Little wonder Sarah is more popular than Pelosi - Sarah loves this country and wants only the best for everyone, she is one of us, while Nancy wants to turn our country into a socialist nightmare with her in charge. Could things get any worse than that?
Poll: Palin More Popular Than Pelosi Among Voters
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:28 PM
By: Steven Thomma, McClatchy Newspapers
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is more popular than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to a new bipartisan poll released Wednesday.
The Battleground Poll conducted for George Washington University found 42 percent of likely voters have a favorable opinion of Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee who stepped down last week as governor of Alaska. The survey found 47 percent had an unfavorable opinion of Palin.
While Palin trailed both President Barack Obama (61 favorable/36 unfavorable) and Vice President Joe Biden (48/38) she easily outpolled Pelosi, the highest ranking elected woman in the country.
The survey found 32 percent of likely voters had a favorable impression of Pelosi, a Democrat from San Francisco, and 51 percent had an unfavorable impression.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., trailed them all in personal popularity, with 15 percent holding a favorable impression and 31 percent having an unfavorable impression.
© 2009 McClatchy-Tribune News Service. Reprinted Via Newscom.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Jindal Health Care Plan Bipartisan : Obama's Fundamentally Dishonest
Excellent article that lays out a common sense program for health care. How refreshing is this in a climate of lies and misinformation from the Democrats.
Keep the faith
How to Make Health-Care Reform Bipartisan
By BOBBY JINDAL
http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=BOBBY+JINDAL&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND
In Washington, it seems history always repeats itself. That’s what’s happening now with health-care reform. This is an unfortunate turn of events for Americans who are legitimately concerned about the skyrocketing cost of a basic human need.
In 1993 and 1994, Hillary Clinton’s health-care reform proposal failed because it was concocted in secret without the guiding hand of public consensus-building, and because it was a philosophical over-reach. Today President Barack Obama is repeating these mistakes.
The reason is plain: The left in Washington has concluded that honesty will not yield its desired policy result. So it resorts to a fundamentally dishonest approach to reform. I say this because the marketing of the Democrats’ plans as presented in the House of Representatives and endorsed heartily by President Obama rests on three falsehoods.
First, Mr. Obama doggedly promises that if you like your (private) health-care coverage now, you can keep it. That promise is hollow, because the Democrats’ reforms are designed to push an ever-increasing number of Americans into a government-run health-care plan. If a so-called public option is part of health-care reform, the Lewin Group study estimates over 100 million Americans may leave private plans for government-run health care. Any government plan will benefit from taxpayer subsidies and be able to operate at a financial loss—competing unfairly in the marketplace until private plans are driven out of business.
The government plan will become so large that it will set, rather than negotiate, prices. This will inevitably lead to monopoly, with a resulting threat to the quality of our health care.
Second, the Democrats disingenuously argue their reforms will not diminish the quality of our health care even as government involvement in the delivery of that health care increases massively. For all of us who have seen the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s response to hurricanes, this contention is laughable on its face. When government bureaucracies drive the delivery of services—in this case inserting themselves between health-care providers and their patients—quality degradation will surely come. House Democrats seem willing to accept that problem to achieve their philosophical aim—the long-term removal of for-profit entities from the health-care landscape.
Third, Mr. Obama’s rhetoric paints a picture of a massive new benefit that will actually cost average Americans less than what they pay today. The Democrats want middle-class taxpayers to believe they won’t feel the pinch of this initiative, even as their employers are assessed massive new taxes. They might as well try to argue that up is down.
The analysis of the Democrats’ proposal by the Congressional Budget Office shows that it will not reduce government spending on health care, and that it will substantially increase the federal deficit—and this despite all the tax increases.
I served in the U.S. House with a majority of the current 435 representatives, and I am confident that if given the proper amount of legislative review, they will not accept the flawed Pelosi plan that is currently stuck in committee. Yet there is general agreement among Republicans and Democrats that we need health-care reform to bring costs down. This agreement can be the basis of a genuine, bipartisan reform, once the current over-reach by Mr. Obama and Mrs. Pelosi fails. Leaders of both parties can then come together behind health-care reform that stresses these seven principles:
•Consumer choice guided by transparency.
We need a system where individuals choose an integrated plan that adopts the best disease-management practices, as opposed to fragmented care. Pricing and outcomes data for all tests, treatments and procedures should be posted on the Internet. Portable electronic health-care records can reduce paperwork, duplication and errors, while also empowering consumers to seek the provider that best meets their needs.
•Aligned consumer interests.
Consumers should be financially invested in better health decisions through health-savings accounts, lower premiums and reduced cost sharing. If they seek care in cost-effective settings, comply with medical regimens, preventative care, and lifestyles that reduce the likelihood of chronic disease, they should share in the savings.
•Medical lawsuit reform.
The practice of defensive medicine costs an estimated $100 billion-plus each year, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, which used a study by economists Daniel P. Kessler and Mark B. McClellan. No health reform is serious about reducing costs unless it reduces the costs of frivolous lawsuits.
•Insurance reform.
Congress should establish simple guidelines to make policies more portable, with more coverage for pre-existing conditions. Reinsurance, high-risk pools, and other mechanisms can reduce the dangers of adverse risk selection and the incentive to avoid covering the sick. Individuals should also be able to keep insurance as they change jobs or states.
•Pooling for small businesses, the self-employed, and others.
All consumers should have equal opportunity to buy the lowest-cost, highest-quality insurance available. Individuals should benefit from the economies of scale currently available to those working for large employers. They should be free to purchase their health coverage without tax penalty through their employer, church, union, etc.
•Pay for performance, not activity.
Roughly 75% of health-care spending is for the care of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes—and there is little coordination of this care. We can save money and improve outcomes by using integrated networks of care with rigorous, transparent outcome measures emphasizing prevention and disease management.
•Refundable tax credits.
Low-income working Americans without health insurance should get help in buying private coverage through a refundable tax credit. This is preferable to building a separate, government-run health-care plan.
These steps would bring down health-care costs. They would not bankrupt our nation or increase taxes in the midst of a recession. They are achievable reforms with bipartisan consensus and public support. All they require is a willingness by the president to slow down and have an honest discussion with Americans about the real downstream consequences of his ideas. Let’s start there.
*Mr. Jindal is governor of Louisiana.*
Keep the faith
How to Make Health-Care Reform Bipartisan
By BOBBY JINDAL
http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=BOBBY+JINDAL&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND
In Washington, it seems history always repeats itself. That’s what’s happening now with health-care reform. This is an unfortunate turn of events for Americans who are legitimately concerned about the skyrocketing cost of a basic human need.
In 1993 and 1994, Hillary Clinton’s health-care reform proposal failed because it was concocted in secret without the guiding hand of public consensus-building, and because it was a philosophical over-reach. Today President Barack Obama is repeating these mistakes.
The reason is plain: The left in Washington has concluded that honesty will not yield its desired policy result. So it resorts to a fundamentally dishonest approach to reform. I say this because the marketing of the Democrats’ plans as presented in the House of Representatives and endorsed heartily by President Obama rests on three falsehoods.
First, Mr. Obama doggedly promises that if you like your (private) health-care coverage now, you can keep it. That promise is hollow, because the Democrats’ reforms are designed to push an ever-increasing number of Americans into a government-run health-care plan. If a so-called public option is part of health-care reform, the Lewin Group study estimates over 100 million Americans may leave private plans for government-run health care. Any government plan will benefit from taxpayer subsidies and be able to operate at a financial loss—competing unfairly in the marketplace until private plans are driven out of business.
The government plan will become so large that it will set, rather than negotiate, prices. This will inevitably lead to monopoly, with a resulting threat to the quality of our health care.
Second, the Democrats disingenuously argue their reforms will not diminish the quality of our health care even as government involvement in the delivery of that health care increases massively. For all of us who have seen the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s response to hurricanes, this contention is laughable on its face. When government bureaucracies drive the delivery of services—in this case inserting themselves between health-care providers and their patients—quality degradation will surely come. House Democrats seem willing to accept that problem to achieve their philosophical aim—the long-term removal of for-profit entities from the health-care landscape.
Third, Mr. Obama’s rhetoric paints a picture of a massive new benefit that will actually cost average Americans less than what they pay today. The Democrats want middle-class taxpayers to believe they won’t feel the pinch of this initiative, even as their employers are assessed massive new taxes. They might as well try to argue that up is down.
The analysis of the Democrats’ proposal by the Congressional Budget Office shows that it will not reduce government spending on health care, and that it will substantially increase the federal deficit—and this despite all the tax increases.
I served in the U.S. House with a majority of the current 435 representatives, and I am confident that if given the proper amount of legislative review, they will not accept the flawed Pelosi plan that is currently stuck in committee. Yet there is general agreement among Republicans and Democrats that we need health-care reform to bring costs down. This agreement can be the basis of a genuine, bipartisan reform, once the current over-reach by Mr. Obama and Mrs. Pelosi fails. Leaders of both parties can then come together behind health-care reform that stresses these seven principles:
•Consumer choice guided by transparency.
We need a system where individuals choose an integrated plan that adopts the best disease-management practices, as opposed to fragmented care. Pricing and outcomes data for all tests, treatments and procedures should be posted on the Internet. Portable electronic health-care records can reduce paperwork, duplication and errors, while also empowering consumers to seek the provider that best meets their needs.
•Aligned consumer interests.
Consumers should be financially invested in better health decisions through health-savings accounts, lower premiums and reduced cost sharing. If they seek care in cost-effective settings, comply with medical regimens, preventative care, and lifestyles that reduce the likelihood of chronic disease, they should share in the savings.
•Medical lawsuit reform.
The practice of defensive medicine costs an estimated $100 billion-plus each year, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, which used a study by economists Daniel P. Kessler and Mark B. McClellan. No health reform is serious about reducing costs unless it reduces the costs of frivolous lawsuits.
•Insurance reform.
Congress should establish simple guidelines to make policies more portable, with more coverage for pre-existing conditions. Reinsurance, high-risk pools, and other mechanisms can reduce the dangers of adverse risk selection and the incentive to avoid covering the sick. Individuals should also be able to keep insurance as they change jobs or states.
•Pooling for small businesses, the self-employed, and others.
All consumers should have equal opportunity to buy the lowest-cost, highest-quality insurance available. Individuals should benefit from the economies of scale currently available to those working for large employers. They should be free to purchase their health coverage without tax penalty through their employer, church, union, etc.
•Pay for performance, not activity.
Roughly 75% of health-care spending is for the care of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes—and there is little coordination of this care. We can save money and improve outcomes by using integrated networks of care with rigorous, transparent outcome measures emphasizing prevention and disease management.
•Refundable tax credits.
Low-income working Americans without health insurance should get help in buying private coverage through a refundable tax credit. This is preferable to building a separate, government-run health-care plan.
These steps would bring down health-care costs. They would not bankrupt our nation or increase taxes in the midst of a recession. They are achievable reforms with bipartisan consensus and public support. All they require is a willingness by the president to slow down and have an honest discussion with Americans about the real downstream consequences of his ideas. Let’s start there.
*Mr. Jindal is governor of Louisiana.*
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Obama's First 100 Days : Misguided and Revengeful
Let's see, there must be something about Obama that we can identify him as being an America, right? hmmmm - I think this will be more difficult than I thought.
Anyway, here are a few things that we can identify Obama as not being in the best interest of America or even being an American, let alone being president. Obama is not one of us.
Observations of the President's 1st 100 Days:
1. Offended the Queen of England
2. Bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia
3. Praised the Marxist Daniel Ortega
4. Kissed Hugo Chavez on the cheek
5. Endorsed the Socialist Evo Morales of Bolivia
6. Announced we would meet with Iranians with no pre-conditions
7. Gave away billions to AIG, also without pre-conditions
8. Expanded the bailouts
9. Insulted everyone who has ever loved a Special Olympian
10. Doubled our national debt .
11. Announced a termination of the space defense system the day after theNorth Koreans launched an ICBM.
12. Despite the urgings of his own CIA director and the prior 42 CIA directors, released information on intelligence gathering. Announced major restrictions on interrogation techniques used on enemy combatant prisoners.
13. Accepted without public comment the fact that five of his cabinet members cheated on their taxes and two other appointees withdrew after they couldn't take the heat.
14. Appointed a Homeland Security Chief who quickly identified as "dangers to the nation", groups including veterans of the military, and opponents to abortion on demand, and who ordered that the word terrorism no longer be used but instead referred to such acts as man made disasters.
15. Circled the globe so he could openly apologize for America 'sgreatness.
16. Told Mexicans the violence in their country was mostly caused by illegal guns from the U.S.
17. Politicized the census by moving it into the White House from its Department of Commerce origins and announced ACORN [the organization under massive scrutiny amid allegations of election fraud] would manage the process.
18. Appointed as Attorney General the man who orchestrated the forced removal and expulsion from America to Cuba of a nine-year old whose mother died trying to bring him to a life of freedom in the United States ...
19. Salutes as heroes three Navy SEALS who took down three terrorists who threatened one American life and the next day announces members of the Bush administration will likely stand trial for torturing a terrorist who had played a part in killing 3000 Americans by pouring water over his face.
20. Air Force One flew over New York City for a photo op without notifying local authorities causing wide spread panic.
21. Took over the American Automobile industry and handed over 50% off tothe unions [because he said he owed them].
22. Continued his drive for absolute gun control activities, thumbing his nose at the 2nd Amendment.
23. Offered travel and living subsidies in the U.S. to Hamas activists displaced from the Gaza Strip.
24. Got more airtime [TV] than Oprah Winfrey and was seldom in Washington tending to the business of State.
25. Announced the closure of enemy combatants detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba but failed to address the issue of 'what' to do withthe 200+ prisoners currently held there.
Rumors persist that they'll behoused on U.S. soil...Other than that, we're doing just fine. Only 1360 more FRIGHTENING days to go...
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.
Anyway, here are a few things that we can identify Obama as not being in the best interest of America or even being an American, let alone being president. Obama is not one of us.
Observations of the President's 1st 100 Days:
1. Offended the Queen of England
2. Bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia
3. Praised the Marxist Daniel Ortega
4. Kissed Hugo Chavez on the cheek
5. Endorsed the Socialist Evo Morales of Bolivia
6. Announced we would meet with Iranians with no pre-conditions
7. Gave away billions to AIG, also without pre-conditions
8. Expanded the bailouts
9. Insulted everyone who has ever loved a Special Olympian
10. Doubled our national debt .
11. Announced a termination of the space defense system the day after theNorth Koreans launched an ICBM.
12. Despite the urgings of his own CIA director and the prior 42 CIA directors, released information on intelligence gathering. Announced major restrictions on interrogation techniques used on enemy combatant prisoners.
13. Accepted without public comment the fact that five of his cabinet members cheated on their taxes and two other appointees withdrew after they couldn't take the heat.
14. Appointed a Homeland Security Chief who quickly identified as "dangers to the nation", groups including veterans of the military, and opponents to abortion on demand, and who ordered that the word terrorism no longer be used but instead referred to such acts as man made disasters.
15. Circled the globe so he could openly apologize for America 'sgreatness.
16. Told Mexicans the violence in their country was mostly caused by illegal guns from the U.S.
17. Politicized the census by moving it into the White House from its Department of Commerce origins and announced ACORN [the organization under massive scrutiny amid allegations of election fraud] would manage the process.
18. Appointed as Attorney General the man who orchestrated the forced removal and expulsion from America to Cuba of a nine-year old whose mother died trying to bring him to a life of freedom in the United States ...
19. Salutes as heroes three Navy SEALS who took down three terrorists who threatened one American life and the next day announces members of the Bush administration will likely stand trial for torturing a terrorist who had played a part in killing 3000 Americans by pouring water over his face.
