that are attacking the United States ... Yet the administration from the very first second spoke of it as an act of violence. In his statement [Tuesday] Obama speaks of it as an act of violence, and then says no faith justifies this — as if this was a religious expression" and not a "political, terrorist attack.
"This was not religious, this was terrorism. And by failing to call it what it really is, Obama is doing a serious disservice to the men and women who gave their lives."
Walter noted that the FBI launched an internal review of how it handled early information about Hasan, and asked how this attack could occur eight years after 9/11.
"I think it's because Obama, from the very minute he's taken office, has second-guessed and handcuffed and marginalized those who are trying to keep us safe," Morris responded.
"He has investigators investigating their every action. Every time they interrogate a terror suspect, they take their careers — if not their lives — into their hands. And the fear of political correctness, the fear of opening a can of worms, of being accused of racial profiling, obviously had a big impact in stopping the FBI from passing this information on to the Army or from acting on it.
"We're witnessing the fruits of Obama's failures in the war on terror. And that's precisely why he doesn't want it to be called a terrorist act. He doesn't want us to realize that he is responsible, at least on his watch, for the first attack on our soil since 9/11...
"This entire process of spinning and deliberately mischaracterizing the attack is insidious and horrendous.
"I think the other fact we need to focus on is that these killings did not take place in a shopping mall or a high school. They took place on a military base. And if we don't have good security at a military base, where can we possibly have good security?"
Regarding the in-depth probe being called for by members of Congress, Morris declared: "I think we clearly need a probe. But I think what we need is an attitude adjustment, where we stop vilifying those who are trying to defend us and stop bending over backwards to accord every kind of sensitivity and presumption of innocence to those who are trying to attack us and kill us.
"We are demeaning the memory of these brave men and women by pretending that they were shot by an act of a psychotic killer as opposed to a military attack by a terrorist."
Dick Morris: Obama Handcuffs Terror Probers
Thursday, November 12, 2009 5:06 AMBy: Jim Meyers
Article Font Size
Veteran political analyst Dick Morris tells Newsmax that the Obama administration is "deliberately mischaracterizing" the Fort Hood massacre by refusing to admit it was a terrorist attack.
Morris also said the failure to recognize the danger posed by Major Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of the killings, points to "Obama's failures in the war on terror."
Newsmax.TV's Kathleen Walter asked why President Obama, when he visited Fort Hood on Tuesday, stopped short of calling the massacre of 13 Americans an act of terrorism.
See Video: Dick Morris looks at how the Obama administration is dodging the real meaning behind the Fort Hood massacre - Click Here Now
"I think that ever since the gunfire ceased, the administration has been engaged in a shameful attempt to disguise the true nature of this attack," Morris said. "It was a terrorist attack.
"The difference between terror and murder does not relate to whether you're part of an organized group or not. It relates to the motivation behind the killing. If the motivation is political, it's terrorism. If it's not, it's just ordinary vanilla murder.
"Obviously this guy was motivated by the same passions that animate the terrorists that are attacking the United States ... Yet the administration from the very first second spoke of it as an act of violence. In his statement [Tuesday] Obama speaks of it as an act of violence, and then says no faith justifies this — as if this was a religious expression" and not a "political, terrorist attack.
"This was not religious, this was terrorism. And by failing to call it what it really is, Obama is doing a serious disservice to the men and women who gave their lives."
Walter noted that the FBI launched an internal review of how it handled early information about Hasan, and asked how this attack could occur eight years after 9/11.
"I think it's because Obama, from the very minute he's taken office, has second-guessed and handcuffed and marginalized those who are trying to keep us safe," Morris responded.
"He has investigators investigating their every action. Every time they interrogate a terror suspect, they take their careers — if not their lives — into their hands. And the fear of political correctness, the fear of opening a can of worms, of being accused of racial profiling, obviously had a big impact in stopping the FBI from passing this information on to the Army or from acting on it.
"We're witnessing the fruits of Obama's failures in the war on terror. And that's precisely why he doesn't want it to be called a terrorist act. He doesn't want us to realize that he is responsible, at least on his watch, for the first attack on our soil since 9/11...
"This entire process of spinning and deliberately mischaracterizing the attack is insidious and horrendous.
"I think the other fact we need to focus on is that these killings did not take place in a shopping mall or a high school. They took place on a military base. And if we don't have good security at a military base, where can we possibly have good security?"
Regarding the in-depth probe being called for by members of Congress, Morris declared: "I think we clearly need a probe. But I think what we need is an attitude adjustment, where we stop vilifying those who are trying to defend us and stop bending over backwards to accord every kind of sensitivity and presumption of innocence to those who are trying to attack us and kill us.
"We are demeaning the memory of these brave men and women by pretending that they were shot by an act of a psychotic killer as opposed to a military attack by a terrorist."
OPEN AND TRANSPARENT, OH REALLY!???
