Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Rush: Media Fear Sarah Palin
Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:38 PM
Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is praising former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin as the conservative candidate liberals fear the most — and says he hopes her upcoming book sells 5 million copies.
The former Alaska governor finished her memoir just four months after the book deal was announced. Her publisher says the release date has been moved up from the spring to Nov. 17.
“I have been pointing out that the Democrat Party and the media will tell us who they fear most — and they're not afraid of Huckabee, and they're not afraid of Mitt Romney, and they're not afraid of Rudy Giuliani,” Limbaugh said on his show Tuesday.
“But they have gone out of their way to destroy Sarah Palin,” he continued. “They have gone out of their way to destroy me . . . I hope Sarah Palin sells five million copies of her book. It's going to be interesting to see just what connection she does have with the voting base, conservatives and Republicans. I hope she sells five million copies. I hope it does great. It will be interesting to see because that will just send them into an even greater tizzy on the left. “
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
If you need more proof, look what Obama is doing to our country.
Company Backed by Gore Gets Taxpayer Millions
Sunday, September 27, 2009 2:45 PM
A start-up automotive company backed by former Vice President Al Gore has been loaned more than half a billion dollars by the federal government.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Fisker Automotive Inc. has received $529 million in taxpayer money. The loan was intended to help Fikser produce a hybrid sports car to be sold in Finland.
"This is not for average Americans," Leslie Paige, a spokeswoman for Citizens Against Government Waste, told the Journal. "This is for people to put something in their driveway that is a conversation piece. It's a status symbol thing."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Much to learn here.
Corporate Disclosure Statements, Rule 26.1Amicus Curiae Special Forces Association is a nonprofit corporation that operates under § 501(c)(19) of the Internal Revenue Code.
It is a veterans organization dedicated to the welfare and traditions of the U.S. Army Special Forces. It has no parent corporation and no publicly-held company owns 10% or more of its stock.
Amicus Curiae U.S. Army Ranger Association is a nonprofit corporation that operates under § 501(c)(19) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is a veterans organization dedicated to the welfare and traditions of the U.S. Army Rangers. It has no parent corporation and no publicly-held company owns 10% or more of its stock. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTEREST OF AMICI.1 BACKGROUND.6 ARGUMENT 9I. The District Court Erred In Its Consideration Of The“Site Of Apprehension” Factor.9A.
The “Battlefield” Extends Beyond Afghanistan. 9B. The District Court’s Decision Creates Legal Sanctuaries For Enemy Forces. 13C. It Is Not The Role Of The Judiciary To Define The“Battlefield.” 15II. The District Court Underestimated The “Practical Difficulties” Of Making Habeas Corpus Proceedings Available To Bagram Detainees. 17A. Preponderance Of The Evidence Is A High Standard In The Context Of Ongoing Combat Operations. 17B.
Special Operations Missions Are Not Suited ToThe Collection Of This Kind Of Evidence. 221. SOF Do Not Have The Time To SafelyGather Evidence. . 232. Gathering Evidence To Satisfy Habeas Courts Will Impair SOF Operations 243. It Is All-But-Impossible To Collect Useful Or Admissible Evidence In The Midst Of Combat. 27
Case: 09-5265 Document: 1207314 Filed: 09/21/2009 Page: 3-ii-4. The District Court’s Decision Will Have AChilling Effect On Intelligence Gathering. 28C. The District Court’s Decision Will Make It All But Impossible To Hold Enemy Combatants Seized ByAllied Forces.. 29III. CONCLUSION.32Case: 09-5265 Document: 1207314 Filed: 09/21/2009 Page: 4III.
CONCLUSION The District Court failed in its analysis of the “site of apprehension” and “practical obstacles” factors as articulated in Boumediene. Its decision should be reversed. Respectfully submitted,
Monday, September 28, 2009
It is so sad that we have come to this point in our history and not learned anything about what is right and moral. This doesn't include everyone but, again, how can so many in and out of our government and population believe we, as a nation, are at fault for most of the world problems.