20. Air Force One flew over New York City for a photo op without notifying local authorities causing wide spread panic.
21. Took over the American Automobile industry and handed over 50% off tothe unions [because he said he owed them].
22. Continued his drive for absolute gun control activities, thumbing his nose at the 2nd Amendment.
23. Offered travel and living subsidies in the U.S. to Hamas activists displaced from the Gaza Strip.
24. Got more airtime [TV] than Oprah Winfrey and was seldom in Washington tending to the business of State.
25. Announced the closure of enemy combatants detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba but failed to address the issue of 'what' to do withthe 200+ prisoners currently held there.
Rumors persist that they'll behoused on U.S. soil...Other than that, we're doing just fine. Only 1360 more FRIGHTENING days to go...
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Poll On Sara Palin : SARA IN '012
How could a poll on this subject turn out any different when no matter where she goes the place is packed - SRO!! And the Marxist liberals say she is a dummy - heh - fear makes people say things they really don't understand but they use the words for cover - Sara is one of the people, one of us. No wonder they are scared to death.
Keep the faith -
Poll: Nearly 80% Support Palin 2012 Run
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:48 AM
By: Jim Meyers
An Internet poll sponsored by Newsmax.com reveals that nearly four out of five respondents would support Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee for president in 2012.
A slightly larger majority believe the then-Alaska governor helped John McCain in the 2008 presidential race — while only 31 percent think McCain did a good job running for president.
The poll drew more than 600,000 responses, and Newsmax will provide the results to major media and share them with radio talk show hosts across the country.
Here are the poll questions and results:
1) What is your opinion of Sarah Palin?
Favorable: 83 percent
Unfavorable: 17 percent
2) Do you believe Sarah Palin as a running mate helped or hurt John McCain?
Helped: 80 percent
Hurt: 20 percent
3) In the election between McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden, who did you vote for?
McCain-Palin: 81 percent
Obama-Biden: 16 percent
Other: 3 percent
4) Would you support Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee for president in 2012?
Yes: 78 percent
No: 22 percent
5) Do you believe McCain did a good job running for president?
Good Job: 31 percent
Bad Job: 69 percent
6) Do you believe Barack Obama "bought" the White House by outspending McCain?
Yes: 72 percent
No: 28 percent
You Can Still Vote in the Newsmax Poll on Sarah Palin - Click Here Now
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Keep the faith -
Poll: Nearly 80% Support Palin 2012 Run
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:48 AM
By: Jim Meyers
An Internet poll sponsored by Newsmax.com reveals that nearly four out of five respondents would support Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee for president in 2012.
A slightly larger majority believe the then-Alaska governor helped John McCain in the 2008 presidential race — while only 31 percent think McCain did a good job running for president.
The poll drew more than 600,000 responses, and Newsmax will provide the results to major media and share them with radio talk show hosts across the country.
Here are the poll questions and results:
1) What is your opinion of Sarah Palin?
Favorable: 83 percent
Unfavorable: 17 percent
2) Do you believe Sarah Palin as a running mate helped or hurt John McCain?
Helped: 80 percent
Hurt: 20 percent
3) In the election between McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden, who did you vote for?
McCain-Palin: 81 percent
Obama-Biden: 16 percent
Other: 3 percent
4) Would you support Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee for president in 2012?
Yes: 78 percent
No: 22 percent
5) Do you believe McCain did a good job running for president?
Good Job: 31 percent
Bad Job: 69 percent
6) Do you believe Barack Obama "bought" the White House by outspending McCain?
Yes: 72 percent
No: 28 percent
You Can Still Vote in the Newsmax Poll on Sarah Palin - Click Here Now
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Global Warming Found Wrong Again : AccuWeather
Is this suppose to be something we didn't already know? AccuWeather isn't the first to find this out - most of us in the Midwest knew this for the last two years as the piles of snow and extreme cold in the winter and the cold springs, as well as the cool summers, told the story.
Remember the Manhattan Project where 500 scientists, climatologists and physicists, signed this document stating they don't believe the the earth is warming due to man and his life style?
Al Gore and his scientists, political and social scientists, demand that we believe them as a matter of conscience and not as a matter of fact. Liberals never rely on fact as it gets in the way of their fantasies and out right lies. Global warming is purely a grab for power over all of us using fear and misinformation as a club. Never forget, if a liberal ever told the truth, they wouldn't be a liberal any longer.
Stay tuned and keep the faith - the army of the people is coming and you are on board.
Record Lows in July Challenge Climate Change
Monday, July 27, 2009
By: Dave Eberhart
Global warming may be taking another black eye as AccuWeather.com reports an unusually cold July, which is most pronounced in the Northeast of the United States.
While it has been unusually hot in the Southwest, AccuWeather reports that 1,044 daily record low temperatures have been broken thus far in the month of July, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NCDC).
NCDC has also recorded "low highs" for the month as well, and when that figure is added to the mix, the number of record-breakers increases to 2,925 — slated to pass 3,000 before the end of the month. The period of July 17-20 was the worst, according to AccuWeather’s gleaning of the NCDC records — with more than 1,600 weather stations scattered across the country breaking records.
Furthermore in the survey, there are some dramatic “departure from average temperatures” figures thus far in July. That compilation of departures includes "-10.0" in Pennsylvania. Double-digit deficits over a month are rare, notes AccuWeather. The majority of stations are reporting departures below normal thus far — with only Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas having stations reporting above normal.
With temperatures usually peaking in the dog days of July, there are temps in the 50s in every state, and 40s in most, with some 30s.
There is also an significant lack of 85-degree days in the Northeast through July 20th.
Buffalo, Albany, Boston, Chicago, and Cincinnati have all logged 0 days in July above 85. Detroit, Pittsburgh, and New York have logged only 1 each.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Remember the Manhattan Project where 500 scientists, climatologists and physicists, signed this document stating they don't believe the the earth is warming due to man and his life style?
Al Gore and his scientists, political and social scientists, demand that we believe them as a matter of conscience and not as a matter of fact. Liberals never rely on fact as it gets in the way of their fantasies and out right lies. Global warming is purely a grab for power over all of us using fear and misinformation as a club. Never forget, if a liberal ever told the truth, they wouldn't be a liberal any longer.
Stay tuned and keep the faith - the army of the people is coming and you are on board.
Record Lows in July Challenge Climate Change
Monday, July 27, 2009
By: Dave Eberhart
Global warming may be taking another black eye as AccuWeather.com reports an unusually cold July, which is most pronounced in the Northeast of the United States.
While it has been unusually hot in the Southwest, AccuWeather reports that 1,044 daily record low temperatures have been broken thus far in the month of July, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NCDC).
NCDC has also recorded "low highs" for the month as well, and when that figure is added to the mix, the number of record-breakers increases to 2,925 — slated to pass 3,000 before the end of the month. The period of July 17-20 was the worst, according to AccuWeather’s gleaning of the NCDC records — with more than 1,600 weather stations scattered across the country breaking records.
Furthermore in the survey, there are some dramatic “departure from average temperatures” figures thus far in July. That compilation of departures includes "-10.0" in Pennsylvania. Double-digit deficits over a month are rare, notes AccuWeather. The majority of stations are reporting departures below normal thus far — with only Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas having stations reporting above normal.
With temperatures usually peaking in the dog days of July, there are temps in the 50s in every state, and 40s in most, with some 30s.
There is also an significant lack of 85-degree days in the Northeast through July 20th.
Buffalo, Albany, Boston, Chicago, and Cincinnati have all logged 0 days in July above 85. Detroit, Pittsburgh, and New York have logged only 1 each.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
China AND Obama on Same Path : Total Control
Little wonder Obama is being referred to as a Marxist socialist tyrant given his drive to control all of America's production while eliminating our freedom. Truly, Obama is historic.
Still the bigger question still remains, how did our president get to have so much power? When did he become king? Also, how did so many in our government and in our population agree that freedom was a thing of the past?
Give this some thought - but keep the faith
Socialism Doesn't Work — Not Even for China
Monday, July 27, 2009 3:45 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Buried amid its astonishing annual growth rate, even in the recession, is the sad story of China's socialist sector, a huge and perennial drag on its economy.
The failure of government control amid the success of private initiative is a story that President Barack Obama would do well to study as he brings government control and management to the automobile and banking industries in the United States.
In China, 80 percent of all investment activity comes from bank loans largely controlled by the government — a harbinger of what Obama will bring to the United States as TARP-funded banks increasingly have to bow to federal regulation and pressure. And, as is to be expected when the state runs the banks, the lending goes disproportionately to state-owned enterprises (read: General Motors). These companies get 70 percent of the nation's investment capital (and the figure is rising) but only produce between one-quarter and one-third of all output in the country.
An article by John Lee explains that China's "move towards an unbalanced state-led model did not occur by accident but was the result of deliberate policy" in the wake of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations. Prior to Tiananmen — when 80 percent of the poverty alleviation China has experienced took place — fixed-asset investment by the private sector grew at 20 percent per year. Since then, it has dropped to almost half that level.
At the same time (again, a prophesy of the result of Obama policies), the number of government officials shot up from fewer than 20 million in the early 1990s to the 46 million that now bloat the government payroll.
We are developing our own equivalent of the Chinese state sector through Obama's takeover of General Motors and his insistence on keeping banks that took TARP money on a tight leash. By controlling bank lending (and refusing to let most banks repay the TARP loans) Obama is replicating the Chinese experience.
Indeed, as he forces banks to convert the preferred stock he made them give the government to common (and therefore voting) stock, he hastens the day of federal control of the banks and, through them, of the economy (see our warnings in our book "Catastrophe").
Still the bigger question still remains, how did our president get to have so much power? When did he become king? Also, how did so many in our government and in our population agree that freedom was a thing of the past?
Give this some thought - but keep the faith
Socialism Doesn't Work — Not Even for China
Monday, July 27, 2009 3:45 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Buried amid its astonishing annual growth rate, even in the recession, is the sad story of China's socialist sector, a huge and perennial drag on its economy.
The failure of government control amid the success of private initiative is a story that President Barack Obama would do well to study as he brings government control and management to the automobile and banking industries in the United States.
In China, 80 percent of all investment activity comes from bank loans largely controlled by the government — a harbinger of what Obama will bring to the United States as TARP-funded banks increasingly have to bow to federal regulation and pressure. And, as is to be expected when the state runs the banks, the lending goes disproportionately to state-owned enterprises (read: General Motors). These companies get 70 percent of the nation's investment capital (and the figure is rising) but only produce between one-quarter and one-third of all output in the country.
An article by John Lee explains that China's "move towards an unbalanced state-led model did not occur by accident but was the result of deliberate policy" in the wake of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations. Prior to Tiananmen — when 80 percent of the poverty alleviation China has experienced took place — fixed-asset investment by the private sector grew at 20 percent per year. Since then, it has dropped to almost half that level.
At the same time (again, a prophesy of the result of Obama policies), the number of government officials shot up from fewer than 20 million in the early 1990s to the 46 million that now bloat the government payroll.
We are developing our own equivalent of the Chinese state sector through Obama's takeover of General Motors and his insistence on keeping banks that took TARP money on a tight leash. By controlling bank lending (and refusing to let most banks repay the TARP loans) Obama is replicating the Chinese experience.
Indeed, as he forces banks to convert the preferred stock he made them give the government to common (and therefore voting) stock, he hastens the day of federal control of the banks and, through them, of the economy (see our warnings in our book "Catastrophe").
Monday, July 27, 2009
Government Investment In R&D Questioned
Something to think about when deciding to publicly fund research.
Do Government "Investments" in Scientific Research Pay Off?
Ronald Bailey <http://reason.com/staff/hitandrun/133.html>
July 20, 2009, 2:19pm research funding The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released the results of a poll that, among other things, asked Americans what they thought of government spending on scientific research. The poll found that a majority of Americans are big believers in the efficacy of government-funded research. As the Pew Center reported: For its part, the general public endorses the idea that government outlays for research are necessary for scientific progress. Six-in-ten (60%) say “government investment in research is essential for scientific progress”; only about half as many (29%) say “private investment will ensure that enough scientific progress is made even without government investment.”
As is often the case with opinions about the role of government, there is a substantial partisan divide in views of government investment in scientific research. Fewer than half of conservative Republicans (44%) say that government investment in research is essential for scientific progress; 48% of conservative Republicans say private investment will ensure that scientific progress is made.
By comparison, 56% of moderate and liberal Republicans, 59% of independents and a much larger majority of Democrats (71%) say that government investment in research is essential.
Scientific progress is a somewhat nebulous idea, but the Pew pollsters went on to ask if Americans thought that government "investments" in science "pay off" in the long run or not? The pollsters found: Regardless of whether they see government investment as essential to scientific progress, large majorities say that government investments in science do pay off. Nearly three-quarters of the public (73%) say that government investments in basic scientific research pay off in the long run, while a similar percentage (74%) holds that investments in engineering and technology pay off in the long run.
Opinions about these investments vary little across political and demographic groups. Eight-in-ten Democrats (80%) say that government investments in basic science research pay off in the long run, as do 72% of independents and 68% of Republicans. Views about whether government engineering and technological investments pay off largely mirror those about basic science investments.
One way to think about how government "investments" in science might "pay off" is to ask whether or not they end up increasing the growth rate of a country's gross domestic product. However, there is some evidence that government-funded scientific research is not the engine for growth the proponents claim it is. As I reported more than a year ago: The issue is complicated, but what evidence is available is damning. In particular, Kealey cites a 2003 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report, /The Sources of Economic Growth <http://www.oecd.org/dac/ictcd/docs/otherdocs/OtherOECD_eco_growth.pdf>/, which finds "a marked positive effect of business-sector R&D, while the analysis could find no clear-cut relationship between public R&D activities and growth, at least in the short term."
This finding mirrored a 2001 OECD working paper <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/29/1891403.pdf> which showed that higher spending by industry on R&D correlates well with higher economic growth rates. In contrast to the academic truisms about the need for federal funding, the study found that "business-performed R&D...drives the positive association between total R&D intensity and output growth."
The OECD researchers noted that publicly funded defense research crowded out private research, "while civilian public research is neutral with respect to business-performed R&D."
In other words, government funded civilian research didn't appear to hurt the private sector but there was not much evidence that it helped, at least in the short term. The report concluded, "Research and development (R&D) activities undertaken by the business sector seem to have high social returns, while no clear-cut relationship could be established between non-business-oriented R&D activities and growth." Economic growth associated with R&D was linked almost entirely to private sector research funding.
The OECD report did allow that perhaps publicly funded research might eventually result in long-term technology spillovers, but that contention was hard to evaluate. The 2003 OECD study also noted, "Taken at face value they suggest publicly-performed R&D crowds out resources that could be alternatively used by the private sector, including private R&D."
A 1995 analysis done by American University economist Walter Parker also finds that government funding crowds out private research. "Once private research is explicitly controlled for, the direct effect of public research is weakly negative <http://www.american.edu/academic.depts/cas/econ/faculty/park/park_econinq.pdf>, as might be the case if public research has crowding-out effects which adversely affect private output growth," concludes Parker.Go here <" target=_blank>http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1548> for complete Pew survey results and here <http://www.reason.com/news/show/126584.html>for my column on "The Failure of Scientific Central Planning."
Do Government "Investments" in Scientific Research Pay Off?
Ronald Bailey <http://reason.com/staff/hitandrun/133.html>
July 20, 2009, 2:19pm research funding The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released the results of a poll that, among other things, asked Americans what they thought of government spending on scientific research. The poll found that a majority of Americans are big believers in the efficacy of government-funded research. As the Pew Center reported: For its part, the general public endorses the idea that government outlays for research are necessary for scientific progress. Six-in-ten (60%) say “government investment in research is essential for scientific progress”; only about half as many (29%) say “private investment will ensure that enough scientific progress is made even without government investment.”
As is often the case with opinions about the role of government, there is a substantial partisan divide in views of government investment in scientific research. Fewer than half of conservative Republicans (44%) say that government investment in research is essential for scientific progress; 48% of conservative Republicans say private investment will ensure that scientific progress is made.