I DID NOT WRITE THIS, I WISH I HAD THE CONNECTIONS TO EXPOSE THESE THINGS MYSELF. THIS IS TAKEN FROM A CNS NEWS RELEASE. SORRY NO DRIVE-BY MEDIA HERE. IT IS GOOD TO CATCH THEM WITH THEIR PANTS DOWN.
The acting inspector general of AmeriCorps said he shredded White House documents at the request of an agency press spokeswoman that pertained to the controversial firing of the previous inspector general, who was ousted after investigating a political ally of President Obama.The e-mail message from agency spokeswoman Ranit Schmelzer seemed urgent, as she wrote: “WH documents were sent in error. Can you please destroy them? And can you confirm you receive this e-mail?” Acting IG Kenneth Bach responded 13 minutes later writing, “Confirmed, documents were shredded.”The email exchanges between Bach and Schmelzer, as well as other documents pertaining to the firing of the AmeriCorps inspector general, were obtained by CNSNews.com through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.The documents referenced in the Bach-Schmelzer email exchange included a draft of a letter to be signed by President Obama that would be sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to inform her that Obama was firing Gerald Walpin as inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), which runs AmeriCorps, and also a set of talking points to be used in explaining to the media why Walpin was being fired.An inspector general is the designated watchdog for a public agency who is supposed to have autonomy from the agency’s officials in guarding against waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars.When interviewed by CNSNews.com, Walpin said he thought a request from an agency spokeswoman to an inspector general to destroy documents and an inspector general’s compliance with such a request to be “shocking.”“It’s an erroneous view that an IG should accept orders from the agency that it’s overseeing,” Walpin said. “I want to make clear that I think that Ken Bach is honest. It’s just that I don’t think he had the experience and background to understand that it’s wrong to accept instructions to destroy something that was given to the files of the inspector general’s office, and those instructions come from the entity that he should be overseeing.”Bach had led an investigative team at the Interior Department’s inspector general’s office prior to joining the inspector general's office at CNCS, according to his biography posted on the CNCS Web site. Earlier, he had served for more than 20 year in the U.S. Army working as a Criminal Investigative Division agent focusing on white collar crime.Walpin is suing in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia to get his job back. He said the request to Bach to destroy the documents indicates AmeriCorps’ “recognition that they’re doing something wrong and they did not want to have a paper trail of it. To me that is an admission of their wrongdoing.”The firing happened on June 10 and documents show that the White House already had a media strategy worked out to respond to questions about the firing. Before being fired, Walpin had aggressively investigated Kevin Johnson, director of the Sacramento, Calif.-based charitable organization St. Hope Academy. Walpin determined that Johnson, a political ally of President Obama, had misused some of the grant money the group had received from AmeriCorps. Johnson later was elected mayor of Sacramento.After the ouster of Walpin, both Republican and Democratic members of Congress demanded that the White House provide a reason for firing Walpin. Under the Inspector General Reform Act, the president must notify Congress 30 days before firing an IG and provide a specific reason. To comply with the 30 day rule, the CNCS put Walpin on a 30 day suspension from June 10 before the firing became official.President Obama’s letter to Congress explaining the firing said only that he had lost confidence in Walpin. Republican members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are investigating the matter and preparing a staff report on the issue. U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown of the Eastern District of California alleged that Walpin acted improperly in the investigation of St. Hope for talking publicly about the case too often. The Counsel of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, the oversight organization of inspectors general who looked into the matter at Brown’s urging, determined that Walpin’s conduct was satisfactory. But the counsel’s ruling came after the firing. “We know that how Mr. Walpin has acted certainly has been deemed adequate and sufficient,” Kurt Bardella, spokesman for Republican oversight committee members, told CNSNews.com. “What we still have questions on are the things you are looking into obviously here and just the overall issue of what the White House has said and what the circumstances actually were. We’re trying to reconcile that.”On the day the White House notified Walpin that he was fired, Nicola Goren, the chief executive officer for AmeriCorps e-mailed board members to notify them that Walpin was out and that Kenneth Bach, the chief technology officer for the Office of Inspector General, would become the acting inspector general. That same day, White House Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest e-mailed the draft letter to Pelosi and the White House talking points to Schmelzer, the corporation’s director of the office of public affairs. The draft letter and talking points showed that firing Walpin had been planned for some time. The draft letter was dated June 5, five days before the firing took place.“I should have forwarded this to you last week,” Earnest wrote Schmelzer. “It’s the basic language that we’ve agreed upon that should be helpful to you as you draft a news release today. I’m in a meeting in the morning--but you can get me on bberry at this e-mail address or on my cell at [redacted].”Schmelzer told Earnest in a return e-mail that she had talked with an Associated Press reporter.