I am so confused and saddened that we have fallen so far into the abyss of moral ineptitude that we want to bury ourselves in wrong headed, misguided and misinformed politics of the liberal left.
Have we completely forgone any sense of moral correctness? Any sense of responsibility for what our history has produced to guide us when tough times dictate decisions based on principles that have proven to sustain the American dream of freedom to chose?
Could we have lost the knowledge to know right from wrong?
Keep the faith
The rules murdering our troops
By RALPH PETERS
/Last Updated:/ 2:55 AM, September 24, 2009/Posted:/ 12:57 AM, September 24, 2009
When enemy action kills our troops, it's unfortunate. When our own moral fecklessness murders those in uniform, it's unforgivable.
In Afghanistan, our leaders are complicit in the death of each soldier, Marine or Navy corpsman who falls because politically correct rules of engagement shield our enemies. Mission-focused, but morally oblivious, Gen. Stan McChrystal conformed to the Obama Way of War by imposing rules of engagement that could have been concocted by Code Pink:* Unless our troops in combat are absolutely certain that no civilians are present, they're denied artillery or air support.*
If /any/ civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to "break contact" -- to retreat. These ROE are a cave-in to the Taliban's shameless propaganda campaign that claimed innocents were massacred every time our aircraft appeared overhead. (Afghan President Mohammed Karzai and our establishment media backed the terrorists.) The Taliban's goal was to level the playing field -- to deny our troops their technological edge.
Our enemies more than succeeded.
And what has our concern for the lives of Taliban sympathizers accomplished? The Taliban now make damned sure that civilians are present /whenever/ they conduct an ambush or operation. So they attack -- and we quit the fight, lugging our dead and wounded back to base. We've been through this b.s. before. In Iraq, we wanted to show respect to our enemies, so the generals announced early on that we wouldn't enter mosques. The result? Hundreds of mosques became terrorist safe houses, bomb factories and weapons caches.
Why is this so hard to figure out? We tell our enemies we won't attack X. So they exploit X. Who wouldn't? It isn't just that war is hell. It's that war /must/ be hell, otherwise why would the enemy ever quit?
This week's rumblings from the White House suggest that we may, at last, see a revised strategy that concentrates on killing our deadliest enemies -- but I'll believe it when I see the rounds go down-range. Meanwhile, our troops die because our leaders are moral cowards. Over the decades, political correctness insinuated itself into the ranks of our "Washington player" generals and admirals. We now have four-stars who believe that improving our enemies' self-esteem is a crucial wartime goal. And the Army published its disastrous Counterinsurgency Manual a few years back -- doctrine written by military intellectuals who, instead of listening to Infantry squad leaders, made a show of consulting "peace advocates" and "humanitarian workers."
The result was a manual based on a few heavily edited case studies "proving" that the key to success in fighting terrorists is to hand out soccer balls to worm-eaten children. The doctrine ignored the brutal lessons of 3,000 years of history -- because history isn't politically correct (it shows, relentlessly, that the /only/ effective way to fight faith-fueled insurgents is with fire and sword).
The New York Times lavished praise on the manual. What does /that/ tell you?
A few senior officers continue to push me to "lay off" the Counterinsurgency Manual. Sorry, but I'm more concerned about supporting the youngest private on patrol than I am with the reputation of any general. As a /real/ general put it a century ago, "The purpose of an Army is to fight." And the purpose of going to war is to /win/ (that dirty word). It's not to sacrifice our own troops to make sad-sack do-gooders back home feel good.
We need to recognize that /true/ morality lies in backing our troops, not in letting them die for whacko theories.