By comparison, 56% of moderate and liberal Republicans, 59% of independents and a much larger majority of Democrats (71%) say that government investment in research is essential.
Scientific progress is a somewhat nebulous idea, but the Pew pollsters went on to ask if Americans thought that government "investments" in science "pay off" in the long run or not? The pollsters found: Regardless of whether they see government investment as essential to scientific progress, large majorities say that government investments in science do pay off. Nearly three-quarters of the public (73%) say that government investments in basic scientific research pay off in the long run, while a similar percentage (74%) holds that investments in engineering and technology pay off in the long run.
Opinions about these investments vary little across political and demographic groups. Eight-in-ten Democrats (80%) say that government investments in basic science research pay off in the long run, as do 72% of independents and 68% of Republicans. Views about whether government engineering and technological investments pay off largely mirror those about basic science investments.
One way to think about how government "investments" in science might "pay off" is to ask whether or not they end up increasing the growth rate of a country's gross domestic product. However, there is some evidence that government-funded scientific research is not the engine for growth the proponents claim it is. As I reported more than a year ago: The issue is complicated, but what evidence is available is damning. In particular, Kealey cites a 2003 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report, /The Sources of Economic Growth <http://www.oecd.org/dac/ictcd/docs/otherdocs/OtherOECD_eco_growth.pdf>/, which finds "a marked positive effect of business-sector R&D, while the analysis could find no clear-cut relationship between public R&D activities and growth, at least in the short term."
This finding mirrored a 2001 OECD working paper <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/29/1891403.pdf> which showed that higher spending by industry on R&D correlates well with higher economic growth rates. In contrast to the academic truisms about the need for federal funding, the study found that "business-performed R&D...drives the positive association between total R&D intensity and output growth."
The OECD researchers noted that publicly funded defense research crowded out private research, "while civilian public research is neutral with respect to business-performed R&D."
In other words, government funded civilian research didn't appear to hurt the private sector but there was not much evidence that it helped, at least in the short term. The report concluded, "Research and development (R&D) activities undertaken by the business sector seem to have high social returns, while no clear-cut relationship could be established between non-business-oriented R&D activities and growth." Economic growth associated with R&D was linked almost entirely to private sector research funding.
The OECD report did allow that perhaps publicly funded research might eventually result in long-term technology spillovers, but that contention was hard to evaluate. The 2003 OECD study also noted, "Taken at face value they suggest publicly-performed R&D crowds out resources that could be alternatively used by the private sector, including private R&D."
A 1995 analysis done by American University economist Walter Parker also finds that government funding crowds out private research. "Once private research is explicitly controlled for, the direct effect of public research is weakly negative <http://www.american.edu/academic.depts/cas/econ/faculty/park/park_econinq.pdf>, as might be the case if public research has crowding-out effects which adversely affect private output growth," concludes Parker.Go here <" target=_blank>http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1548> for complete Pew survey results and here <http://www.reason.com/news/show/126584.html>for my column on "The Failure of Scientific Central Planning."
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Thomas Jefferson Explains Democracy
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
Obama's Life In Public Records : Blocked
This is from an organization called United States Justice Foundation (USJF) that is taking the battle over Obama's records to the courts. As a consequence they are being attacked for pursuing what should be public records that all candidates must produce before they can be elected to high office.
All previous presidential candidates have done this till now - Obama, as a god, and therefore being all powerful, doesn't believe it is necessary. Of course, what's worse, a majority of the voting public don't care what he is or who he is.
How does it happen that so many people just don't care about what happens to our country? What ever they are or who they are, these people could not have arrived at this point in their individual lives without the freedoms that they are now so willing to give up.
The United States Justice Foundation
FROM THE DESK OF Gary G. KreepBarack Hussein Obama's "birthday" is coming up in just two weeks -- on August 4th... so we have a special birthday surprise planned for him, and I would like YOU to take part.
FAX All 50 State Attorneys General ToInvestigate Obama's Birthday FRAUD:https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_faxag/?a=2756 According to published reports, Barack Obama's legal team has been paid over one million dollars, so far, to STOP anyone from seeing ANY of his actual identification documents, or many other documents:
Actual long-form birth certificate (NOT an easily-forged electronic copy of a short-form document that is not even officially accepted in Hawaii)
*Passport files
*University of Chicago Law School scholarly articles
*Harvard Law Review articles
*Harvard Law School records
*Columbia University records
*Columbia University senior thesis, "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament"
*Occidental College records, including financial aid that he may have received
*Punahou School records, where Mr. Obama attended from the fifth grade until he finished high school
*Noelani Elementary School records, where Barack Obama attended kindergarten (according to the Hawaii Department of Education, students must submit a birth certificate to register -- but parents may bring a passport or student visa if the child is from a foreign country)
*Complete files and schedules of his years as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004
*Obama's client list from during his time in private practice with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Gallard
*Illinois State Bar Association records
*Baptism records
*Obama/Dunham marriage license
*Obama/Dunham divorce documents
*Soetoro/Dunham marriage license
*Soetero/Dunham Adoption records
By the way, the issue of the Occidental College records is especially pertinent. The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) served officials at Occidental College with a subpoena to produce records concerning Barack Obama's attendance there during the 1980's, because those records could document whether he was attending as a foreign national. You see, Mr. Obama attended the school on a scholarship -- and there are questions as to whether the financial aid he received was reserved for foreign students.
The Obama attorneys have bent over backward to block us. He doesn't want anyone to see those records. He's STILL trying to hide them; those financial records STILL have not been released. WHAT is Barack Obama trying to hide? WHAT is he afraid of? WHY doesn't he just release these documents to prove that he is a natural-born citizen and, therefore, qualified to serve as President -- especially his actual birth certificate? Isn't it time we FORCED him to come clean? His "birthday" is the PERFECT time to do it!
FAX All 50 State Attorneys General ToInvestigate Obama's Birthday FRAUD:https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_faxag/?a=2756
I dared bring Barack Obama into court to force him to produce his birth certificate, and put an end to the controversy over his status as a "natural born" citizen once and for all. And now he's coming after me and the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) -- the public-interest legal group that I founded over 30 years ago -- with a vengeance!
Why? Because we dare to seek the TRUTH! And they must have something to hide, because Mr. Obama's attorneys have threatened to spend, and then sanction, USJF out of existence. That's why USJF has started efforts to convince State Attorneys General, all across the country, to investigate whether Barack Obama has committed perjury by knowingly filing false nomination papers... claiming to be constitutionally eligible to run for, and serve as, President of the United States.
As you know, the available evidence shows that he was born in Africa. Frankly, the evidence that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Africa -- not Hawaii as he claims -- and, therefore, cannot serve as the President of the United States, is compelling.
First, Mr. Obama's refusal to release his birth certificate. If he has nothing to hide, what does he gain by refusing to allow the press to see the birth certificate?
Second, the contention by Barack Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, that Mr. Obama was born in a particular Hawaiian hospital, only to claim that it was in a different hospital several years later. And, most recently, Barack Hussein Obama has contradicted himself, in writing, regarding the name of the hospital where he claims to have been born.
Third, the erecting of a wall around Barack Obama's grandmother, the late Madelyn Dunham, by Mr. Obama, thus cutting off access to the one person then alive who would have been present if he was actually born in Hawaii.
Fourth, the posting of law enforcement personnel at the two hospitals in Honolulu mentioned by Ms. Soetoro-Ng in an effort to block the press from discovering the truth about the birth certificate.
Fifth, a taped phone conversation with Mr. Obama's step-grandmother in Kenya, who claims that she was present at his birth... in what is now called Kenya!
Sixth, the "birth certificate" posted on the Obama campaign website and other liberal websites.
Since Barack Obama was born in 1961, long before laser printers and office computers, his original birth certificate would be typewritten ... unlike the laser printed "copy" purported to be genuine.
The evidence demands that Barack Obama answer why he has been hiding the truth from the American people about his eligibility to run for, and serve as, President!
FAX All 50 State Attorneys General ToInvestigate Obama's Birthday FRAUD:https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_faxag/?a=2756
It's TRUE. Not only does Mr. Obama continue to categorically refuse to produce the decisive evidence proving whether he is a "natural born" citizen, his high-priced LA-based "dream team" of attorneys has USJF squarely in its crosshairs! And they're loading both barrels!
All previous presidential candidates have done this till now - Obama, as a god, and therefore being all powerful, doesn't believe it is necessary. Of course, what's worse, a majority of the voting public don't care what he is or who he is.
How does it happen that so many people just don't care about what happens to our country? What ever they are or who they are, these people could not have arrived at this point in their individual lives without the freedoms that they are now so willing to give up.
Am I missing something here? Who are these people anyway? Where do they live that shields them from reality?
The United States Justice Foundation
FROM THE DESK OF Gary G. KreepBarack Hussein Obama's "birthday" is coming up in just two weeks -- on August 4th... so we have a special birthday surprise planned for him, and I would like YOU to take part.
FAX All 50 State Attorneys General ToInvestigate Obama's Birthday FRAUD:https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_faxag/?a=2756 According to published reports, Barack Obama's legal team has been paid over one million dollars, so far, to STOP anyone from seeing ANY of his actual identification documents, or many other documents:
Actual long-form birth certificate (NOT an easily-forged electronic copy of a short-form document that is not even officially accepted in Hawaii)
*Passport files
*University of Chicago Law School scholarly articles
*Harvard Law Review articles
*Harvard Law School records
*Columbia University records
*Columbia University senior thesis, "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament"
*Occidental College records, including financial aid that he may have received
*Punahou School records, where Mr. Obama attended from the fifth grade until he finished high school
*Noelani Elementary School records, where Barack Obama attended kindergarten (according to the Hawaii Department of Education, students must submit a birth certificate to register -- but parents may bring a passport or student visa if the child is from a foreign country)
*Complete files and schedules of his years as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004
*Obama's client list from during his time in private practice with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Gallard
*Illinois State Bar Association records
*Baptism records
*Obama/Dunham marriage license
*Obama/Dunham divorce documents
*Soetoro/Dunham marriage license
*Soetero/Dunham Adoption records
By the way, the issue of the Occidental College records is especially pertinent. The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) served officials at Occidental College with a subpoena to produce records concerning Barack Obama's attendance there during the 1980's, because those records could document whether he was attending as a foreign national. You see, Mr. Obama attended the school on a scholarship -- and there are questions as to whether the financial aid he received was reserved for foreign students.
The Obama attorneys have bent over backward to block us. He doesn't want anyone to see those records. He's STILL trying to hide them; those financial records STILL have not been released. WHAT is Barack Obama trying to hide? WHAT is he afraid of? WHY doesn't he just release these documents to prove that he is a natural-born citizen and, therefore, qualified to serve as President -- especially his actual birth certificate? Isn't it time we FORCED him to come clean? His "birthday" is the PERFECT time to do it!
FAX All 50 State Attorneys General ToInvestigate Obama's Birthday FRAUD:https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_faxag/?a=2756
I dared bring Barack Obama into court to force him to produce his birth certificate, and put an end to the controversy over his status as a "natural born" citizen once and for all. And now he's coming after me and the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) -- the public-interest legal group that I founded over 30 years ago -- with a vengeance!
Why? Because we dare to seek the TRUTH! And they must have something to hide, because Mr. Obama's attorneys have threatened to spend, and then sanction, USJF out of existence. That's why USJF has started efforts to convince State Attorneys General, all across the country, to investigate whether Barack Obama has committed perjury by knowingly filing false nomination papers... claiming to be constitutionally eligible to run for, and serve as, President of the United States.
As you know, the available evidence shows that he was born in Africa. Frankly, the evidence that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Africa -- not Hawaii as he claims -- and, therefore, cannot serve as the President of the United States, is compelling.
First, Mr. Obama's refusal to release his birth certificate. If he has nothing to hide, what does he gain by refusing to allow the press to see the birth certificate?
Second, the contention by Barack Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, that Mr. Obama was born in a particular Hawaiian hospital, only to claim that it was in a different hospital several years later. And, most recently, Barack Hussein Obama has contradicted himself, in writing, regarding the name of the hospital where he claims to have been born.
Third, the erecting of a wall around Barack Obama's grandmother, the late Madelyn Dunham, by Mr. Obama, thus cutting off access to the one person then alive who would have been present if he was actually born in Hawaii.
Fourth, the posting of law enforcement personnel at the two hospitals in Honolulu mentioned by Ms. Soetoro-Ng in an effort to block the press from discovering the truth about the birth certificate.
Fifth, a taped phone conversation with Mr. Obama's step-grandmother in Kenya, who claims that she was present at his birth... in what is now called Kenya!
Sixth, the "birth certificate" posted on the Obama campaign website and other liberal websites.
Since Barack Obama was born in 1961, long before laser printers and office computers, his original birth certificate would be typewritten ... unlike the laser printed "copy" purported to be genuine.
The evidence demands that Barack Obama answer why he has been hiding the truth from the American people about his eligibility to run for, and serve as, President!
FAX All 50 State Attorneys General ToInvestigate Obama's Birthday FRAUD:https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_faxag/?a=2756
It's TRUE. Not only does Mr. Obama continue to categorically refuse to produce the decisive evidence proving whether he is a "natural born" citizen, his high-priced LA-based "dream team" of attorneys has USJF squarely in its crosshairs! And they're loading both barrels!
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Obama, Who Are You? : Our President Living In Shadows
What a duel standard we have. When we see all of the documentation that Obama has refused to release to the public as a matter of law, like all other presents have done in our history, we have to assume that he is hiding something that he doesn't want anyone to know about that would darken the door step of such a 'great' man.
The truth is he is not who he says he is - he is someone that operates from a hiding place and emerges only when he needs to administer more 'cool aide' to the true believers. But then it's back into the shadows where he works his magic changing America from a prosperous nation into a socialist nightmare.
Of course he isn't alone in this task, there is a multitude of people that are more than willing to sacrifice their personal freedom and moral principles for only a promise of security in the distant future. A future compromised from the very beginning.
Why is this so clear to me and completely lost on so many?
Keep the faith - the battle rages on!
Chris Matthews Wrong on Obama Birth Certificate
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
By: Jim Meyers
MSNBC's Chris Matthews got into a heated exchange with a congressman on his show Tuesday as he revisited the question of President Barack Obama's birth certificate — or lack of one.
Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., is a co-sponsor of the so-called "birther bill," which would require future presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificates.
“Birthers” are those who believe Obama is not qualified to be president, based on a belief that he was not born in the United States.
Campbell is not a “birther” and never has claimed that Obama was born outside the United States or should be disqualified from being president. On the show, Matthews seemingly undermined claims by some that Obama never has released his birth certificate, producing what Matthews said was a true copy of it. But Matthews made a false claim. Obama never has released his actual birth certificate. He has released another document, which state authorities often provide in lieu of a birth certificate, called a certification of live birth.
Matthews on Tuesday said Campbell was "playing to the crazies" by supporting the "crazy" bill, and the congressman shot back that it was all about "putting the matter to rest."
Matthews also accused Campbell of "feeding the wacko wing of your party," and held up what he called a copy of the supposed Obama birth certificate. Case closed?
The indisputable fact is that Obama has not released his birth certificate, which the state of Hawaii issues for all citizens born there. Instead, his campaign has released only his certification of live birth from the state of Hawaii, which is a document that offers a summarized version of the birth certificate.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain quickly released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his eligibility to be president. McCain was born at a military hospital in Panama.
Obama likewise could put the matter to rest by releasing his actual birth certificate, which would show, among other things, the place of his birth and the doctor who performed the birth procedure. This information is not provided on the certification of live birth.
As it stands, Obama is the only president in history whose birthplace is unknown to the public – a fact that would be stated on the actual birth certificate. Interestingly, his family has mentioned two different hospitals in Hawaii as the place of birth.