“She wants to know what the circumstances were,” Schmelzer wrote of the AP reporter. “I stuck to our TP [talking points] on background (as an official from CNCS). I assume she’ll call the WH tomorrow for comment if she writes. Let me know if you have Qs.”Earnest responded at 9:58 p.m., “I’ll let u know if I hear from her.”The talking points that Earnest sent on June 10 had a headline of “CONFIDENTIAL: FOR BRIEFING PURPOSES ONLY.” They went on to say that Walpin had “delivered a disastrous presentation” at a May 19 CNCS board meeting and that he “displayed excessively antagonistic behavior to agency grantees and espoused a ‘gotcha’ mentality.” The White House talking points also criticized Walpin for living in New York and working in Washington, and pointed to the ethics complaint made against Walpin by Brown regarding Walpin’s investigation of Johnson’s non-profit group, St. Hope Academy because Walpin “spoke with the press, inappropriately, during the pendency of the investigation.” At 8:33 a.m. on June 11, Schmelzer forwarded the talking points to Bach at the IG’s office. She copied that message to Goren and the corporation’s General Counsel Frank Trinity. “Ken--here are the WH materials in case they’re helpful.”At 9:10 a.m., she sent another e-mail to Bach. “The send [sic] two WH documents were sent in error,” Schmelzer’s e-mail to Bach said. “Can you please destroy them? And can you confirm that you receive this e-mail?”At 9:23 a.m., Bach replied: “Confirmed, the documents were shredded.”At 9:25 a.m., Schmelzer forwarded the message about the shredded documents to Trinity, the general counsel for AmeriCorps. Schmelzer sent a statement to CNSNews.com in response to questions seeking clarity about why the documents sent to Bach needed to be destroyed.“The documents in question were the same ones that were provided in the FOIA [to CNSNews.com],” Schmelzer said in the statement, referring to the fact the White House talking points and the draft letter to Pelosi that she had sent to Bach had been included in the FOIA release.“I mistakenly forwarded these documents to Kenneth Bach,” said Schmelzer. “I advised him that the documents had been forwarded in error and requested that he not keep them as they were not intended for his receipt. Mr. Bach complied with the request. The agency, however, retained the documents.”Bach spokesman Bill Hillburg said the IG’s office had no comment on the e-mail exchange. “I think you would have to talk to Ms. Schmelzer on that,” Hillburg told CNSNews.com. “Those aren’t documents in our control. I’m familiar with the documents. I think we’ve answered all the FOIA requests, everything that we have. I don’t believe those are ours. So you would have to ask her. I’m not familiar with that.”Asked specifically why Bach would shred documents at the request of AmeriCorps’ public affairs office, Hillburg responded, “We don’t have any comment on anything like that.”AmeriCorps General Counsel Trinity could not be reached for comment.Eisen, the White House ethics counsel, said in a letter to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that was sent on June 16 (six days after Walpin was fired) that the CNCS board wanted Walpin out because at the “May 20, 2009, board meeting Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the board to question his capacity to serve.”The issue of Walpin’s behavior at the board meeting, which was first publicly raised in Eisen’s letter to the Homeland Security Committee, had also been included in the White House talking points that Schmelzer sent on June 11 to acting AmeriCorps IG Bach.
FUNNY I THOUGHT OBAMA SAID HE LOST CONFIDENCE IN WALPIN, NOT THE CNCS BOARD. LETS GET OUR STORIES STRAIGHT OK?
The acting inspector general of AmeriCorps said he shredded White House documents at the request of an agency press spokeswoman that pertained to the controversial firing of the previous inspector general, who was ousted after investigating a political ally of President Obama.The e-mail message from agency spokeswoman Ranit Schmelzer seemed urgent, as she wrote: “WH documents were sent in error. Can you please destroy them? And can you confirm you receive this e-mail?” Acting IG Kenneth Bach responded 13 minutes later writing, “Confirmed, documents were shredded.”The email exchanges between Bach and Schmelzer, as well as other documents pertaining to the firing of the AmeriCorps inspector general, were obtained by CNSNews.com through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.The documents referenced in the Bach-Schmelzer email exchange included a draft of a letter to be signed by President Obama that would be sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to inform her that Obama was firing Gerald Walpin as inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), which runs AmeriCorps, and also a set of talking points to be used in explaining to the media why Walpin was being fired.An inspector general is the designated watchdog for a public agency who is supposed to have autonomy from the agency’s officials in guarding against waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars.When interviewed by CNSNews.com, Walpin said he thought a request from an agency spokeswoman to an inspector general to destroy documents and an inspector general’s compliance with such a request to be “shocking.”“It’s an erroneous view that an IG should accept orders from the agency that it’s overseeing,” Walpin said. “I want to make clear that I think that Ken Bach is honest. It’s just that I don’t think he had the experience and background to understand that it’s wrong to accept instructions to destroy something that was given to the files of the inspector general’s office, and those instructions come from the entity that he should be overseeing.”Bach had led an investigative team at the Interior Department’s inspector general’s office prior to joining the inspector general's office at CNCS, according to his biography posted on the CNCS Web site. Earlier, he had served for more than 20 year in the U.S. Army working as a Criminal Investigative Division agent focusing on white collar crime.Walpin is suing in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia to get his job back. He said the request to Bach to destroy the documents indicates AmeriCorps’ “recognition that they’re doing something wrong and they did not want to have a paper trail of it. To me that is an admission of their wrongdoing.”The firing happened on June 10 and documents show that the White House already had a media strategy worked out to respond to questions about the firing. Before being fired, Walpin had aggressively investigated Kevin Johnson, director of the Sacramento, Calif.