The next time you read about the death of a soldier or Marine in Afghanistan, don't just blame the Taliban. Blame the generals and politicians who sent them to war, then took away their weapons./
Ralph Peters' new novel is "The War After Armageddon."/NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc.nypost.com , nypostonline.com , and newyorkpost.com are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Maybe, just maybe, even more so! Remember, the Golden is always there and willing to endure any hardship to bring the family together or mentor the children when the parents are gone.
And as we all know, the parents are gone most of the time indulging self. Raising the family is left up to the dog.
God bless the Golden Retriever
Limbaugh: Democrats Aim to Control People's Lives
Friday, September 25, 2009 3:17 PM
By: Rick Pedraza
Conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh says President Barack Obama’s plan to control healthcare is a pivotal point in his quest to control every aspect of Americans' lives.
Limbaugh, appearing Thursday on NBC’s “Jay Leno Show,” said the Democratic plan will regulate everything that affects healthcare costs, right down to what Americans should eat, drink, and drive.
“We've got enough mistakes the federal government runs,” Limbaugh said. “We don't need to compound it with more programs. The market will take care of it[self] . . . there's no reason to turn it all upside down.” The ulterior motive behind the Democratic plan to take over healthcare concerns Limbaugh the most.
“Forget the intricacies of healthcare,” he said. “If the government gets control of healthcare, that's the single best way that they get to control every aspect of our lives: what we eat, what we drive. It all will have an impact on healthcare costs — their responsibility via our taxes — and it's just a mechanism whereby government grows and grows and grows and we lose liberty and freedom to it. That's the single best way they get to control every aspect of our lives."
Limbaugh recalled the 2008 campaign, when Obama promised he would usher in a new utopia in America: no partisanship, no more red state/blue states — a post-racist with no more racial acrimony. Instead, “Look at how divided this country is right now," he said. Obama’s "approval numbers are plummeting. People who voted for him did not think this is what they were going to get. Tell Obama, ‘No, we don’t want you owning car companies; no, we don’t want you running the banks; no, we don't want you taking over student loans; and, no, we don’t want nationalized healthcare.’"
The government should let the market take its course instead of bailing out segments such as the auto industry. “Let them do bankruptcy first, or go out of business. That's just the way it works. We haven't saved them; we saved the unions.”
Limbaugh chided Obama for what he called his “five-minute career” in which the president “never [ran] a business and is now running [a] car company. “You know more about [running a car company] than he does,” Limbaugh told Leno. “You own more cars than Obama's ever seen. Just because General Motors goes under, it doesn't mean people can't buy cars. People already weren't buying the cars for a reason. The market will fix itself for people far better than a bunch of people in Washington with no experience in it, tinkering in it and trying to control it.
The $700 billion the government disbursed in the Troubled Asset Relief Program was a giant scam, Limbaugh said. "If we don't give them $700 billion in the next 24 hours, the world financial system will crash," he deadpanned. Now, "we're hearing that if we don't do healthcare by August, the healthcare system will crash. No, we didn't need to give them $700 billion.”
The biggest problem the nation faces now, Limbaugh said, is the subprime mortgage crisis.
“The Bush administration tried to regulate this and tried to get this brought under control because it made no sense,” he said. “ACORN was out forcing banks — pressuring banks — to lend money to people that couldn't pay it back, all under the guise of, ‘We must have affordable housing.’"
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
I know I have mentioned this many times, but I still have a hard time getting my arms around the idea that there are so many in our government that are willing to destroy the country, literally, just for an illusory sense of total power over other people.
Anyone that has watched the news can see this - it's so plain - the Democrats make no pretense to hide their intentions any more like they use to. They don't care who knows or understands they want to crush the American dream.
They want power and they are willing to do anything to get it. The liberal Democrats think this is the perfect time to do it. Where there is chaos, there's profit.
Why else would virtually all Democrats vote for this insanity that they can 'national health care' when they know it's a total lie!!? Please tell me how this works in a Democratic Republic?
Keep the faith - the mob is coming to join the fight.