The fact that Obama has refused to release his actual birth certificate does not mean conspiracy theorists are right when they claim he was born in Kenya and therefore not eligible to be president. Investigators who have reviewed the claims have found no evidence Obama was born outside of Hawaii.
But Obama’s refusal to release his birth certificate does mean that Obama remains one of America’s most mysterious and opaque presidents ever.
Obama, for example, has not released many other documents regarding his public and private life. Many of these documents were sought by reporters, who easily acquiesced when Obama said he would not release them – though most presidential candidates release them as a perfunctory matter.
Among the key documents that Obama continues to shield from the public:
Obama released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hand, released what he said was his complete medical file, totaling more than 1,500 pages.
Obama refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois. Nor did he produce correspondence, such as his schedules of appointments or letters from lobbyists, from his days in the Illinois state Senate.
Obama did not release his client list as an attorney or his billing records. He maintained that he performed only a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June 2008 but did not release billing records that would prove this assertion.
Obama ignored requests for his records from Occidental College, where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia University.
Obama’s campaign refused to give Columbia, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Former President George W. Bush and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry all released their college transcripts.
Obama did not agree to the release of his application to the Illinois State Bar, which would have cleared up intermittent allegations that his application may have been inaccurate.
Obama did not release records from his time at Harvard Law School.
During the presidential campaign, McCain’s campaign released a full list of all online donors.
Obama’s campaign still has not released the names of those who donated at least one-third of the $750 million he raised.
Ironically, Obama accused the Bush White House of being "one of the most secretive administrations in our history," and chided then-Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules.
Chris Matthews, get your facts straight and demand full disclosure — that’s the best way to keep an honest government.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved
The truth is he is not who he says he is - he is someone that operates from a hiding place and emerges only when he needs to administer more 'cool aide' to the true believers. But then it's back into the shadows where he works his magic changing America from a prosperous nation into a socialist nightmare.
Of course he isn't alone in this task, there is a multitude of people that are more than willing to sacrifice their personal freedom and moral principles for only a promise of security in the distant future. A future compromised from the very beginning.
Why is this so clear to me and completely lost on so many?
Keep the faith - the battle rages on!
Chris Matthews Wrong on Obama Birth Certificate
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
By: Jim Meyers
MSNBC's Chris Matthews got into a heated exchange with a congressman on his show Tuesday as he revisited the question of President Barack Obama's birth certificate — or lack of one.
Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., is a co-sponsor of the so-called "birther bill," which would require future presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificates.
“Birthers” are those who believe Obama is not qualified to be president, based on a belief that he was not born in the United States.
Campbell is not a “birther” and never has claimed that Obama was born outside the United States or should be disqualified from being president. On the show, Matthews seemingly undermined claims by some that Obama never has released his birth certificate, producing what Matthews said was a true copy of it. But Matthews made a false claim. Obama never has released his actual birth certificate. He has released another document, which state authorities often provide in lieu of a birth certificate, called a certification of live birth.
Matthews on Tuesday said Campbell was "playing to the crazies" by supporting the "crazy" bill, and the congressman shot back that it was all about "putting the matter to rest."
Matthews also accused Campbell of "feeding the wacko wing of your party," and held up what he called a copy of the supposed Obama birth certificate. Case closed?
The indisputable fact is that Obama has not released his birth certificate, which the state of Hawaii issues for all citizens born there. Instead, his campaign has released only his certification of live birth from the state of Hawaii, which is a document that offers a summarized version of the birth certificate.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain quickly released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his eligibility to be president. McCain was born at a military hospital in Panama.
Obama likewise could put the matter to rest by releasing his actual birth certificate, which would show, among other things, the place of his birth and the doctor who performed the birth procedure. This information is not provided on the certification of live birth.
As it stands, Obama is the only president in history whose birthplace is unknown to the public – a fact that would be stated on the actual birth certificate. Interestingly, his family has mentioned two different hospitals in Hawaii as the place of birth.
The fact that Obama has refused to release his actual birth certificate does not mean conspiracy theorists are right when they claim he was born in Kenya and therefore not eligible to be president. Investigators who have reviewed the claims have found no evidence Obama was born outside of Hawaii.
But Obama’s refusal to release his birth certificate does mean that Obama remains one of America’s most mysterious and opaque presidents ever.
Obama, for example, has not released many other documents regarding his public and private life. Many of these documents were sought by reporters, who easily acquiesced when Obama said he would not release them – though most presidential candidates release them as a perfunctory matter.
Among the key documents that Obama continues to shield from the public:
Obama released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hand, released what he said was his complete medical file, totaling more than 1,500 pages.
Obama refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois. Nor did he produce correspondence, such as his schedules of appointments or letters from lobbyists, from his days in the Illinois state Senate.
Obama did not release his client list as an attorney or his billing records. He maintained that he performed only a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June 2008 but did not release billing records that would prove this assertion.
Obama ignored requests for his records from Occidental College, where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia University.
Obama’s campaign refused to give Columbia, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Former President George W. Bush and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry all released their college transcripts.
Obama did not agree to the release of his application to the Illinois State Bar, which would have cleared up intermittent allegations that his application may have been inaccurate.
Obama did not release records from his time at Harvard Law School.
During the presidential campaign, McCain’s campaign released a full list of all online donors.
Obama’s campaign still has not released the names of those who donated at least one-third of the $750 million he raised.
Ironically, Obama accused the Bush White House of being "one of the most secretive administrations in our history," and chided then-Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules.
Chris Matthews, get your facts straight and demand full disclosure — that’s the best way to keep an honest government.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved
Friday, July 24, 2009
Obama : A lie Is The Refuge of Weakness
This is just a short line that I saw the other day but it has great importance for us all but especially for Obama -
A lie is the refuge of weakness. The man of courage is not afraid of the truth.
Barack Obama take note!
A lie is the refuge of weakness. The man of courage is not afraid of the truth.
Barack Obama take note!
Liberal Democrats Crush Initiative : Little Red Hen Quits
The little red hen did a nice job of being a leader in her community until the liberals came along and told her hard work was good so she could take care of the rest of her neighbors who don't what to work. She decided to quit working as she saw it was not in her best interest. I wonder who will do the work?
America according to Obama -
This may say it all !!
"Who will help me plant my wheat?" said the little red hen. "Not I," said the cow. "Not I," said the duck. "Not I," said the pig. "Not I," said the goose. "Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen, and so she did. She planted her crop, and the wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.
"Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen. "Not I," said the duck.. "Out of my classification," said the pig. "I'd lose my seniority," said the cow. "I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose. "Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen, and so she did.
At last it came time to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little red hen. "That would be overtime for me," said the cow. "I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck. "I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig. "If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose. "Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen. She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see.
They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I shall eat all five loaves." "Excess profits!" cried the cow. (Nancy Pelosi) "Capitalist leech!" screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer) "I demand equal rights!" yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson) The pig just grunted in disdain. (Ted Kennedy)
And they all painted 'Unfair!' picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities. Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little red hen, "You must not be so greedy." "But I earned the bread," said the little red hen. "Exactly," said Barack the farmer. "That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who don't care to work or just idle."
And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, for now I truly understand." But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the 'party' and got her bread free.
And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established. Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared...so long as there was free bread that 'the rich' were paying for it.. until the money and bread stopped.
EPILOGUE Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs. Hillary got $8 million for hers. That's $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything. IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT!
America according to Obama -
This may say it all !!
"Who will help me plant my wheat?" said the little red hen. "Not I," said the cow. "Not I," said the duck. "Not I," said the pig. "Not I," said the goose. "Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen, and so she did. She planted her crop, and the wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.
"Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen. "Not I," said the duck.. "Out of my classification," said the pig. "I'd lose my seniority," said the cow. "I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose. "Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen, and so she did.
At last it came time to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little red hen. "That would be overtime for me," said the cow. "I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck. "I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig. "If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose. "Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen. She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see.
They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I shall eat all five loaves." "Excess profits!" cried the cow. (Nancy Pelosi) "Capitalist leech!" screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer) "I demand equal rights!" yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson) The pig just grunted in disdain. (Ted Kennedy)
And they all painted 'Unfair!' picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities. Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little red hen, "You must not be so greedy." "But I earned the bread," said the little red hen. "Exactly," said Barack the farmer. "That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who don't care to work or just idle."
And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, for now I truly understand." But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the 'party' and got her bread free.
And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established. Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared...so long as there was free bread that 'the rich' were paying for it.. until the money and bread stopped.
EPILOGUE Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs. Hillary got $8 million for hers. That's $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything. IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT!
Socrates On Rumors : Is It True, Good or Useful?
Apply this story to our political situation and the main stream media. 'nough said.
Keep this in mind the next time you hear or are about to repeat a rumor.
In ancient Greece (469 - 399 BC), Socrates was widely lauded for his wisdom. One day the great philosopher came upon an acquaintance who ran up to him excitedly and said, "Socrates, do you know what I just heard about one of your students...?""Wait a moment," Socrates replied, "before you tell me, I'd like you to pass a little test. It's called the Test of Three."
"Test of Three?""That's correct," Socrates continued, before you talk to me about my student let's take a moment to test what you're going to say. The first test is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?"
"No," the man replied, " actually I just heard about it."
"All right," said Socrates. "So you don't really know if its' true or not. Now let's try the second test, the test of Goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about my student something good?"
"No, on the contrary..."
"So," Socrates continued, "you want to tell me something bad about him even though you're not certain it's true?"The man shrugged, a little embarassed. Socrates continued, "You may still pass though because there is a third test - the filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about my student going to be useful to me?"
"No, not really..."
"Well," concluded Socrates, "if what you want to tell me is neither True nor Good nor even Useful, why tell it to me at all?"The man was defeated and ashamed and said no more.This is the reason Socrates was a great philosopher and held in such high esteem.It also explains why Socrates never found out Plato was banging his wife.
Keep this in mind the next time you hear or are about to repeat a rumor.
In ancient Greece (469 - 399 BC), Socrates was widely lauded for his wisdom. One day the great philosopher came upon an acquaintance who ran up to him excitedly and said, "Socrates, do you know what I just heard about one of your students...?""Wait a moment," Socrates replied, "before you tell me, I'd like you to pass a little test. It's called the Test of Three."
"Test of Three?""That's correct," Socrates continued, before you talk to me about my student let's take a moment to test what you're going to say. The first test is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?"
"No," the man replied, " actually I just heard about it."
"All right," said Socrates. "So you don't really know if its' true or not. Now let's try the second test, the test of Goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about my student something good?"
"No, on the contrary..."
"So," Socrates continued, "you want to tell me something bad about him even though you're not certain it's true?"The man shrugged, a little embarassed. Socrates continued, "You may still pass though because there is a third test - the filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about my student going to be useful to me?"
"No, not really..."
"Well," concluded Socrates, "if what you want to tell me is neither True nor Good nor even Useful, why tell it to me at all?"The man was defeated and ashamed and said no more.This is the reason Socrates was a great philosopher and held in such high esteem.It also explains why Socrates never found out Plato was banging his wife.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Obama Health Care Covers Illegal Immigrants
Just think what it costs us now for health insurance without including 12 million illegals that we know of, in fact the number is closer to 20 million. But think what will happen when the 20 million become citizens and then bring in all of their relatives, which they can do legally as American citizens. Add another 50 million to this number.
Ask your self this question as well, what about the coming horde of retires that will require Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Who will pay for all of these people? There will be millions coming on board. The system is broke now.
Who voted for these people anyway?
Obama Health Plan to Cover 12 Million Illegals
Sunday, July 19, 2009
By: David A. Patten
On Friday, Democrats moved one step closer to giving free health insurance to the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal aliens when they successfully defeated a Republican-backed amendment, offered by Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving government-subsidized health care under the proposed plan backed by House Democrats and President Barack Obama.
The House Ways and Means Committee nixed the Heller amendment by a 26-to-15 vote along straight party lines, and followed this action by passing the 1,018-page bill early Friday morning by a 23-to-18 margin, with three Democrats voting against the plan.
The Democratic plan will embrace Obama’s vision of bringing free government medical care to more than 45 million uninsured people in America – a significant portion of whom are illegal aliens.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, costs under the Obama plan being proposed by the House will saddle citizens with $1.04 trillion in new federal outlays over the next decade. Congressional Democrats and Obama have argued that their health plan is necessary to contain rising health care costs. But, last Thursday, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf testified before the Senate Budget Committee and warned lawmakers that the proposed “legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."
A key factor increasing costs is that Democratic plan provides for blanket coverage to as much as 15 percent of the U.S. population not currently insured, including illegals. Democrats had insisted throughout the health-care reform debate that illegals would be ineligible for the so-called public option plan that is to be subsidized by taxpayers. "We're not going to cover undocumented aliens, undocumented workers," Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told reporters in May. "That's too politically explosive."
Republicans, however, point out that the Democrats, by refusing to accept the Heller amendment, would deny health agencies from conducting simple database checks to verify citizenship. Many states give illegals driver licenses, which will be sufficient to get free health care under the plan. Critics also contend that millions of illegals who already have counterfeit Social Security cards or other fraudulent documents. There is no enforcement mechanism in the legislation, experts say, to prevent illegals who use fake IDs to obtain jobs from also obtaining taxpayer-subsidized health insurance.
GOP representatives introduced the amendment to provide a way to weed out non-citizens from the program.
A description of the amendment on Heller's Web site state it would "better screen applicants for subsidized health care to ensure they are actually citizens or otherwise entitled to it."
The Web post added, "The underlying bill is insufficient for the purpose of preventing illegal aliens from accessing the bill’s proposed benefits, as it does not provide mechanisms allowing those administering the program to ensure illegal aliens cannot access taxpayer-funded subsidies and benefits."
The Heller amendment would have required that individuals applying for the public health care option would be subject to two systems used to verify immigration status already in use by the government: The Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program. The two systems cross-reference Social Security numbers and employment information to establish whether an individual is a U.S. citizen.
Critics: Free Health Care Means More Illegals
A recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that an overwhelming 80 percent of Americans oppose covering illegals in any public health care bill. Anti-immigration activists say the availability of low-cost benefits, including health insurance and in-state tuition, will only lure more immigrants to come to the United States.
Political analyst Dick Morris, in his recently released best-selling book “Catastrophe”, warns that giving illegal free health care will lead to a flood of new illegals who can take advantage of such a benefit not offered in their home countries.
William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration, agrees with that sentiment, writing, "Each state and federal elected official must know that illegal aliens should not be given licenses, in-state tuition, mortgages, bank accounts, welfare, or any other benefit short of emergency medical care and law enforcement accommodations before they are deported."
But only a small fraction of illegals end up deported, as many make widespread use of fake IDs to easily gain access to government benefits programs.
"Experts suggest that approximately 75 percent of working-age illegal aliens use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment," wrote Ronald W. Mortensen in a recent Center for Immigration Studies research paper. Mortensen says one of the big misconceptions about illegals is that they are undocumented.
James R. Edwards Jr., co-author of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, recently wrote on National Review Online that "it's hard to envision how health reform can avoid tripping the immigration booby trap."
Edwards says none of the legislation under consideration actually requires any state, federal, or local agency to check the immigration status of those who apply for the program. The assumption is that companies have vetted their employees to ensure they are eligibility for legal employment – a difficult task for employers given the active market in fraudulent documents. Thus Edwards maintains "some of the money distributed … inevitably would go to illegal aliens."
The estimates of illegal aliens in the United States without health insurance vary. The most commonly cited statistic, attributed to the Center for Immigration Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau, holds that 15 percent to 22 percent of the nation's 46 million uninsured are illegal aliens. That would be between 6.9 million and 10.1 million people. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama claimed the nation United States has 12 million or more undocumented aliens.