-based charitable organization St. Hope Academy. Walpin determined that Johnson, a political ally of President Obama, had misused some of the grant money the group had received from AmeriCorps. Johnson later was elected mayor of Sacramento.After the ouster of Walpin, both Republican and Democratic members of Congress demanded that the White House provide a reason for firing Walpin. Under the Inspector General Reform Act, the president must notify Congress 30 days before firing an IG and provide a specific reason. To comply with the 30 day rule, the CNCS put Walpin on a 30 day suspension from June 10 before the firing became official.President Obama’s letter to Congress explaining the firing said only that he had lost confidence in Walpin. Republican members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are investigating the matter and preparing a staff report on the issue. U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown of the Eastern District of California alleged that Walpin acted improperly in the investigation of St. Hope for talking publicly about the case too often. The Counsel of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, the oversight organization of inspectors general who looked into the matter at Brown’s urging, determined that Walpin’s conduct was satisfactory. But the counsel’s ruling came after the firing. “We know that how Mr. Walpin has acted certainly has been deemed adequate and sufficient,” Kurt Bardella, spokesman for Republican oversight committee members, told CNSNews.com. “What we still have questions on are the things you are looking into obviously here and just the overall issue of what the White House has said and what the circumstances actually were. We’re trying to reconcile that.”On the day the White House notified Walpin that he was fired, Nicola Goren, the chief executive officer for AmeriCorps e-mailed board members to notify them that Walpin was out and that Kenneth Bach, the chief technology officer for the Office of Inspector General, would become the acting inspector general. That same day, White House Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest e-mailed the draft letter to Pelosi and the White House talking points to Schmelzer, the corporation’s director of the office of public affairs. The draft letter and talking points showed that firing Walpin had been planned for some time. The draft letter was dated June 5, five days before the firing took place.“I should have forwarded this to you last week,” Earnest wrote Schmelzer. “It’s the basic language that we’ve agreed upon that should be helpful to you as you draft a news release today. I’m in a meeting in the morning--but you can get me on bberry at this e-mail address or on my cell at [redacted].”Schmelzer told Earnest in a return e-mail that she had talked with an Associated Press reporter.“She wants to know what the circumstances were,” Schmelzer wrote of the AP reporter. “I stuck to our TP [talking points] on background (as an official from CNCS). I assume she’ll call the WH tomorrow for comment if she writes. Let me know if you have Qs.”Earnest responded at 9:58 p.m., “I’ll let u know if I hear from her.”The talking points that Earnest sent on June 10 had a headline of “CONFIDENTIAL: FOR BRIEFING PURPOSES ONLY.” They went on to say that Walpin had “delivered a disastrous presentation” at a May 19 CNCS board meeting and that he “displayed excessively antagonistic behavior to agency grantees and espoused a ‘gotcha’ mentality.” The White House talking points also criticized Walpin for living in New York and working in Washington, and pointed to the ethics complaint made against Walpin by Brown regarding Walpin’s investigation of Johnson’s non-profit group, St. Hope Academy because Walpin “spoke with the press, inappropriately, during the pendency of the investigation.” At 8:33 a.m. on June 11, Schmelzer forwarded the talking points to Bach at the IG’s office. She copied that message to Goren and the corporation’s General Counsel Frank Trinity. “Ken--here are the WH materials in case they’re helpful.”At 9:10 a.m., she sent another e-mail to Bach. “The send [sic] two WH documents were sent in error,” Schmelzer’s e-mail to Bach said. “Can you please destroy them? And can you confirm that you receive this e-mail?”At 9:23 a.m., Bach replied: “Confirmed, the documents were shredded.”At 9:25 a.m., Schmelzer forwarded the message about the shredded documents to Trinity, the general counsel for AmeriCorps. Schmelzer sent a statement to CNSNews.com in response to questions seeking clarity about why the documents sent to Bach needed to be destroyed.“The documents in question were the same ones that were provided in the FOIA [to CNSNews.com],” Schmelzer said in the statement, referring to the fact the White House talking points and the draft letter to Pelosi that she had sent to Bach had been included in the FOIA release.“I mistakenly forwarded these documents to Kenneth Bach,” said Schmelzer. “I advised him that the documents had been forwarded in error and requested that he not keep them as they were not intended for his receipt. Mr. Bach complied with the request. The agency, however, retained the documents.”Bach spokesman Bill Hillburg said the IG’s office had no comment on the e-mail exchange. “I think you would have to talk to Ms. Schmelzer on that,” Hillburg told CNSNews.com. “Those aren’t documents in our control. I’m familiar with the documents. I think we’ve answered all the FOIA requests, everything that we have. I don’t believe those are ours. So you would have to ask her. I’m not familiar with that.”Asked specifically why Bach would shred documents at the request of AmeriCorps’ public affairs office, Hillburg responded, “We don’t have any comment on anything like that.”AmeriCorps General Counsel Trinity could not be reached for comment.Eisen, the White House ethics counsel, said in a letter to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that was sent on June 16 (six days after Walpin was fired) that the CNCS board wanted Walpin out because at the “May 20, 2009, board meeting Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the board to question his capacity to serve.”The issue of Walpin’s behavior at the board meeting, which was first publicly raised in Eisen’s letter to the Homeland Security Committee, had also been included in the White House talking points that Schmelzer sent on June 11 to acting AmeriCorps IG Bach.