Health Reform Is Just Subterfuge; Dream Is Democratic Dictatorship
By JOHN F. GASKI
Posted Tuesday, September 22, 2009 4:20 PM PT
By now the realization should be taking hold that the Democrats' health care plan has been exposed as a hoax. And it was the Democrats themselves who discredited and exposed it, but in a very ironic way. Of course, you won't hear this bombshell news reported by Democrat partisans Katie Couric, Charles Gibson and Brian Williams.
As for the substance, remember the Democrats' original rationale for their national health care takeover scheme? They wanted all uninsured Americans to be covered, right? Remember? But now they concede that their mega-upheaval of a plan would still leave about 15 million without medical insurance. Yet they still advocate the plan! Why?
First, a digression: Don't believe that "47 million uninsured" number. That canard is beyond a hoax. It is a fraud and a lie. For example, it includes at least 10 million illegal aliens (yes, that is the right term for those who enter our country by violating American law) and an additional five million or so legal foreign residents. Those categories are not "uninsured Americans" because they are not Americans.
The notorious 47 million also includes millions of wealthy people who do not purchase medical insurance — rendering themselves self-insured, not uninsured.
The biggest deceptions of all may be counting a large cohort of the young and vigorous who make the rational cost/benefit decision not to buy medical insurance yet, and several million others who qualify for free insurance and just don't bother to sign up! Bottom line, subtract out the un-uninsured and other inapplicable categories and the true number of Americans without health insurance is somewhere around 7 million, maybe 10 million conservatively (compared with 15 million after Democrat "reform"?).
Google the issue for about 10 minutes to verify.
Another way the Democrats inadvertently reveal their own national health insurance dishonesty is through infidelity to a second objective — cost control. Remember that one? They are hoping you don't, especially since the Congressional Budget Office has reported that the Obama-Democrat scheme would add $1 trillion to the national health tab over the next decade. Yet the Dems still want their plan. Why?
It must be something else, therefore. If their own action undermines their stated aims, and still they desperately favor the action, then the Democrats' real purpose must be something different, something they will not reveal. But what?
Simple: Have you noticed how the Washington Democrats like to take control of things, particularly big things in the economy such as the major banks and the auto industry, as well as health care?(Obama has realized he doesn't have to literally own the banks to control them. He can, instead, achieve control through bank dependence on TARP money and through his own coercion and intimidation. Step out of line, that is, and a bank will be publicly vilified by Barney Frank and other operatives, and maybe even have its executives prosecuted.)
When American business, American jobs and the American people become totally dependent on Obama and the Democrats for money and credit, including student loans for good measure, how much power will that give the Obama Democrats over our country?
The portrait coming into focus is one of either totalitarian socialism or an unholy socialist hybrid with fascism. And when you are dependent on the decision of a Democrat bureaucrat for crucial medical treatment, how much power does that give the Democrats over you? (Do you suppose party registration or political contributions might enter the bureaucrats' calculus? Recall how, in the GM reorganization, the Dems axed profitable dealers who were known to be Republican.)
When the Democrats achieve literal death-grip power over the lives of all our people, that is when they also achieve their long-cherished dream of absolute power and a Democrat dictatorship. Dictatorship in a virtual one-party state is the correct forecast because our present rulers can never be voted out of national power after they grant amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens, who would promptly be registered as mostly Democrat voters by Acorn!Now do you see what the real scheme is? Now does it all make sense?
This is not your father's Democrat party. This is also not about health care, ultimately. It's about raw political power and the long-promised socialist takeover of the United States. No public option, they now suggest? Don't believe it. They'll create a public option, soon to become the only option, by stealth — a kind of Fannie-Freddie co-op, because government control, in this case medical dictatorship, is an article of theology for the lib Dems.
We do not have a health care crisis in this country — because everyone already gets health care. It is just that some rely on the emergency room as their private medical services provider, so the system is inefficient and definitely too expensive overall. We do have a health insurance problem, and a health care cost crisis, but not a national health care crisis. And both real problems are readily manageable if the Dems would only allow it.