John Sheils of the Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm owned by UnitedHealth Group, recently told National Public Radio that about 6.1 million illegals – about half of all illegals in the United States – lack documentation and therefore would not be legally eligible for benefits under the current health care reforms. Sheils says the other half of the nation's illegals – 5 million to 6 million – use false documents to obtain on-the-books employment. Many of them are already insured under their employers' plans, he added. "A lot of those people are getting employer health benefits as part of their compensation," Sheils told NPR.
Certainly, some contend that undocumented workers who are gainfully employed and receiving benefits such as health insurance are contributing to society. But the fact remains that, once equipped with a fake ID, a person in the United States illegally can obtain both a job and the benefits that go with it.
Estimates of the cost of providing illegals with medical care vary. Most uninsured illegals who need medical attention obtain it from hospital emergency rooms. And several states are already straining under the huge burden of paying for the health costs of illegal aliens.
According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in 2004 California's estimated cost of unreimbursed medical care was $1.4 billion. Texas estimated its cost at $850 million annually, and Arizona at $400 million.
Non-border states shoulder heavy burdens as well. Virginia's annual cost of providing health care for undocumented workers is approximately $100 million per year, FAIR reports, while Florida's health care cost is about $300 million annually.
One of the ironies of the proposed legislation is that it would fine American citizens who opt not to purchase insurance coverage, but would exempt illegals from such fines. This is presumably due to the fact that they are not supposed to participate in the program anyway.
Even if no illegals were likely to benefit from health care reform, Democrats have made it clear that amnesty is the next item on their ambitious legislative agenda. "I've got to do health care, I've got to do energy, and then I'm looking very closely at doing immigration," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared in June. Reid explained the urgent need for amnesty in terms very similar to those that Democrats have used to press for health care reform. "We have an immigration system that's broken and needs repair," Reid said.
Immigration expert Edwards, for one, says health-care reform may itself need serious medical attention before it is healthy enough pass through Congress.
"The American people may soon realize how much health reform will benefit immigrants and cost the native-born," he writes. "When that happens, the volatile politics of immigration could derail universal health care."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Ask your self this question as well, what about the coming horde of retires that will require Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Who will pay for all of these people? There will be millions coming on board. The system is broke now.
Who voted for these people anyway?
Obama Health Plan to Cover 12 Million Illegals
Sunday, July 19, 2009
By: David A. Patten
On Friday, Democrats moved one step closer to giving free health insurance to the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal aliens when they successfully defeated a Republican-backed amendment, offered by Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving government-subsidized health care under the proposed plan backed by House Democrats and President Barack Obama.
The House Ways and Means Committee nixed the Heller amendment by a 26-to-15 vote along straight party lines, and followed this action by passing the 1,018-page bill early Friday morning by a 23-to-18 margin, with three Democrats voting against the plan.
The Democratic plan will embrace Obama’s vision of bringing free government medical care to more than 45 million uninsured people in America – a significant portion of whom are illegal aliens.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, costs under the Obama plan being proposed by the House will saddle citizens with $1.04 trillion in new federal outlays over the next decade. Congressional Democrats and Obama have argued that their health plan is necessary to contain rising health care costs. But, last Thursday, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf testified before the Senate Budget Committee and warned lawmakers that the proposed “legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."
A key factor increasing costs is that Democratic plan provides for blanket coverage to as much as 15 percent of the U.S. population not currently insured, including illegals. Democrats had insisted throughout the health-care reform debate that illegals would be ineligible for the so-called public option plan that is to be subsidized by taxpayers. "We're not going to cover undocumented aliens, undocumented workers," Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told reporters in May. "That's too politically explosive."
Republicans, however, point out that the Democrats, by refusing to accept the Heller amendment, would deny health agencies from conducting simple database checks to verify citizenship. Many states give illegals driver licenses, which will be sufficient to get free health care under the plan. Critics also contend that millions of illegals who already have counterfeit Social Security cards or other fraudulent documents. There is no enforcement mechanism in the legislation, experts say, to prevent illegals who use fake IDs to obtain jobs from also obtaining taxpayer-subsidized health insurance.
GOP representatives introduced the amendment to provide a way to weed out non-citizens from the program.
A description of the amendment on Heller's Web site state it would "better screen applicants for subsidized health care to ensure they are actually citizens or otherwise entitled to it."
The Web post added, "The underlying bill is insufficient for the purpose of preventing illegal aliens from accessing the bill’s proposed benefits, as it does not provide mechanisms allowing those administering the program to ensure illegal aliens cannot access taxpayer-funded subsidies and benefits."
The Heller amendment would have required that individuals applying for the public health care option would be subject to two systems used to verify immigration status already in use by the government: The Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program. The two systems cross-reference Social Security numbers and employment information to establish whether an individual is a U.S. citizen.
Critics: Free Health Care Means More Illegals
A recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that an overwhelming 80 percent of Americans oppose covering illegals in any public health care bill. Anti-immigration activists say the availability of low-cost benefits, including health insurance and in-state tuition, will only lure more immigrants to come to the United States.
Political analyst Dick Morris, in his recently released best-selling book “Catastrophe”, warns that giving illegal free health care will lead to a flood of new illegals who can take advantage of such a benefit not offered in their home countries.
William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration, agrees with that sentiment, writing, "Each state and federal elected official must know that illegal aliens should not be given licenses, in-state tuition, mortgages, bank accounts, welfare, or any other benefit short of emergency medical care and law enforcement accommodations before they are deported."
But only a small fraction of illegals end up deported, as many make widespread use of fake IDs to easily gain access to government benefits programs.
"Experts suggest that approximately 75 percent of working-age illegal aliens use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment," wrote Ronald W. Mortensen in a recent Center for Immigration Studies research paper. Mortensen says one of the big misconceptions about illegals is that they are undocumented.
James R. Edwards Jr., co-author of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, recently wrote on National Review Online that "it's hard to envision how health reform can avoid tripping the immigration booby trap."
Edwards says none of the legislation under consideration actually requires any state, federal, or local agency to check the immigration status of those who apply for the program. The assumption is that companies have vetted their employees to ensure they are eligibility for legal employment – a difficult task for employers given the active market in fraudulent documents. Thus Edwards maintains "some of the money distributed … inevitably would go to illegal aliens."
The estimates of illegal aliens in the United States without health insurance vary. The most commonly cited statistic, attributed to the Center for Immigration Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau, holds that 15 percent to 22 percent of the nation's 46 million uninsured are illegal aliens. That would be between 6.9 million and 10.1 million people. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama claimed the nation United States has 12 million or more undocumented aliens.
John Sheils of the Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm owned by UnitedHealth Group, recently told National Public Radio that about 6.1 million illegals – about half of all illegals in the United States – lack documentation and therefore would not be legally eligible for benefits under the current health care reforms. Sheils says the other half of the nation's illegals – 5 million to 6 million – use false documents to obtain on-the-books employment. Many of them are already insured under their employers' plans, he added. "A lot of those people are getting employer health benefits as part of their compensation," Sheils told NPR.
Certainly, some contend that undocumented workers who are gainfully employed and receiving benefits such as health insurance are contributing to society. But the fact remains that, once equipped with a fake ID, a person in the United States illegally can obtain both a job and the benefits that go with it.
Estimates of the cost of providing illegals with medical care vary. Most uninsured illegals who need medical attention obtain it from hospital emergency rooms. And several states are already straining under the huge burden of paying for the health costs of illegal aliens.
According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in 2004 California's estimated cost of unreimbursed medical care was $1.4 billion. Texas estimated its cost at $850 million annually, and Arizona at $400 million.
Non-border states shoulder heavy burdens as well. Virginia's annual cost of providing health care for undocumented workers is approximately $100 million per year, FAIR reports, while Florida's health care cost is about $300 million annually.
One of the ironies of the proposed legislation is that it would fine American citizens who opt not to purchase insurance coverage, but would exempt illegals from such fines. This is presumably due to the fact that they are not supposed to participate in the program anyway.
Even if no illegals were likely to benefit from health care reform, Democrats have made it clear that amnesty is the next item on their ambitious legislative agenda. "I've got to do health care, I've got to do energy, and then I'm looking very closely at doing immigration," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared in June. Reid explained the urgent need for amnesty in terms very similar to those that Democrats have used to press for health care reform. "We have an immigration system that's broken and needs repair," Reid said.
Immigration expert Edwards, for one, says health-care reform may itself need serious medical attention before it is healthy enough pass through Congress.
"The American people may soon realize how much health reform will benefit immigrants and cost the native-born," he writes. "When that happens, the volatile politics of immigration could derail universal health care."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Obama's Ten Commandments
How could this happen in America? We have a president that is trying his best to destroy our country. Hundreds of thousands of lives given to get 234 years of freedom and prosperity. Who voted for this guy?
From the Patriot Depot
I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.) SOURCE
II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore. SOURCE
III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain (or in public). Only I can say Barack Hussein Obama. SOURCE
IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy. SOURCE
V. Honour thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money. SOURCE
VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby. SOURCE
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are conservative or a Republican. Liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed. SOURCE
VIII. Thou shalt not steal, until you've been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those who do not have the motivation to better their own lives. SOURCE
IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against thy neighbor unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian. SOURCE
X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet.
From the Patriot Depot
I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.) SOURCE
II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore. SOURCE
III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain (or in public). Only I can say Barack Hussein Obama. SOURCE
IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy. SOURCE
V. Honour thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money. SOURCE
VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby. SOURCE
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are conservative or a Republican. Liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed. SOURCE
VIII. Thou shalt not steal, until you've been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those who do not have the motivation to better their own lives. SOURCE
IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against thy neighbor unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian. SOURCE
X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet.
Obama's Illegal Amnesty A Security Risk
Obama has a goal of getting as many people to vote liberal as possible no matter what damage it may cause the country - the census run by Acorn and now making all illegal immigrants citizens.
What does this mean for the rest of us and all those that immigrated here legally, Obama doesn't care - remember it's about power anyway he can get it and Keep it.
FAIR: Obama Betrays Security for Illegal Amnesty
Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:15 PM
By: Rick Pedraza
The country’s largest immigration reform group called the Obama administration’s massive illegal alien amnesty program a low priority that should take a back seat to security concerns.
"The American people have some very clear ideas about the priorities President Obama and Congress need to address, and a massive illegal alien amnesty isn’t one of them," Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) told Personal Liberty Digest.
"The public wants our immigration system fixed, but they expect their interests, not the interests of the people who broke our laws, to be paramount." Stern, in an op-ed piece in the Buffalo News, wrote that international terrorist organizations have not given up their quest to attack this country. He said enacting a massive amnesty for nearly 13 million illegal aliens before securing the nation’s borders will exploit our vulnerability and could destroy infrastructure.
Stern called out Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., for stating in late June that securing America’s borders would have to wait until after enactment of a massive amnesty for illegal aliens. Schumer, who chairs the powerful Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Refugees, is predicting that sweeping immigration reform, including amnesty, will become law before the year is over.
“Unfortunately, Schumer and many in Washington seem prepared to use homeland security as a bargaining chip to leverage another massive amnesty for illegal aliens that the American public does not want and cannot afford,” Stern wrote. “In doing so, he and others are gambling with the security of the nation and the lives of innocent people.” FAIR points out that since taking office, the Obama administration has abandoned enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.
In April, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano during an appearance on CNN asserted that illegal immigration is really not a crime. In late June, Obama told a group of bipartisan lawmakers that Congress should get a plan together by year’s end.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama promised to address immigration reform and make amnesty a top priority during his first year in office.
Last month, Obama said that America can't continue with a broken immigration system.
Obama said the current system is not good for American workers or U.S. wages; puts Mexicans who cross the border in danger; keeps undocumented workers exploited and in the shadows; and strains border communities.
Stern said Schumer and others want to legalize millions of illegal aliens for political reasons and reasons of personal conviction. “Why, eight years after 9/11, do we not have operational control of our borders? And why should reasserting control have to wait for anything? Congress and the president have a moral and constitutional obligation to use all resources already available to protect the security of the nation,” Stern wrote in The News.
“As chairman of the relevant subcommittee, and as an elected representative of the people who would most likely suffer in the event of another terrorist attack, Schumer has an obligation to put other considerations [such as amnesty] aside,” he added.
“As a member of the House in 1986, Schumer was instrumental in passing similar legislation that granted amnesty to illegal aliens in exchange for government commitments to control future illegal immigration. Some 3 million illegal aliens got amnesty while the American people got fooled. This time, the security and interests of law-abiding Americans must come first.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
What does this mean for the rest of us and all those that immigrated here legally, Obama doesn't care - remember it's about power anyway he can get it and Keep it.
FAIR: Obama Betrays Security for Illegal Amnesty
Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:15 PM
By: Rick Pedraza
The country’s largest immigration reform group called the Obama administration’s massive illegal alien amnesty program a low priority that should take a back seat to security concerns.
"The American people have some very clear ideas about the priorities President Obama and Congress need to address, and a massive illegal alien amnesty isn’t one of them," Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) told Personal Liberty Digest.
"The public wants our immigration system fixed, but they expect their interests, not the interests of the people who broke our laws, to be paramount." Stern, in an op-ed piece in the Buffalo News, wrote that international terrorist organizations have not given up their quest to attack this country. He said enacting a massive amnesty for nearly 13 million illegal aliens before securing the nation’s borders will exploit our vulnerability and could destroy infrastructure.
Stern called out Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., for stating in late June that securing America’s borders would have to wait until after enactment of a massive amnesty for illegal aliens. Schumer, who chairs the powerful Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Refugees, is predicting that sweeping immigration reform, including amnesty, will become law before the year is over.
“Unfortunately, Schumer and many in Washington seem prepared to use homeland security as a bargaining chip to leverage another massive amnesty for illegal aliens that the American public does not want and cannot afford,” Stern wrote. “In doing so, he and others are gambling with the security of the nation and the lives of innocent people.” FAIR points out that since taking office, the Obama administration has abandoned enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.
In April, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano during an appearance on CNN asserted that illegal immigration is really not a crime. In late June, Obama told a group of bipartisan lawmakers that Congress should get a plan together by year’s end.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama promised to address immigration reform and make amnesty a top priority during his first year in office.
Last month, Obama said that America can't continue with a broken immigration system.
Obama said the current system is not good for American workers or U.S. wages; puts Mexicans who cross the border in danger; keeps undocumented workers exploited and in the shadows; and strains border communities.
Stern said Schumer and others want to legalize millions of illegal aliens for political reasons and reasons of personal conviction. “Why, eight years after 9/11, do we not have operational control of our borders? And why should reasserting control have to wait for anything? Congress and the president have a moral and constitutional obligation to use all resources already available to protect the security of the nation,” Stern wrote in The News.
“As chairman of the relevant subcommittee, and as an elected representative of the people who would most likely suffer in the event of another terrorist attack, Schumer has an obligation to put other considerations [such as amnesty] aside,” he added.
“As a member of the House in 1986, Schumer was instrumental in passing similar legislation that granted amnesty to illegal aliens in exchange for government commitments to control future illegal immigration. Some 3 million illegal aliens got amnesty while the American people got fooled. This time, the security and interests of law-abiding Americans must come first.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Robert Bork : Sotomayor NOT Qualifted for High Court
This isn't rocket science given Sotomayor's past record and her very public statements have shown her to be biased on many issues especially race relations.
Keep the faith
Robert Bork: Sotomayor Unqualified, Isn't 'Entirely Governed by Law'
Tuesday, July 14, 2009 3:52 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Legal scholar and former U.S. Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork tells Newsmax he doesn't believe court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's assertion that she is "entirely governed by law," as he believes she should be.
In an exclusive interview, he also said Sotomayor, who's going through confirmation hearings before a Senate panel, should be disqualified from consideration because of a statement she made. And Bork stated that the Roe v. Wade decision has been the "most dangerous" the Supreme Court has ever made because it has "embittered our politics."