FUNNY I THOUGHT OBAMA SAID HE LOST CONFIDENCE IN WALPIN, NOT THE CNCS BOARD. LETS GET OUR STORIES STRAIGHT OK?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
TIDBITS
SOME NEWS YOU WON'T SEE ON TV. AND SOME SITES TO CHECK MORE FUN AND GAMES.
More than 200 amendments were rejected by the House Rules Committee ahead of Saturday’s vote on the Democrats’ health care bill, Eleven of those rejected amendments would have required members of Congress and other government officials to be enrolled in the same federal insurance plan proposed for the American people. "If Congress forces our constituents into a public option plan over time, then members of Congress should be expected to do the same," Rep. Howard McKeon (R-Calif.) told CNSNews.com.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) told CNSNews.com that the health care bill pushed by the Democratic House leadership will "shred the Constitution" and that Democrats have not given Republicans "any time to showcase" their ideas on health care reform. "I mean, the thing we need to do right now is just point out how ugly the Pelosi bill is," Hoekstra told CNSNews.com at a Nov. 5 rally on Capitol Hill to protest the Democrats’ health care bill.
Virginia’s Republican Governor-elect Bob McDonnell says his administration will not participate in a government-run health insurance plan, if one is passed by Congress and signed into law. He also urged other governors to "stand up" against federal proposals if they are not good for their states.
Thousands of Americans opposed to the Democrats’ health care plan marched on Capitol Hill Thursday, urging lawmakers to "kill the bill." Among the speakers at the rally was Hollywood actor Jon Voight who told CNSNews.com he does not believe the Constitution authorizes Congress to require individuals to purchase health insurance. He also said there are "a lot of things that are unconstitutional" going on in Congress.
Democrats Raise Alarms Over Costs of Health Bills
'Fuzzy math' could drive health care bill's cost higher
US congressman won grants for agencies linked to his wife
More than 200 amendments were rejected by the House Rules Committee ahead of Saturday’s vote on the Democrats’ health care bill, Eleven of those rejected amendments would have required members of Congress and other government officials to be enrolled in the same federal insurance plan proposed for the American people. "If Congress forces our constituents into a public option plan over time, then members of Congress should be expected to do the same," Rep. Howard McKeon (R-Calif.) told CNSNews.com.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) told CNSNews.com that the health care bill pushed by the Democratic House leadership will "shred the Constitution" and that Democrats have not given Republicans "any time to showcase" their ideas on health care reform. "I mean, the thing we need to do right now is just point out how ugly the Pelosi bill is," Hoekstra told CNSNews.com at a Nov. 5 rally on Capitol Hill to protest the Democrats’ health care bill.
Virginia’s Republican Governor-elect Bob McDonnell says his administration will not participate in a government-run health insurance plan, if one is passed by Congress and signed into law. He also urged other governors to "stand up" against federal proposals if they are not good for their states.
Thousands of Americans opposed to the Democrats’ health care plan marched on Capitol Hill Thursday, urging lawmakers to "kill the bill." Among the speakers at the rally was Hollywood actor Jon Voight who told CNSNews.com he does not believe the Constitution authorizes Congress to require individuals to purchase health insurance. He also said there are "a lot of things that are unconstitutional" going on in Congress.
Democrats Raise Alarms Over Costs of Health Bills
'Fuzzy math' could drive health care bill's cost higher
US congressman won grants for agencies linked to his wife
Monday, November 9, 2009
Endorsements, What the Bribe Was
What the Bribe Was;
As the suicidal Democratic congressmen proceed to rubber-stamp the Obama healthcare reform despite the drubbing their party took in the '09 elections, the president trotted out the endorsements of the AMA and the AARP to stimulate support. But these – and the other endorsements – his package has received are all bought and paid for.