We need to permit and foster interstate insurance competition, medical savings accounts and tort reform to help reduce costs, and tax credits for health insurance purchase to expand coverage — from about 98% of the population, in reality, to closer to 100%. Those numbers also help punctuate, and puncture, the true nature of the liberal Democrats' health hoax.
Incidentally, or not, despite the Democrats' fumbling of this whole issue, the Republicans are succumbing to their opponents' red herring, straw man, jiu-jitsu diversionary misdirection on the "death panels" matter. It is not those prospective end-of-life counseling "services" that are the real death panels, although that is a fair term for them. The real Democrat death panels would be the thousands of politically appointed bureaucrats wielding life-and-death power over our citizenry through their decisions concerning whether to bestow or withhold lifesaving treatment.
This is it, America. This isn't really about a health policy issue; it is about the survival, or takeover, of our nation. If the Dems succeed in cramming their bitter medicine, actually poison, down your throat, the country is finished. It is the town hall protestors who seem to sense this most clearly. I hope the preceding diagnosis and prognosis help, too./
Gaski, an associate professor at the Mendoza College of Business at the University of Notre Dame, has been a registered Democrat for more than 20 years. He is also author of the recently published "Frugal Cool: How to Get Rich — Without Making Very Much Money" (Corby Books, 2009)./
Friday, September 25, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Obama is doing the same thing and is ensuring our economic collapse - History has taught us nothing? Or is this is what Obama wants to happen? Another disaster and another opportunity to change America. What kind of problems do you think would ensue with another attack on our country? Maybe even a nuclear?
Think about this for one moment, America in a total collapse and spiraling into chaos - what a great opportunity to suspend the Constitution and declare martial law while ramming through the congress a bill to drop the 22nd amendment so Obama can be president for life.
hmmmm, Obama says - I could be a king and rule the world with my friends.
He does see King Faud of Saudi Arabia, Castro and Hugo Chavez as his heroes; actually any tyrant that has total control of their country.
Keep the faith - the tide is changing - the once sleeping giant is awaking.
WSJ September 22, 2009.
Taxes, Depression, and Our Current Troubles
Tariffs, rising state and federal taxes, and currency devaluationruined the 1930s, and they could do the same today.
By ARTHUR B. LAFFER<http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=ARTHUR+B.+LAFFER&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND>
The 1930s has become the sole object lesson for today's monetary policy. Over the past 12 months, the Federal Reserve has increased the monetary base (bank reserves plus currency in circulation) by well over 100%. While currency in circulation has grown slightly, there's been an impressive 17-fold increase in bank reserves. The federal-funds target rate now stands at an all-time low range of zero to 25 basis points, with the 91-day Treasury bill yield equally low. All this has been done to avoid a liquidity crisis and a repeat of the mistakes that led to the Great Depression.
Even with this huge increase in the monetary base, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has reiterated his goal not to repeat the mistakes made back in the 1930s by tightening credit too soon, which he says would send the economy back into recession. The strong correlation between soaring unemployment and falling consumer prices in the early 1930s leads Mr. Bernanke to conclude that tight money caused both.
To prevent a double dip, super easy monetary policy is the key. While Fed policy was undoubtedly important, it was not the primary cause of the Great Depression or the economy's relapse in 1937.
The Smoot-Hawley tariff of June 1930 was the catalyst that got the whole process going. It was the largest single increase in taxes on trade during peacetime and precipitated massive retaliation by foreign governments on U.S. products. Huge federal and state tax increases in 1932 followed the initial decline in the economy thus doubling down on the impact of Smoot-Hawley.
There were additional large tax increases in 1936 and 1937 that were the proximate cause of the economy's relapse in 1937.