See Video: Judge Robert Bork discusses Sonia Sotomayor and the Senate hearings - Click Here Now
Bork was solicitor general and was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals before President Ronald Reagan nominated him for the Supreme Court in 1987. The Democratic Senate rejected his nomination after a contentious debate, and the seat on the bench eventually went to Anthony Kennedy.
Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella observed that Bork's "savaging by the left" forever changed the way judges are confirmed, with politics and demographics becoming more important than competence and qualifications. "That's entirely true," said Bork, whose latest book is "A Time to Speak — Selected Writings and Arguments."
"But the Supreme Court has only itself to blame for that. The Supreme Court made itself, starting in the 1950s, into an increasingly political institution, and once you're a political institution with that kind of power, people are going to fight to control the institution any way they can.
"In my case, I think the trigger was the fear that I might vote to overrule Roe against Wade."
Martella asked whether Sotomayor's statement that a Latina woman could make smarter decisions than a white male should have been "an immediate disqualifier."
"Yes," Bork stated, "except for the fact that, if we disqualify people for that kind of remark, we'd have to disqualify an awful lot of judges, because there is a lot of judging that takes place that is really visceral rather than intellectual."
Sotomayor also has made the controversial statement that appellate court judges make policy. Bork said: "In some sense, all judges make policy, because the fact that there's litigation means the question isn't [resolved] and the court has to settle that, which is to choose one policy rather than another. "But the question is how you do that. If you do it by doing the best you can with the legal materials at hand, that's fine. If you do it without reference to the legal materials, without reference to the law, that is lawless."
Sotomayor ruled that New Haven, Conn., could deny firefighters promotions because they passed an exam that no African-American passed. Martella pointed out that the decision was made via summary judgment, with no trial, and asked Bork whether he thinks that was appropriate. "No I don't," he responded.
"It really was a sign of disrespect to the litigants who were asking for justice. They should have had a full hearing and a reasoned opinion written for them, even if they lost. But they didn't get that."
What was telling about Sotomayor's decision in that case is "a preference for some minorities over the majority," he added. "In this case, as a matter of fact, some minorities over other minorities, because there were Puerto Ricans that were denied promotions as well."
Bork called confirmation hearings such as Sotomayor's "something of a dance. The opposition asks tough questions, the nominee gives a soft and evasive answer and assures everybody that fidelity to the law is the only thing that matters. "Then having gotten past that, when they're on the bench they go back to their prior practice of deciding politically. I don't take Sotomayor's protestations that she's entirely governed by law seriously. I think the statements she's made and the rulings she's made show that she's not governed entirely by law."
During confirmation hearings, Republicans don't mount "baseless smears" such as the one Bork was subjected to, said Martella, who asked Bork whether he thinks Republicans are "naïve in the confirmation proceedings." "It's quite true that the Democrats are willing to engage in furious attacks, often without any basis in fact, and Republicans are not," said Bork, who is a fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank. "I don't know if that's a Republican virtue or Republican timidity. But I think the Republicans are either going to have to persuade the Democrats to quit that approach to confirmations, or take up the same kind of tactics themselves, which would be too bad."
Although the current Supreme Court is generally seen as fairly balanced, Bork declared that, "by and large on big social issues, it is a liberal left court. I don't think it should be. I think it is ideological rather than legal, what they're doing." And when asked what he believes has been the "most dangerous" Court ruling, Bork answered: "I think it's proved to be Roe against Wade. We have very bitter politics over abortion. "I understand it's different in Europe, where the issue is not nearly as explosive or as divisive, the reason being that in Europe by and large the issue is decided by legislatures. Each side fights it out, arrives at some kind of a conclusion, a compromise, and they go home deciding they can try again next year.
"Here, by contrast, voters and political parties are just told to shut up, and that makes them furious. So Roe against Wade, whatever else its demerits are, has really embittered our politics in ways that are most unhealthy."
Keep the faith
Robert Bork: Sotomayor Unqualified, Isn't 'Entirely Governed by Law'
Tuesday, July 14, 2009 3:52 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Legal scholar and former U.S. Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork tells Newsmax he doesn't believe court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's assertion that she is "entirely governed by law," as he believes she should be.
In an exclusive interview, he also said Sotomayor, who's going through confirmation hearings before a Senate panel, should be disqualified from consideration because of a statement she made. And Bork stated that the Roe v. Wade decision has been the "most dangerous" the Supreme Court has ever made because it has "embittered our politics."
See Video: Judge Robert Bork discusses Sonia Sotomayor and the Senate hearings - Click Here Now
Bork was solicitor general and was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals before President Ronald Reagan nominated him for the Supreme Court in 1987. The Democratic Senate rejected his nomination after a contentious debate, and the seat on the bench eventually went to Anthony Kennedy.
Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella observed that Bork's "savaging by the left" forever changed the way judges are confirmed, with politics and demographics becoming more important than competence and qualifications. "That's entirely true," said Bork, whose latest book is "A Time to Speak — Selected Writings and Arguments."
"But the Supreme Court has only itself to blame for that. The Supreme Court made itself, starting in the 1950s, into an increasingly political institution, and once you're a political institution with that kind of power, people are going to fight to control the institution any way they can.
"In my case, I think the trigger was the fear that I might vote to overrule Roe against Wade."
Martella asked whether Sotomayor's statement that a Latina woman could make smarter decisions than a white male should have been "an immediate disqualifier."
"Yes," Bork stated, "except for the fact that, if we disqualify people for that kind of remark, we'd have to disqualify an awful lot of judges, because there is a lot of judging that takes place that is really visceral rather than intellectual."
Sotomayor also has made the controversial statement that appellate court judges make policy. Bork said: "In some sense, all judges make policy, because the fact that there's litigation means the question isn't [resolved] and the court has to settle that, which is to choose one policy rather than another. "But the question is how you do that. If you do it by doing the best you can with the legal materials at hand, that's fine. If you do it without reference to the legal materials, without reference to the law, that is lawless."
Sotomayor ruled that New Haven, Conn., could deny firefighters promotions because they passed an exam that no African-American passed. Martella pointed out that the decision was made via summary judgment, with no trial, and asked Bork whether he thinks that was appropriate. "No I don't," he responded.
"It really was a sign of disrespect to the litigants who were asking for justice. They should have had a full hearing and a reasoned opinion written for them, even if they lost. But they didn't get that."
What was telling about Sotomayor's decision in that case is "a preference for some minorities over the majority," he added. "In this case, as a matter of fact, some minorities over other minorities, because there were Puerto Ricans that were denied promotions as well."
Bork called confirmation hearings such as Sotomayor's "something of a dance. The opposition asks tough questions, the nominee gives a soft and evasive answer and assures everybody that fidelity to the law is the only thing that matters. "Then having gotten past that, when they're on the bench they go back to their prior practice of deciding politically. I don't take Sotomayor's protestations that she's entirely governed by law seriously. I think the statements she's made and the rulings she's made show that she's not governed entirely by law."
During confirmation hearings, Republicans don't mount "baseless smears" such as the one Bork was subjected to, said Martella, who asked Bork whether he thinks Republicans are "naïve in the confirmation proceedings." "It's quite true that the Democrats are willing to engage in furious attacks, often without any basis in fact, and Republicans are not," said Bork, who is a fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank. "I don't know if that's a Republican virtue or Republican timidity. But I think the Republicans are either going to have to persuade the Democrats to quit that approach to confirmations, or take up the same kind of tactics themselves, which would be too bad."
Although the current Supreme Court is generally seen as fairly balanced, Bork declared that, "by and large on big social issues, it is a liberal left court. I don't think it should be. I think it is ideological rather than legal, what they're doing." And when asked what he believes has been the "most dangerous" Court ruling, Bork answered: "I think it's proved to be Roe against Wade. We have very bitter politics over abortion. "I understand it's different in Europe, where the issue is not nearly as explosive or as divisive, the reason being that in Europe by and large the issue is decided by legislatures. Each side fights it out, arrives at some kind of a conclusion, a compromise, and they go home deciding they can try again next year.
"Here, by contrast, voters and political parties are just told to shut up, and that makes them furious. So Roe against Wade, whatever else its demerits are, has really embittered our politics in ways that are most unhealthy."
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
American Security At Rick : Military Buget Cuts
Heritage Foundation on American security needs.
America ‘at the edge of catastrophe’
"We are living at the edge of catastrophe," and we can only recover with a sound national security strategy, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told a Heritage Foundation audience Monday.
Speaking to a full house in Heritage's Douglas and Sarah Allison Auditorium, Gingrich said American defense spending must anticipate future challenges and not focus simply on today's threats. The government must use its imagination to foresee potential attacks and "translate the imagination into public policy," he said.
» Watch the entire speech on MyHeritage.org.
The speech marked the end of Heritage's "Protect America Month," which drew attention to the need for a sustainable military policy that makes America safe, prosperous and free. This requires the capacity to act on behalf of America's global interests.
Heritage Foundation experts have for three years advocated a sound national defense policy, dubbed "Four Percent for Freedom." A responsible defense policy requires a regular defense budget of at least four percent of the gross domestic product.
» Join over 50,000 others in signing the "4 percent for Freedom" petition
"Ensuring a robust defense and a strong military should not be controversial," argues Heritage fellow Jim Talent. This commitment to maintain defense funding is "even more compelling now than it was when first proposed."
Yet even as the federal government throws hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at bailouts, "stimulus" packages and nationalized health care, lawmakers are looking to make drastic cuts where spending is most necessary: defense.
Heritage President Ed Feulner argues that government's "spending spree and cutting defense don't add up." Increased domestic spending and slashed military spending cannot possibly fulfill America's long-term security needs and meet the challenges of the future.
-- Amanda Reinecker
America ‘at the edge of catastrophe’
"We are living at the edge of catastrophe," and we can only recover with a sound national security strategy, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told a Heritage Foundation audience Monday.
Speaking to a full house in Heritage's Douglas and Sarah Allison Auditorium, Gingrich said American defense spending must anticipate future challenges and not focus simply on today's threats. The government must use its imagination to foresee potential attacks and "translate the imagination into public policy," he said.
» Watch the entire speech on MyHeritage.org.
The speech marked the end of Heritage's "Protect America Month," which drew attention to the need for a sustainable military policy that makes America safe, prosperous and free. This requires the capacity to act on behalf of America's global interests.
Heritage Foundation experts have for three years advocated a sound national defense policy, dubbed "Four Percent for Freedom." A responsible defense policy requires a regular defense budget of at least four percent of the gross domestic product.
» Join over 50,000 others in signing the "4 percent for Freedom" petition
"Ensuring a robust defense and a strong military should not be controversial," argues Heritage fellow Jim Talent. This commitment to maintain defense funding is "even more compelling now than it was when first proposed."
Yet even as the federal government throws hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at bailouts, "stimulus" packages and nationalized health care, lawmakers are looking to make drastic cuts where spending is most necessary: defense.
Heritage President Ed Feulner argues that government's "spending spree and cutting defense don't add up." Increased domestic spending and slashed military spending cannot possibly fulfill America's long-term security needs and meet the challenges of the future.
-- Amanda Reinecker
California : Illegal Immigrants In Charge
This has been around for awhile but I don't know if it's fact - you decide.
From the L. A. Times
1. 40% of all workers in L. A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people)are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal , whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.
10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish. (There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County . ) (All 10 of the above are from the Los Angeles Times)
Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare .
Over 70% of the United States ' annual population growth (and over 90% of California , Florida , and New York ) results from immigration.
29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens .
We are a bunch of fools for letting this continue This is only one State............... If this doesn't open your eyes nothing will ! And you wonder why Nancy Pelosi wants them to become voters!
From the L. A. Times
1. 40% of all workers in L. A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people)are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal , whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.
10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish. (There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County . ) (All 10 of the above are from the Los Angeles Times)
Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare .
Over 70% of the United States ' annual population growth (and over 90% of California , Florida , and New York ) results from immigration.
29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens .
We are a bunch of fools for letting this continue This is only one State............... If this doesn't open your eyes nothing will ! And you wonder why Nancy Pelosi wants them to become voters!
FDIC : DANGER! Beware of The SMILING MAN
Great article on where we are headed in this crisis of confidence in our economic system - too much government has destroyed our will to think for our selves. It is our undoing -
Take care - keep the faith
*Beware Government Insuring Accounts*
Tex Norton
What am I missing? Why do the majority of folks blindly accept the shenanigans of the federal government? Why is it advisable to bail out the failures and penalize the productive? Isn’t there a moral hazard lurking somewhere in this mix? In a recent editorial, Peter Schiff reminded me of what my late friend Harry Browne, the former Libertarian Party candidate for president, used to say: /
“The government is great at breaking your leg, handing you a crutch, and then saying, ‘You see, without me, you couldn’t walk.’”
That maxim is clearly illustrated by the financial industry regulatory reforms proposed recently by the Obama administration. (“Would you like a broken arm, or would you prefer a broken leg?”) Every economic problem we face can be directly traced back to the federal government and the interfering laws that it continually passes. Remember the Resolution Trust Corp. back in the 1980s? It became “necessary” to bail out the savings and loan industry because so many of the S&Ls gambled wildly with their depositors’ money. Sound familiar? How could the S&Ls of the 1980s and the too-big-to-fail banks of the ‘00s make such horrible business decisions?
Were/Are the management teams just stupid or are they also incompetent?Consider this: We’ve had a record number of bank failures just this year. As of June 19, 2009, the FDIC has closed 40 banks at a net cost of over $11.5 billion. Are you worried? Why not? Oh, your account is insured. By whom? So when the management of the bank that controls your deposits makes stupid business decisions, you don’t care? The FDIC will bail out your account. Not only that, the “insured” amount was increased from a “mere” $100,000 per account to $250,000 this year (this extra coverage expires at the end of 2013 and reverts back to the $100,000 figure in 2014 as currently scheduled).
Do you see a slight problem here?Just for giggles, suppose there were no FDIC and your deposits at any bank or S&L were simply not insured. Would you then perhaps have a slightly different outlook as to the safety of your money? Would you perhaps behave somewhat differently when selecting a bank in which to deposit your funds? Why? Do you now see that the FDIC is a federal government-sponsored insurance scheme to protect you from greedy and stupid bankers? Or do you perhaps see that the FDIC actually facilitates excessive risk-taking on the part of the bankers, since they have nothing to loose? Do you suppose there might be a slight moral hazard hiding somewhere in this mix?
If the bank did not have the FDIC insuring your deposit and that same bank had to compete in the open, free market for your deposit account, would you suppose that the bank management might behave in a slightly more conservative manner? Wouldn’t you behave in a slightly more conservative manner when selecting a bank? Now consider the actions of the too-big-to-fail companies, be they banks, insurance companies, Freddie and Fannie, or even automobile manufacturing companies. What’s to restrain the management of those companies? If they mess up, the government will protect them. And as we’ve all observed, the very folks that made the stupid and reckless business decisions will still get their multimillion-dollar bonuses.
Would you be willing to make a wild guess that maybe there is a slight moral hazard hiding somewhere in this scheme? What about the business management that continues to make prudent decisions and continues to operate profitably? What is their incentive? How are they rewarded? The same federal government that bails out the too-big-to-fail companies totally ignores the hardworking, successful managements of the smaller businesses. Actually, it’s even worse than that. The companies and individuals that are successful now get penalized, because their tax dollars are used to bail out the unsuccessful. They get to subsidize the failures. Isn’t that a wonderful reward for doing a good job?
So I again ask what am I missing? Am I the only person (or only one of the very few) concerned? When I/we comment about these obvious inequities, does anyone pay attention? Does anyone question the wisdom of the federal government’s decisions? Based on the feedback I’ve received from the congressmen and -women who claim to “represent” me, they certainly don’t care. Aside from the folks who attended the various Tea Parties on April 15, the rest of the folks don’t seem to care. What am I missing?
One of the factors that caused me to write this white paper is the incredible discussion of so-called “green shoots” from our eminent Fed head “Helicopter” Ben Bernanke and the observation of the recovery light at the end of the tunnel that now seem to be so visible to the mainstream media.