Here are the deals:
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 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.
Insurance companies got access to 40 million potential new customers. But when the Senate Finance Committee lowered the fine that would be imposed on those who don't buy insurance from $3,500 to $1,500, the insurance companies jumped ship and now oppose the bill, albeit for the worst of motives.
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.
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.
As the suicidal Democratic congressmen proceed to rubber-stamp the Obama healthcare reform despite the drubbing their party took in the '09 elections, the president trotted out the endorsements of the AMA and the AARP to stimulate support. But these – and the other endorsements – his package has received are all bought and paid for.
Here are the deals:
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 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.
Insurance companies got access to 40 million potential new customers. But when the Senate Finance Committee lowered the fine that would be imposed on those who don't buy insurance from $3,500 to $1,500, the insurance companies jumped ship and now oppose the bill, albeit for the worst of motives.
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.
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.
BOW DOWN " OBAMA" TO "ALLAH"
Speaking out against Islam could put YOU in jeopardy.
Sounds ridiculous, but it's true.
The United Nations (U.N.) is currently considering a ''Defamation of Religions'' resolution being pushed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the largest group of nations within the U.N.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), comprised of 57 Muslim nations, has intensified its efforts - vigorously pushing the U.N. to vote yet again on a cleverly worded ''tolerance'' resolution, which would criminalize the proclamation of the Gospel!
The resolution would criminalize the proclamation of the Gospel worldwide - an issue with such international ramifications, we must respond with forcefully. A minister behind the pulpit of his church would not be able to tell his congregation the message of the Gospel for fear of being jailed for, by inferance, that Islamic teaching is a lie if the Gospel he is teaching is true, therefore he has defamed the Islamic religion by speaking hsi belief in the gospel.
We cannot let Christianity and evangelism be criminalized - not now, not ever.
It's painfully clear - the radical Islam movement is dedicated to the destruction of Christianity ... and Christians. We are seeing worldwide persecution of Christians as part of the radical Muslim mission to ''take the world for Islam'' by purging Christianity from the face of the earth.
Not just in faraway countries. Worldwide. Christians are being burned alive, tortured ... homes looted ... churches destroyed ... shootings, bombings ... it's outrageous.
And to think that the U.N. could fan the anti-Christian flames by voting in favor of the OIC's resolution criminalizing the proclamation of the Gospel ... that's unimaginable.
Sounds ridiculous, but it's true.
The United Nations (U.N.) is currently considering a ''Defamation of Religions'' resolution being pushed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the largest group of nations within the U.N.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), comprised of 57 Muslim nations, has intensified its efforts - vigorously pushing the U.N. to vote yet again on a cleverly worded ''tolerance'' resolution, which would criminalize the proclamation of the Gospel!
The resolution would criminalize the proclamation of the Gospel worldwide - an issue with such international ramifications, we must respond with forcefully. A minister behind the pulpit of his church would not be able to tell his congregation the message of the Gospel for fear of being jailed for, by inferance, that Islamic teaching is a lie if the Gospel he is teaching is true, therefore he has defamed the Islamic religion by speaking hsi belief in the gospel.
We cannot let Christianity and evangelism be criminalized - not now, not ever.
It's painfully clear - the radical Islam movement is dedicated to the destruction of Christianity ... and Christians. We are seeing worldwide persecution of Christians as part of the radical Muslim mission to ''take the world for Islam'' by purging Christianity from the face of the earth.
Not just in faraway countries. Worldwide. Christians are being burned alive, tortured ... homes looted ... churches destroyed ... shootings, bombings ... it's outrageous.
And to think that the U.N. could fan the anti-Christian flames by voting in favor of the OIC's resolution criminalizing the proclamation of the Gospel ... that's unimaginable.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
THE WAY OF COMMUNISIM VIA OBAMA
Fellow American,
When you take a hard look at what Barack Obama already has done and plans to do, you quickly realize he is not Jimmy Carter. He is not even Bill Clinton. That's because Barack Obama, working in concert with the ultra-liberal socialists that run the Democrat party, is radically transforming America.
As more mainstream Americans see what is behind the Obama agenda, they realize how dangerous it is to our nation - an agenda driven by the writings of a man who hated America, Saul Alinsky. In the short time Obama has been in power, we've witnessed: The virtual bankruptcy of our economy. The deficit is at $2 trillion and rising with the overwhelming majority of the money spent to grow the federal government. More than 35 "Czars" controlling billions of dollars and making management decisions about everything from our auto industry to "green" jobs to urban development. These Czars answer to no one but Barack Obama!