In 1930-31, during the Hoover administration and in the midst of an economic collapse, there was a very slight increase in tax rates on personal income at both the lowest and highest brackets. The corporate tax rate was also slightly increased to 12% from 11%. But beginning in 1932 the lowest personal income tax rate was raised to 4% from less than one-half of 1% while the highest rate was raised to 63% from 25%. (That's not a misprint!) The corporate rate was raised to 13.75% from 12%. All sorts of Federal excise taxes too numerous to list were raised as well.
The highest inheritance tax rate was also raised in 1932 to 45% from 20% and the gift tax was reinstituted with the highest rate set at 33.5%. But the tax hikes didn't stop there. In 1934, during the Roosevelt administration, the highest estate tax rate was raised to 60% from 45% and raised again to 70% in 1935. The highest gift tax rate was raised to 45% in 1934 from 33.5% in 1933 and raised again to 52.5% in 1935. The highest corporate tax rate was raised to 15% in 1936 with a surtax on undistributed profits up to 27%. In 1936 the highest personal income tax rate was raised yet again to 79% from 63%—a stifling 216% increase in four years.
Finally, in 1937 a 1% employer and a 1% employee tax was placed on all wages up to $3,000. Because of the number of states and their diversity I'm going to aggregate all state and local taxes and express them as a percentage of GDP. This measure of state tax policy truly understates the state and local tax contribution to the tragedy we call the Great Depression, but I'm sure the reader will get the picture.
In 1929, state and local taxes were 7.2% of GDP and then rose to 8.5%, 9.7% and 12.3% for the years 1930, '31 and '32 respectively.The damage caused by high taxation during the Great Depression is the real lesson we should learn. A government simply cannot tax a country into prosperity. If there were one warning I'd give to all who will listen, it is that U.S. federal and state tax policies are on an economic crash trajectory today just as they were in the 1930s.
Net legislated state-tax increases as a percentage of previous year tax receipts are at 3.1%, their highest level since 1991; the Bush tax cuts are set to expire in 2011; and additional taxes to pay for health-care and the proposed cap-and-trade scheme are on the horizon. In addition to all of these tax issues, the U.S. in the early 1930s was on a gold standard where paper currency was legally convertible into gold. Both circulated in the economy as money. At the outset of the Great Depression people distrusted banks but trusted paper currency and gold. They withdrew deposits from banks, which because of a fractional reserve system caused a drop in the money supply in spite of a rising monetary base. The Fed really had little power to control either bank reserves or interest rates.
The increase in the demand for paper currency and gold not only had a quantity effect on the money supply but it also put upward pressure on the price of gold, which meant that dollar prices of all goods and services had to fall for the relative price of gold to rise.
The deflation of the early 1930s was not caused by tight money. It was the result of panic purchases of fixed-dollar priced gold. From the end of 1929 until early 1933 the Consumer Price Index fell by 27%. By mid-1932 there were public fears of a change in the gold-dollar relationship. In their classic text, "A Monetary History of the United States," economists Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz wrote, "Fears of devaluation were widespread and the public's preference for gold was unmistakable."
Panic ensued and there was a rush to buy gold.
In early 1933, the federal government (not the Federal Reserve) declared a bank holiday prohibiting banks from paying out gold or dealing in foreign exchange. An executive order made it illegal for anyone to "hoard" gold and forced everyone to turn in their gold and gold certificates to the government at an exchange value of $20.67 per ounce of gold in return for paper currency and bank deposits. All gold clauses in contracts private and public were declared null and void and by the end of January 1934 the price of gold, most of which had been confiscated by the government, was raised to $35 per ounce.
In other words, in less than one year the government confiscated as much gold as it could at $20.67 an ounce and then devalued the dollar in terms of gold by almost 60%. That's one helluva tax.
The 1933-34 devaluation of the dollar caused the money supply to grow by over 60% from April 1933 to March 1937, and over that same period the monetary base grew by over 35% and adjusted reserves grew by about 100%. Monetary policy was about as easy as it could get. The consumer price index from early 1933 through mid-1937 rose by about 15% in spite of double-digit unemployment. And that's the story.