As Ronald Reagan used to say, the media know a great deal that just isn’t true. There has been a tremendous recent effort to create “transparency” in and from government. Using that as a diversionary tactic, the public’s attention is now away from the facts. While perception is important and can mask facts for a period of time, it cannot avoid ultimate economic laws of nature. In this case, the public’s attention is being diverted from the undeniable facts that we are nowhere near the bottom of this economic downturn. Banks are still hiding toxic waste in their off-balance sheet accounts. These virtually worthless assets are not just going to disappear with no one noticing. Sooner or later, these near-worthless assets must be accounted for. The so-called bank stress tests were a joke. The intent was just to give the public the perception that the worst is over.It isn’t.
We have at least one more major leg-down in our economic future. And I believe that leg will take us to a Dow of 5,000 and perhaps as low as 3,000. Yes, the Dow may continue upward to 10,000 from its current level of 8,500, but then it will head down once again. All we have to do is look at Japan 1989-present and our own economy from 1929-1932. Oh, yes, it */_can_/* happen again! Absolutely nothing has been done to prevent a repeat of this history. In fact, what has already been done by the federal government interference with our markets almost assuredly guarantees that it will happen once again.What is it that will happen? A depression.
Why? Because too many government interferences have occurred over the decades since the last depression. Perhaps it might be helpful to first define the difference between a recession and a depression — at least by my definitions of the terms.
Business cycles frequently become what are referred to as overheated economic cycles. (Note that every one of these so-called overheated situations is a direct result of government monetary interference with what otherwise would be free market behavior.) So a so-called cooling-off period of adjustment then takes place to correct the malinvestments that were made during these periods of irrational exuberance (thanks, Alan). These adjustments happen rather quickly, and then the recession is finished. You’ve heard it called the “V” recession because we tend to enter quickly but then we tend to also recover quickly. Today, the mainstream is talking of a “W” recovery, meaning a double in-and-out recession. But recessions usually take place rather quickly and are then finished. In a depression, structural changes to the economy actually occur and then it takes years to readjust. Can you say Japan?
The new version of the resulting economy is a major change from the prior economy. Old bubbles are */_never_/* reinflated, but new bubbles are ultimately formed. Note that our federal government is trying to reinflate the last bubble, meaning a return to a consumer-led economy. It simply won’t happen. We’ll waste a tremendous amount of taxpayer money and it will all be for naught. Ultimately, a new bubble will be created. In the past decade, we’ve enjoyed the Greenspan dot-com bubble followed by the real estate bubble. Now we are starting to form what I see as a bond bubble. In the process, everything in the path of this “recovery” is being socialized: banks, insurance companies, mortgage lenders, even automobile companies. Yet to come will probably include national health care. If you think private health care is expensive, wait until you see how much “free” health care costs. But this is what I mean by “structural” changes.
It’s new territory for most of the participants. What do you think will be the end result: inflation or deflation? I think we're in for both deflation and inflation — in that order. Short-term deflation, but longer-term inflation. So I'd invest to protect myself against inflation. That means precious metals, energy, and commodities such as foods and water. Period. For the foreseeable future. Speculations would be in the area of biotech, nanotech, and stem-cell-tech.I also hope that my comments are just being realistic — not doom and gloom. I admit my emotional reactions may be affecting my opinions. I hope not. But I'd rather be overprepared than underprepared or unprepared.
Considering that the value of our dollar is being actively destroyed by our government, how will you protect yourself and your family from further destruction of the dollar? Are you aware that the dollar is now worth 4% of what it was worth when the Federal Reserve was created with the charter mandate to provide a stable dollar? What did I just say? Are you happy with 4 cents of purchasing power left for your hard-earned 100-cent dollar? Don’t take my word for it — it’s on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Web site.
My recommendation includes making investments in areas that are not dollar denominated. As such, you can expect to benefit from a currency hedge as well as from the performance of the investment itself. Today, all currencies are fiat, so this becomes a relatively moot consideration — see my next comment below.
Still another area to consider is foreign exchange. Consider Swiss francs and Chinese renminbi (yuan) for starters. Also consider the Brazilian real, due to the country’s incredible discovery of offshore oil. The real would be a speculation, while the franc and yuan are slam-dunks. Norway's kroner is also a consideration, due to the country’s oil economy. I'd stay away from the Canadian loonie simply because Canada’s economy is so closely tied to the US’.
I believe we are in a depression, not just a recession. By that, I mean we're in for major structural changes, not just a clearing of some malinvestments that got out of hand in recent years. The Dow could go as high as 10,000 before the next drop, but there */_will_/* be another drop. As I said, I expect the Dow to go as low at 5,000 and possibly 3,000. I know how that sounds, but that is what the markets are telling me. While we will then recover, it will be a long, drawn-out recovery. Years, not months. This is not the muddle-through recession that so many expect. I'm guessing we'll remain in this morass for at least five years, if we're lucky. We could go the way of Japan, which hasn't recovered yet after two decades! The more Washington interferes with the markets, the more severe the problems then become and the longer the recovery period. As Bill Bonner is fond of saying, we’ll see “a corrective force equal and opposite to the deception and delusion that preceded it.” And of course, we could just be headed into outright and total socialism, so all this attempted planning could just be for naught.
But back to my original question: What am I missing? What do you know that I seem to be overlooking? Why am I not in agreement with all the mainstream economists and government officials such as “Helicopter” Ben Bernanke and Timothy tax cheat-in-charge-of-the-IRS Geithner?
Why is it OK for the U.S. government to “fire” all the profitable Chrysler dealerships because they donated to the Republicans while keeping the unprofitable Chrysler dealerships because they supported the Democrats? Why is it OK to medically insure the 47 million uninsured at the expense of the folks that actually pay the premiums? Why is it OK to bail out AIG because it insured Goldman Sachs? Why is it OK to “gift” a major ownership of General Motors to the UAW simply because the union supported the Obama election campaign? Why is it OK to stiff the Chrysler and GM bondholders who, by USA contract law, have first right to the assets of the corporations in case of a bankruptcy?
Why is it OK to simply ignore and override centuries-old corporate law? Why is it OK to issue presidential edicts that circumvent corporate and civil law? Why? What am I missing? Why?There is much, much more to be said on this topic. However, what I’ve already written is probably more than enough for the moment. By the way, were I a registered broker or financial adviser, the securities rules and regulations would prohibit me from telling you the above. So don’t be too hard on your current financial adviser. The government would suspend his/her license for telling you the truth.
Regards,Tex Norton
Take care - keep the faith
*Beware Government Insuring Accounts*
Tex Norton
What am I missing? Why do the majority of folks blindly accept the shenanigans of the federal government? Why is it advisable to bail out the failures and penalize the productive? Isn’t there a moral hazard lurking somewhere in this mix? In a recent editorial, Peter Schiff reminded me of what my late friend Harry Browne, the former Libertarian Party candidate for president, used to say: /
“The government is great at breaking your leg, handing you a crutch, and then saying, ‘You see, without me, you couldn’t walk.’”
That maxim is clearly illustrated by the financial industry regulatory reforms proposed recently by the Obama administration. (“Would you like a broken arm, or would you prefer a broken leg?”) Every economic problem we face can be directly traced back to the federal government and the interfering laws that it continually passes. Remember the Resolution Trust Corp. back in the 1980s? It became “necessary” to bail out the savings and loan industry because so many of the S&Ls gambled wildly with their depositors’ money. Sound familiar? How could the S&Ls of the 1980s and the too-big-to-fail banks of the ‘00s make such horrible business decisions?
Were/Are the management teams just stupid or are they also incompetent?Consider this: We’ve had a record number of bank failures just this year. As of June 19, 2009, the FDIC has closed 40 banks at a net cost of over $11.5 billion. Are you worried? Why not? Oh, your account is insured. By whom? So when the management of the bank that controls your deposits makes stupid business decisions, you don’t care? The FDIC will bail out your account. Not only that, the “insured” amount was increased from a “mere” $100,000 per account to $250,000 this year (this extra coverage expires at the end of 2013 and reverts back to the $100,000 figure in 2014 as currently scheduled).
Do you see a slight problem here?Just for giggles, suppose there were no FDIC and your deposits at any bank or S&L were simply not insured. Would you then perhaps have a slightly different outlook as to the safety of your money? Would you perhaps behave somewhat differently when selecting a bank in which to deposit your funds? Why? Do you now see that the FDIC is a federal government-sponsored insurance scheme to protect you from greedy and stupid bankers? Or do you perhaps see that the FDIC actually facilitates excessive risk-taking on the part of the bankers, since they have nothing to loose? Do you suppose there might be a slight moral hazard hiding somewhere in this mix?
If the bank did not have the FDIC insuring your deposit and that same bank had to compete in the open, free market for your deposit account, would you suppose that the bank management might behave in a slightly more conservative manner? Wouldn’t you behave in a slightly more conservative manner when selecting a bank? Now consider the actions of the too-big-to-fail companies, be they banks, insurance companies, Freddie and Fannie, or even automobile manufacturing companies. What’s to restrain the management of those companies? If they mess up, the government will protect them. And as we’ve all observed, the very folks that made the stupid and reckless business decisions will still get their multimillion-dollar bonuses.
Would you be willing to make a wild guess that maybe there is a slight moral hazard hiding somewhere in this scheme? What about the business management that continues to make prudent decisions and continues to operate profitably? What is their incentive? How are they rewarded? The same federal government that bails out the too-big-to-fail companies totally ignores the hardworking, successful managements of the smaller businesses. Actually, it’s even worse than that. The companies and individuals that are successful now get penalized, because their tax dollars are used to bail out the unsuccessful. They get to subsidize the failures. Isn’t that a wonderful reward for doing a good job?
So I again ask what am I missing? Am I the only person (or only one of the very few) concerned? When I/we comment about these obvious inequities, does anyone pay attention? Does anyone question the wisdom of the federal government’s decisions? Based on the feedback I’ve received from the congressmen and -women who claim to “represent” me, they certainly don’t care. Aside from the folks who attended the various Tea Parties on April 15, the rest of the folks don’t seem to care. What am I missing?
One of the factors that caused me to write this white paper is the incredible discussion of so-called “green shoots” from our eminent Fed head “Helicopter” Ben Bernanke and the observation of the recovery light at the end of the tunnel that now seem to be so visible to the mainstream media.
As Ronald Reagan used to say, the media know a great deal that just isn’t true. There has been a tremendous recent effort to create “transparency” in and from government. Using that as a diversionary tactic, the public’s attention is now away from the facts. While perception is important and can mask facts for a period of time, it cannot avoid ultimate economic laws of nature. In this case, the public’s attention is being diverted from the undeniable facts that we are nowhere near the bottom of this economic downturn. Banks are still hiding toxic waste in their off-balance sheet accounts. These virtually worthless assets are not just going to disappear with no one noticing. Sooner or later, these near-worthless assets must be accounted for. The so-called bank stress tests were a joke. The intent was just to give the public the perception that the worst is over.It isn’t.
We have at least one more major leg-down in our economic future. And I believe that leg will take us to a Dow of 5,000 and perhaps as low as 3,000. Yes, the Dow may continue upward to 10,000 from its current level of 8,500, but then it will head down once again. All we have to do is look at Japan 1989-present and our own economy from 1929-1932. Oh, yes, it */_can_/* happen again! Absolutely nothing has been done to prevent a repeat of this history. In fact, what has already been done by the federal government interference with our markets almost assuredly guarantees that it will happen once again.What is it that will happen? A depression.
Why? Because too many government interferences have occurred over the decades since the last depression. Perhaps it might be helpful to first define the difference between a recession and a depression — at least by my definitions of the terms.
Business cycles frequently become what are referred to as overheated economic cycles. (Note that every one of these so-called overheated situations is a direct result of government monetary interference with what otherwise would be free market behavior.) So a so-called cooling-off period of adjustment then takes place to correct the malinvestments that were made during these periods of irrational exuberance (thanks, Alan). These adjustments happen rather quickly, and then the recession is finished. You’ve heard it called the “V” recession because we tend to enter quickly but then we tend to also recover quickly. Today, the mainstream is talking of a “W” recovery, meaning a double in-and-out recession. But recessions usually take place rather quickly and are then finished. In a depression, structural changes to the economy actually occur and then it takes years to readjust. Can you say Japan?
The new version of the resulting economy is a major change from the prior economy. Old bubbles are */_never_/* reinflated, but new bubbles are ultimately formed. Note that our federal government is trying to reinflate the last bubble, meaning a return to a consumer-led economy. It simply won’t happen. We’ll waste a tremendous amount of taxpayer money and it will all be for naught. Ultimately, a new bubble will be created. In the past decade, we’ve enjoyed the Greenspan dot-com bubble followed by the real estate bubble. Now we are starting to form what I see as a bond bubble. In the process, everything in the path of this “recovery” is being socialized: banks, insurance companies, mortgage lenders, even automobile companies. Yet to come will probably include national health care. If you think private health care is expensive, wait until you see how much “free” health care costs. But this is what I mean by “structural” changes.
It’s new territory for most of the participants. What do you think will be the end result: inflation or deflation? I think we're in for both deflation and inflation — in that order. Short-term deflation, but longer-term inflation. So I'd invest to protect myself against inflation. That means precious metals, energy, and commodities such as foods and water. Period. For the foreseeable future. Speculations would be in the area of biotech, nanotech, and stem-cell-tech.I also hope that my comments are just being realistic — not doom and gloom. I admit my emotional reactions may be affecting my opinions. I hope not. But I'd rather be overprepared than underprepared or unprepared.
Considering that the value of our dollar is being actively destroyed by our government, how will you protect yourself and your family from further destruction of the dollar? Are you aware that the dollar is now worth 4% of what it was worth when the Federal Reserve was created with the charter mandate to provide a stable dollar? What did I just say? Are you happy with 4 cents of purchasing power left for your hard-earned 100-cent dollar? Don’t take my word for it — it’s on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Web site.
My recommendation includes making investments in areas that are not dollar denominated. As such, you can expect to benefit from a currency hedge as well as from the performance of the investment itself. Today, all currencies are fiat, so this becomes a relatively moot consideration — see my next comment below.
Still another area to consider is foreign exchange. Consider Swiss francs and Chinese renminbi (yuan) for starters. Also consider the Brazilian real, due to the country’s incredible discovery of offshore oil. The real would be a speculation, while the franc and yuan are slam-dunks. Norway's kroner is also a consideration, due to the country’s oil economy. I'd stay away from the Canadian loonie simply because Canada’s economy is so closely tied to the US’.
I believe we are in a depression, not just a recession. By that, I mean we're in for major structural changes, not just a clearing of some malinvestments that got out of hand in recent years. The Dow could go as high as 10,000 before the next drop, but there */_will_/* be another drop. As I said, I expect the Dow to go as low at 5,000 and possibly 3,000. I know how that sounds, but that is what the markets are telling me. While we will then recover, it will be a long, drawn-out recovery. Years, not months. This is not the muddle-through recession that so many expect. I'm guessing we'll remain in this morass for at least five years, if we're lucky. We could go the way of Japan, which hasn't recovered yet after two decades! The more Washington interferes with the markets, the more severe the problems then become and the longer the recovery period. As Bill Bonner is fond of saying, we’ll see “a corrective force equal and opposite to the deception and delusion that preceded it.” And of course, we could just be headed into outright and total socialism, so all this attempted planning could just be for naught.
But back to my original question: What am I missing? What do you know that I seem to be overlooking? Why am I not in agreement with all the mainstream economists and government officials such as “Helicopter” Ben Bernanke and Timothy tax cheat-in-charge-of-the-IRS Geithner?