A maniacal attempt to socialize our health care! Contrary to his stylish rhetoric, the Obama plan will put private insurers out of business and put bureaucrats in charge of our health care. Anyone who has stood in line at the Post Office or waited in a security line at an airport has had a glimpse of a future with government-controlled health care. Raising our taxes. Obamas first budget will consume 28% of the entire GDP! 28%! He plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts, raise income taxes, the capital gains tax and block the repeal of the estate tax (death tax) for the sake of "morality," he said. But there is nothing moral about taking more and more of your familys income to feed his socialist agenda. Each action designed to undercut our independence, ALL moves found in " Alinskys Rules for Radicals, " his "how to" book on destroying America.
This isn't like four bad years of Jimmy Carter or even eight years of Bill Clinton. This is the systematic transformation of our nation from an open, capitalist society, to a Big Brother-type socialist nation. We must stop it. Now! JOIN US IN IMPEACHING OBAMA BEFORE HE BANKRUPS THE U.S.A. http://www.c4strategies.com/ImpeachObama/impeachobama.html
Press control and click on hyperlink.
When you take a hard look at what Barack Obama already has done and plans to do, you quickly realize he is not Jimmy Carter. He is not even Bill Clinton. That's because Barack Obama, working in concert with the ultra-liberal socialists that run the Democrat party, is radically transforming America.
As more mainstream Americans see what is behind the Obama agenda, they realize how dangerous it is to our nation - an agenda driven by the writings of a man who hated America, Saul Alinsky. In the short time Obama has been in power, we've witnessed: The virtual bankruptcy of our economy. The deficit is at $2 trillion and rising with the overwhelming majority of the money spent to grow the federal government. More than 35 "Czars" controlling billions of dollars and making management decisions about everything from our auto industry to "green" jobs to urban development. These Czars answer to no one but Barack Obama!
A maniacal attempt to socialize our health care! Contrary to his stylish rhetoric, the Obama plan will put private insurers out of business and put bureaucrats in charge of our health care. Anyone who has stood in line at the Post Office or waited in a security line at an airport has had a glimpse of a future with government-controlled health care. Raising our taxes. Obamas first budget will consume 28% of the entire GDP! 28%! He plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts, raise income taxes, the capital gains tax and block the repeal of the estate tax (death tax) for the sake of "morality," he said. But there is nothing moral about taking more and more of your familys income to feed his socialist agenda. Each action designed to undercut our independence, ALL moves found in " Alinskys Rules for Radicals, " his "how to" book on destroying America.
This isn't like four bad years of Jimmy Carter or even eight years of Bill Clinton. This is the systematic transformation of our nation from an open, capitalist society, to a Big Brother-type socialist nation. We must stop it. Now! JOIN US IN IMPEACHING OBAMA BEFORE HE BANKRUPS THE U.S.A. http://www.c4strategies.com/ImpeachObama/impeachobama.html
Press control and click on hyperlink.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
STOP OBAMA/PELOSI HEALTH BILL NOW
I recieved this up-date from Floyd Brown just this evening, it shows how incidious our government has become. It is pure ALINSKY in nature, it is a communist plan to destroy AMERICA Join us in stopping this monster in its' track. Read this friends. (The more we learn about the ObamaCare bill the less we like it. A shocking revelation was made today by the Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI, who released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to buy health insurance under the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. That is right 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 penaltiesProsecution 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]“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.” said Camp.According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.And Obama and Pelosi do this on the weekend after it is announced that the U.S. unemployment rose to 10.2% to hit its highest level in more than 26 years, a sign the jobs market continues to struggle as the economy tries to exit this deep recession.ObamaCare will only increase unemployment and prolong the recession. Act fast they are working to ram this down the throats of Americans in a late night vote as early as today.
Obama gives more reasons to impeach him every day. ) join us in this fight tonight, go to...https://fs6.formsite.com/exposeobama/form475341234/secure_index.html We are not helpless to fight back, but we need to fight back now.
Obama gives more reasons to impeach him every day. ) join us in this fight tonight, go to...https://fs6.formsite.com/exposeobama/form475341234/secure_index.html We are not helpless to fight back, but we need to fight back now.
TODAYS POST IS ABOUT &*$#^&*@
Yes, you heard me right, swearing. I was wondering what to write about today when I saw a post on another blog. The poster was commenting on the name calling going on in blogs and posts and this reminded me of a conversation I had a couple months ago. I had went into a Bar & Grill to get something to eat. There are tables away from the bar where you could sit and be served your food. It was however close enough to the bar so that you could hear what was being said there. I, who have worked construction, drove truck, and been in fishing camps have never heard such a continuous flow of fowl language in my life. There were besides myself, seven people in the place, plus a cook (female) waitress (female) bartender (female). One patron at the bar was also female, yet these men and they were from 21 to 55 swore in the most vulgar terms imaginable in loud voices with no thought to those present. I appologosed to the waitress for my fellow man and their lack of decent language, she said she had learned to tune it out. Shame, I say Shame on our society for raising such uncouth individuals, no manners, no respect. I am still sorry that my fellow man has so little respect for themselves or others that they would behave in such a manner. Women let it be known, you do not want any man with so little intelligence he can only express himself so rudely.