The lessons here are pretty straightforward. Inflation can and did occur during a depression, and that inflation was strictly a monetary phenomenon. My hope is that the people who are running our economy do look to the Great Depression as an object lesson. My fear is that they will misinterpret the evidence and attribute high unemployment and the initial decline in prices to tight money, while increasing taxes to combat budget deficits.*
Mr. Laffer is the chairman of Laffer Associates and co-author of "The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy—If We Let It Happen" (Threshold, 2008).*Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A25
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Now with Obama's entire Marxist agenda under attack for being anti-America and socialist, the liberal left Marxist socialist Democrats are calling for the 'rightwing mob' to cease and desist their opposition.
Isn't it strange that the character assignations, out right lies, misinformation and name calling are all on the Marxist, Fascist side of the debate. It seems the debate is now the People against a totalitarian government take over of everything American.
Norman Lear Group Targets Glenn Beck
A liberal advocacy group founded by TV producer Norman Lear has launched an attack on conservative talker Glenn Beck, saying his influence on the GOP is "shameful."
In an e-mail sent to supporters, People for the American Way's President Michael B. Keegan referred to last weekend's protests in Washington against President Barack Obama and the Democrats and rebutted the claim that as many as 2 million people took part.
"Officials estimated the crowd to be about 60,000," Keating wrote. "Significant, yes, but not indicative that these people are anything more than a vocal minority representing the views of only a small portion of Americans.
"A PFAW staffer who showed up to check out the scene talked to many participants, and when she asked why they showed up, an overwhelming number gave the same answer: 'Glenn Beck sent me.'" Keating continued: "It is shameful that the GOP would give someone like Glenn Beck that sort of power. The Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of the world have been pulling the strings of the Republican Party for too long."
The e-mail cited an upcoming conference called How to Take Back America, claiming it will be hosted by "some of the most fringe players on the Radical Right," and asked for donations to help the group "fight back."
Meanwhile Fox News is disputing a claim by an African-American advocacy group that its call for a boycott of advertisers on Beck's Fox TV show has had a significant impact on its ad revenue.
(Remember, Van Jones, the avoided communist and Obama's Carz of Green Jobs in the Whitehouse, created Color of Change)
Color of Change sought the boycott more than a month ago after Beck accused Obama of being a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred for white people." In a press release, Color of Change cited data from unnamed "industry sources" and asserted that the ad boycott "costs Glenn Beck over 50 percent of ad dollars." The group claimed that 62 advertisers have "distanced themselves" from Beck, and the boycott is costing Fox nearly $600,000 per week.
A Fox News spokesman told TVNewser: "The Color of Change figures are wildly inaccurate on all fronts — revenue has not been affected in any way."
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Will it be enough? Only time will tell but at least we are doing something to stem the tide of destruction. The people rising up against the the government - a concept totally foreign to Americans only last year.
Keep the faith - decide to be a factor in bring our country back from the grip of socialism - you decide what's important in your life and then act on it!!
Envisioning A World Without America
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Friday, September 18, 2009
An Iranian mullah once said "a world without America and Zionism" was a real possibility. Our sellout of Eastern Europe and missile defense brings that dream closer to reality. It would take only one warhead.
Related Topics: *Iran <http://www.ibdeditorials.com/FeaturedCategories.aspx?sid=1801&cid=1826>
"Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?" Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asked at a "World Without Zionism" conference in Tehran in 2005. "But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved."He added that Iran had a strategic "war preparation plan" for what it called "the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."A simple Scud missile, with a nuclear warhead, could be fired from an inconspicuous freighter in international waters off our coast and detonated high above America.
This is where the Airborne Laser aircraft program, canceled by this administration, would come in handy.
Or it could be an upgraded Shahab launch, masked as a satellite attempt and flying over where the European defense sites would have been. It would wreak near total devastation on America's technological, electrical and transportation infrastructure.