Why is it OK for the U.S. government to “fire” all the profitable Chrysler dealerships because they donated to the Republicans while keeping the unprofitable Chrysler dealerships because they supported the Democrats? Why is it OK to medically insure the 47 million uninsured at the expense of the folks that actually pay the premiums? Why is it OK to bail out AIG because it insured Goldman Sachs? Why is it OK to “gift” a major ownership of General Motors to the UAW simply because the union supported the Obama election campaign? Why is it OK to stiff the Chrysler and GM bondholders who, by USA contract law, have first right to the assets of the corporations in case of a bankruptcy?
Why is it OK to simply ignore and override centuries-old corporate law? Why is it OK to issue presidential edicts that circumvent corporate and civil law? Why? What am I missing? Why?There is much, much more to be said on this topic. However, what I’ve already written is probably more than enough for the moment. By the way, were I a registered broker or financial adviser, the securities rules and regulations would prohibit me from telling you the above. So don’t be too hard on your current financial adviser. The government would suspend his/her license for telling you the truth.
Regards,Tex Norton
Monday, July 20, 2009
Afghanistan's Stone Age History
Michael Yon is on the scene and on top of the situation in Afghanistan - as he points out, do we have the intestinal fortitude to stay the course which he points out will take several generations of Americans and Afghans to show any sort of results.
Given the government that we have now in this country, I believe we will abandon the Afghans to their own fate as we did in Vietnam when the Democrats cut of all funds to the South Vietnamese and war funds for our troops. As a result 2.5 million people lost their lives, were murdered, slaughtered for trusting us. Thank you Democrats. Now the Democrats want to do the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan and anywhere else that we have made a commitment.
What Obama's foreign policy is now is to make friends with the tyrants and mass killers, communists and or any thug that's taking power by force. Obama loves these people as this is his intention in America. Make no mistake about this.
Keep the faith
AFGHANISTAN
Michael Yon
It's not the troops; it's not the economy; it's not that it's mountainous and landlocked like Austria and Switzerland. It's the society.
I write these words from Ghor province, and it's like the Jurassic Park in Helmand, Kandahar, Zabul, Nangahar ... keep going. A person can tool around in towns like Kabul, Jalalabad or Mazar-i-Sharif and build up hopes, but to extrapolate beyond the tangible is folly.
Iraq is 1,000 years more advanced than Afghanistan. Nepal is far more connected to and cognizant of the outside world.After nearly eight years of war and billions spent, there is not a single Afghan soldier in this entire province. There is not a meter of paved road. There is a single television station that operates for maybe four hours a night when it has fuel.
Recently, I had a long meeting with the manager, Mohammad Jan Kendewalli. The station's budget is $1,000 per month, he says, but $2,600 is required. He also says the British have returned to steal uranium from Helmand. We are worried about infiltration into places like Helmand from Pakistan, but what about places like Ghor province? Mostly Tajik, some Pashtuns, Hazaras and others, but that same television manager says even Tajiks go to neighboring Helmand to harvest and fight because they can't make money. Other Tajiks deny this link. So we might say, "It's the economy."
That's part of it. But the economy is bad because of the people. The Nepali Gurkhas see Afghans as backward. I just spent a month with Gurkhas who served in Afghanistan and have been to many villages where Gurkhas are born. Their situation is tough, but the Nepalese are not plagued by the remarkable tribal and ethnic fighting we see here. American warplanes recently struck at an Iranian-linked terrorist in Ghor province named Mullah Mustafa. He survived, but the coalition took a hit due to civilian casualties.
Unreported, however, was that a Croatian officer who led a 550-kilometer patrol in the area after the attack found that, despite civilian casualties, locals strongly supported that air strike. We do still enjoy a support base in many areas, but some of that derives from the fact that we are smiting their enemies. Smiting warlords and terrorists is like cutting the grass, which is no revelation to U.S. and allied commanders. Yet many people at home, including some of the political elite, do not grasp the societal inertia, complexity and natural baffles to progress.
Ten years from now -- 18 years into the process -- this will not be finished business.Time has a different meaning here. Take the case of members of the Baibogha tribe who abandoned a patch of land nearby about 150 years ago. Hazaras moved in, now Baibogha have come back to tell the Hazaras, "Wait ... you stole our patch of nothing while we disappeared for 150 years." Despite all the energy spent on fighting, in the thousands of years that Ghor province has been inhabited, there is not a single meter of paved road to show for all those laps around the sun.
Today, I was in the village of Karbasha Qalat, situated in a remote area at 8,800 feet. The 20 families had no electricity and not even a battery-operated radio. During the winter, the horses, cows, donkeys and other animals live with them inside their mud homes. Only the village elder was literate, and his language was Dari. He said that only two trucks had come to Karbasha Qalat in the 14 years since the village was founded; the visitors were searching for information on land mines. None of the children had been to school, and none are likely to go. The mothers are illiterate ... the hand that rocks the cradle.
Nearly all mothers in Afghanistan are illiterate.
Let's be frank. We must look at the situation and ask, "How far can we nudge this place by the year 2100?" Reasonably speaking -- let's take out the pencils -- how many generations are required to achieve even 80 percent literacy? If widespread literacy is a goal -- literacy should be a primary goal- - it's already too late for most of the youngsters who will be born in the next five years. If Afghanistan is to reach even the level of Nepal -- maybe we could do that in 25 years. Meanwhile, Germans and Canadians seem to be growing weary.
I sat down with the Lithuanian ambassador recently and came away with the impression that the Lithuanians are fully committed to four or five more years. The Lithuanian commitment is valuable, important, and showing obvious progress in its area. Yet we and our many allies must realize that this cake will not be baked in 10 years. Some British, at least, talk in terms of 10 more years. A key Japanese official in Afghanistan said to me that they are committed to 10, 20, maybe 30 years. It will take 100, but at least the Japanese are thinking straight, while most of us are not.
/Michael Yon is a writer and former Green Beret who has spent more time in Iraq and Afghanistan with U.S. and British combat forces than any other journalist./
Given the government that we have now in this country, I believe we will abandon the Afghans to their own fate as we did in Vietnam when the Democrats cut of all funds to the South Vietnamese and war funds for our troops. As a result 2.5 million people lost their lives, were murdered, slaughtered for trusting us. Thank you Democrats. Now the Democrats want to do the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan and anywhere else that we have made a commitment.
What Obama's foreign policy is now is to make friends with the tyrants and mass killers, communists and or any thug that's taking power by force. Obama loves these people as this is his intention in America. Make no mistake about this.
Keep the faith
AFGHANISTAN
Michael Yon
It's not the troops; it's not the economy; it's not that it's mountainous and landlocked like Austria and Switzerland. It's the society.
I write these words from Ghor province, and it's like the Jurassic Park in Helmand, Kandahar, Zabul, Nangahar ... keep going. A person can tool around in towns like Kabul, Jalalabad or Mazar-i-Sharif and build up hopes, but to extrapolate beyond the tangible is folly.
Iraq is 1,000 years more advanced than Afghanistan. Nepal is far more connected to and cognizant of the outside world.After nearly eight years of war and billions spent, there is not a single Afghan soldier in this entire province. There is not a meter of paved road. There is a single television station that operates for maybe four hours a night when it has fuel.
Recently, I had a long meeting with the manager, Mohammad Jan Kendewalli. The station's budget is $1,000 per month, he says, but $2,600 is required. He also says the British have returned to steal uranium from Helmand. We are worried about infiltration into places like Helmand from Pakistan, but what about places like Ghor province? Mostly Tajik, some Pashtuns, Hazaras and others, but that same television manager says even Tajiks go to neighboring Helmand to harvest and fight because they can't make money. Other Tajiks deny this link. So we might say, "It's the economy."
That's part of it. But the economy is bad because of the people. The Nepali Gurkhas see Afghans as backward. I just spent a month with Gurkhas who served in Afghanistan and have been to many villages where Gurkhas are born. Their situation is tough, but the Nepalese are not plagued by the remarkable tribal and ethnic fighting we see here. American warplanes recently struck at an Iranian-linked terrorist in Ghor province named Mullah Mustafa. He survived, but the coalition took a hit due to civilian casualties.
Unreported, however, was that a Croatian officer who led a 550-kilometer patrol in the area after the attack found that, despite civilian casualties, locals strongly supported that air strike. We do still enjoy a support base in many areas, but some of that derives from the fact that we are smiting their enemies. Smiting warlords and terrorists is like cutting the grass, which is no revelation to U.S. and allied commanders. Yet many people at home, including some of the political elite, do not grasp the societal inertia, complexity and natural baffles to progress.
Ten years from now -- 18 years into the process -- this will not be finished business.Time has a different meaning here. Take the case of members of the Baibogha tribe who abandoned a patch of land nearby about 150 years ago. Hazaras moved in, now Baibogha have come back to tell the Hazaras, "Wait ... you stole our patch of nothing while we disappeared for 150 years." Despite all the energy spent on fighting, in the thousands of years that Ghor province has been inhabited, there is not a single meter of paved road to show for all those laps around the sun.
Today, I was in the village of Karbasha Qalat, situated in a remote area at 8,800 feet. The 20 families had no electricity and not even a battery-operated radio. During the winter, the horses, cows, donkeys and other animals live with them inside their mud homes. Only the village elder was literate, and his language was Dari. He said that only two trucks had come to Karbasha Qalat in the 14 years since the village was founded; the visitors were searching for information on land mines. None of the children had been to school, and none are likely to go. The mothers are illiterate ... the hand that rocks the cradle.
Nearly all mothers in Afghanistan are illiterate.
Let's be frank. We must look at the situation and ask, "How far can we nudge this place by the year 2100?" Reasonably speaking -- let's take out the pencils -- how many generations are required to achieve even 80 percent literacy? If widespread literacy is a goal -- literacy should be a primary goal- - it's already too late for most of the youngsters who will be born in the next five years. If Afghanistan is to reach even the level of Nepal -- maybe we could do that in 25 years. Meanwhile, Germans and Canadians seem to be growing weary.
I sat down with the Lithuanian ambassador recently and came away with the impression that the Lithuanians are fully committed to four or five more years. The Lithuanian commitment is valuable, important, and showing obvious progress in its area. Yet we and our many allies must realize that this cake will not be baked in 10 years. Some British, at least, talk in terms of 10 more years. A key Japanese official in Afghanistan said to me that they are committed to 10, 20, maybe 30 years. It will take 100, but at least the Japanese are thinking straight, while most of us are not.
/Michael Yon is a writer and former Green Beret who has spent more time in Iraq and Afghanistan with U.S. and British combat forces than any other journalist./
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Gore: Energy Tax For World Domination
Al has an ego problem I think - he figures if he can convince major industrial nations to follow America into the abyss of debt he can be one of the controlling members, if not leading member, of a all powerful world government. Gore knows this all a fraud but he also knows if he can tell the lie often enough it will stick.
The problem that he has now in Europe is they were suckered many years before us into the Kyoto Accord and now find that it hasn't worked and they found it was never intended to work for a better planet, but was to change how governments could be reorganized and then dominated.
Al Gore is running out of time - he figured that if he could convince the world that a huge carbon tax on all carbon based energy were implemented in time, that would reek havoc on industrial nations by placing huge limits on what energy they could use and by limiting their emissions, the planet would be saved from destruction.
The win win scenario was when the future is the present, he could say, 'see we saved the world by destroying all western nations ability to provide for themselves and others but at least we have fresh air and clean water'. The problem now is we have haven't installed his insanity of 'carbon tax' for years, and we haven't seen the planet dying under the weight of carbon emissions.
We have clean air and water now and it is getting better all the time, and according to the Manhattan Accord of 500 scientists, the planet is actually cooling and has been for several years. Little wonder Al Gore refuses to debate the global warming lie. Oh no - what to do now? The eco-fascists need a new lie to tell. They are running out of time.
The Europeans noticed this years ago and are in the process of casting Al Gore back into the woodwork were he came from. I pray we do the same and very soon..
Keep the faith
Gore: Cap-and-Trade Will Bring Global Government
Monday, July 13, 2009
By: Rick Pedraza
Former Vice President Al Gore told a British conference on the environment that the energy tax under the so-called cap-and-trade legislation in Congress would bring about global governance.
Speaking at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment in Oxford, England, Gore said the United States is responding to the threat of global warming with the cap-and-trade legislation, Times Online reported.
“Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore told the conference. “[This is] very much a step in the right direction. It achieves real reductions below the 1990 base level by 2020, and that is the threshold that many have said will dramatically increase the prospects for success.”
Gore acknowledged that the bill includes a carbon tax that President Barack Obama supports and is helping to push through the Senate. “For all of its flaws, [it] does put a price on carbon," he admitted.
Gore, whose film documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," on the claims of global warming won him praise from environmentalists, told the forum that Obama had secured billions of dollars from Congress for renewable energy work. But, “It is the awareness itself that will drive the change,” he said. “And one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governnance and global agreements.”
Environmental awareness among young people is the great hope for the future, Gore said.
“The average age of scientists in the space center control room was 26, which means they were 18 when they heard President Kennedy say he wanted to put a man on the moon in 10 years. Neil Armstrong did it eight years and two months later.”
Gore urged political leaders and governments around the world to join the battle against climate change. He conceded, however, that the level of awareness and concern among populations has not crossed the threshold where political leaders feel that they must change.
“The only way politicians will act is if awareness rises to a level to make them feel that it’s a necessity,” he said. “We have everything we need except political will, but political will is a renewable resource.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
The problem that he has now in Europe is they were suckered many years before us into the Kyoto Accord and now find that it hasn't worked and they found it was never intended to work for a better planet, but was to change how governments could be reorganized and then dominated.
Al Gore is running out of time - he figured that if he could convince the world that a huge carbon tax on all carbon based energy were implemented in time, that would reek havoc on industrial nations by placing huge limits on what energy they could use and by limiting their emissions, the planet would be saved from destruction.
The win win scenario was when the future is the present, he could say, 'see we saved the world by destroying all western nations ability to provide for themselves and others but at least we have fresh air and clean water'. The problem now is we have haven't installed his insanity of 'carbon tax' for years, and we haven't seen the planet dying under the weight of carbon emissions.
We have clean air and water now and it is getting better all the time, and according to the Manhattan Accord of 500 scientists, the planet is actually cooling and has been for several years. Little wonder Al Gore refuses to debate the global warming lie. Oh no - what to do now? The eco-fascists need a new lie to tell. They are running out of time.
The Europeans noticed this years ago and are in the process of casting Al Gore back into the woodwork were he came from. I pray we do the same and very soon..
Keep the faith
Gore: Cap-and-Trade Will Bring Global Government
Monday, July 13, 2009
By: Rick Pedraza
Former Vice President Al Gore told a British conference on the environment that the energy tax under the so-called cap-and-trade legislation in Congress would bring about global governance.
Speaking at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment in Oxford, England, Gore said the United States is responding to the threat of global warming with the cap-and-trade legislation, Times Online reported.
“Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore told the conference. “[This is] very much a step in the right direction. It achieves real reductions below the 1990 base level by 2020, and that is the threshold that many have said will dramatically increase the prospects for success.”
Gore acknowledged that the bill includes a carbon tax that President Barack Obama supports and is helping to push through the Senate. “For all of its flaws, [it] does put a price on carbon," he admitted.
Gore, whose film documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," on the claims of global warming won him praise from environmentalists, told the forum that Obama had secured billions of dollars from Congress for renewable energy work. But, “It is the awareness itself that will drive the change,” he said. “And one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governnance and global agreements.”
Environmental awareness among young people is the great hope for the future, Gore said.
“The average age of scientists in the space center control room was 26, which means they were 18 when they heard President Kennedy say he wanted to put a man on the moon in 10 years. Neil Armstrong did it eight years and two months later.”
Gore urged political leaders and governments around the world to join the battle against climate change. He conceded, however, that the level of awareness and concern among populations has not crossed the threshold where political leaders feel that they must change.
“The only way politicians will act is if awareness rises to a level to make them feel that it’s a necessity,” he said. “We have everything we need except political will, but political will is a renewable resource.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