Friday, November 6, 2009
MY EMPLOYER IS YOU
I am relieved, I saw the unemployment figures for October and to my amazement, only 512,000 new filings for unemployment comp. Only 190,000 more people lost their jobs last month. That according to the department of labor, based on a survey of business payrolls. However they do not include self employed, and under count job loss in small business. Other surveys show as many as 558,000 more people are out of work in October than were in September. SO who ever is right, there are still 15 plus million Americans out of work. Another extension of workmans comp is just a bandaid on the real problem. The people who do have money do not trust our government and with good cause. I can see we are making great strides forward in the OBAMANATION WAR ON JOBS. My question is he fighting the loss of jobs, or is he fighting jobs. I know some of you think it is unfair of me to point out the timelap between an administrations fiscal behavior and the actual results showing up, and them knock Obama for what is going on. Let me point out, I am not saying he caused this downturn, although it is his fiscal style of spending that has brought this on, but the increased rate of throwing money into the market, along with borrowing from other countries is not lending any confidence to the market, or manufacturing. The current program will keep employers from hiring employees who will not be spending wages at the store for hard goods, so no one will invest in new product or existing manufacturing. Anyone with a bit of sense reguarding economics can see the only way to survive is hide your money until someone does something about our govenment leadership. If we wait until the inflation predicted by econimists all over the world to get here, it will be too late to do anything about it. We as Americans have to do all we can to protect the dollar, it is time to look at what we spend our money on, is it made here or over there, can it be done without, can we repair it instead of buying a new one. Let us be generous with friends and neighbors, but not to the point we are unable to care for ourselves. We then become part of the problem. Let us elect officials who will confront ugly truth and employ honest effort to resolve our economic issues. Officials who will make hard decisions and stick by them. Officials who want what is right, not just to get re-elected. And last but not least and probably only last for todays entry, we as Americans need to determine what our freedom is worth, tighten our belts, put on our work gloves and work harder and ask for less then we have for years. All of us, not just the rich, not just the poor, all of us. Let those that can, give. Let those who can, try harder. And don't forget to pray. You will recieve strength for your efforts and blessing from God.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Today, November 5th 2009, the organization known as ARRP signed its own unassisted suicide pact when it chose to endorse the liberal democrates health care bill. Anyone who has read even a portion of this bill knows that it does not bode well for senior citizens in any of the basic needs of the elderly. It is a waste of paper in size, it calls for fines of citizens who either cannot or chose not to enroll, it pushes seniors to consider ending their lives prematurely by enforcing the idea they are a burden on their families. If you have aquired your own insurance in probably less then one year you will have get the coverage the government tells you to have, and if this is not enough it will cost you eight to twelve percent of your income before taxes. It does nothing to reduce expensive litigation, which is one of the major reasons health care is so expensive. It is estimated as many as forty percent of todays doctors will stop practicing if this goes through. They refuse to have their fees set by politiions who can not even run their own businesses. TRY TO GET MEDICAL HELP WHEN THOSE NUMBERS ARE IN PLACE. THIS WILL DOUBLE YOUR TIME AT THE EMERGENCY ROOM. With the reduced incomes the doctors will likely spend less time with the ill, make more incorrect diagnoses, and push more harmful pills then ever. Our health care will be a joke with no one left alive to laugh.
WHY NOW, NOT NEXT WEEK?
Are you wondering like I am, why all this rush to spend billions of dollars. Are you wondering what is the rush, when we have already seen that the results are not going to be forthcoming anytime soon. Did you know it normally takes 6 to 8 years to see the results of an administrations fiscal activity? Do you realise that would mean the good years while Clinton was in office were a result of the REAGAN TRICKLE DOWN YEARS? And that would mean the downturn years that Bush saw were the results of the Clinton years. Yes there were many new jobs created during Clintons years as president. However most of them were in the service industry,(Burger King, McDonalds, K-mart, Walmart, the dotcom takeoff.) not jobs that created product, only consumption. That means no real growth in (Ill show my age here) gross national product. Many of the good paying jobs in the internet field went to imported workers, programers, program writers from India, Pakistan and other parts of the world. These programers came into the Silicon Valley needing housing where there is no room for new housing and they proceeded to drive the housing market up by triple where it had been. Then reason took hold and it fell to natual need levels. But again these businesses did not create hard goods, the backbone of real economic growth. Nothing I have seen looks to be different in this headlong spending spree we are engaged in today. Not only can we not afford the spending happening and being planned, but the spending is once again not being consentrated into industrys that produce real products, hard goods. Products that would support the money being floated into the market by a firehose, by having value in and of itself. This means there will again be more money than product or goods available and this will cause a bidding war for the product available, can you say "INFLATION" It is past time to remove Barney and company from positions of power and decision making along with their ALINSKY TRAINED LEADER, OBAMA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)