The threat is called electromagnetic pulse. Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., calls it the one way we could lose the war on terror. As he notes, a single nuclear warhead, detonated at the right altitude, would interact with the Earth's atmosphere, producing an electromagnetic pulse radiating to the surface at the speed of light.Nobody is harmed or killed immediately by the blast.
But life in the U.S., the world's only superpower and largest economy, comes to a screeching halt as a country dependent on 21st-century technology instantaneously regresses almost a century in time. Millions could die as hospital systems shut down and as rail and air traffic controls collapse. Farmers would be unable to harvest crops, and distributors couldn't get goods to market. Energy production would cease. Computers and PCs would become large paperweights. Telephones, even cell phones, wouldn't work.
Retaliation would be futile and meaningless — if it were even possible — since communications with our deployed forces overseas, including ballistic missile submarines, might be cut off. A presidential authorization might be impossible to send, so fried might be our communications infrastructure.
To defend Europe — and American troops stationed there — against the possibility of a missile attack from Iran requires a European third site. We now maintain one ground-based missile site in Fort Greely, Alaska, and a second at Vandenberg Air Force Base in central California.
President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates cite intelligence indicating that Iran's long-range missile development is going slower than previously thought. So ignore that Iranian Omid satellite. There's time, they say, and for now our existing Aegis and other defenses should do fine. But shouldn't we have our long-range defenses ready before their offense is?
The administration that disbelieved intelligence under George W. Bush now believes every word it's told. And it's disingenuous to tout the capabilities of missile defense systems you would have never developed if the choice had been yours.
The fact is, we simply have too few Aegis-equipped and SM-3 armed vessels to provide defenses for Japan and Hawaii from the North Korean threat, both long- and short-range. Where are the Aegis ships to patrol the waters between Iran and Europe — or off our own coasts, for that matter? If the administration is planning a massive shipbuilding program, we missed the announcement.President Reagan's dream of a layered missile defense defending against, rather than merely avenging, a nuclear attack is being suffocated in the crib.
Now the only option may be for Israel to take out the nuclear facilities of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and save us from our folly. Or we can wait for the day when nuclear-armed missiles are in the hands of a man who wants to wipe Israel off the map as he waits for the arrival of the 12th Imam and the apocalypse.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Obama Plans Internet Grab: FCC to Embrace 'Net Neutrality'
Sunday, September 20, 2009 7:16 PM
By: John O. Edwards
Since the Internet took root as a mass communications phenomenon in the mid 1990s, a quiet war has raged in Washington over the extent to which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would regulate the new medium.
Until, now the Internet has been largely self-regulated, and the FCC has taken a hands-off approach.
But that could change dramatically soon if the Obama administration has its way.
During the weekend, press reports revealed a stunning development: The Obama administration will announce Monday that the FCC would propose new rules to embrace what it calls "Net Neutrality."
Obama's new Federal Communications Commission chairman, Julius Genachowski, will use a speech to the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank, to announce the FCC proposals, according to those reports.
On the face of it, Net Neutrality appears to be a popular and fair proposal.
Genachowski will "propose new rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks," according to the Associated Press.
The FCC rules "would bar Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. or AT&T Inc., from slowing or blocking certain services or content flowing through their vast networks," according to the AP.
But critics contend that the proposals are nothing more than a backdoor way for the FCC to tighten federal control over the Internet by beginning with the regulation of Internet service providers.
The battle lines over Net Neutrality have formed along partisan and ideological lines, with some exceptions. During the presidential campaign, Obama said he would embrace Net Neutrality — a cause championed by Google and other Silicon Valley companies that don't want large Internet service providers denying or controlling their access to Internet users.
But Republicans have largely opposed Net Neutrality, suggesting self regulation has worked well.
The previous FCC chairman, Bush appointee Kevin Martin opposed Net Neutrality. He suggested it was not needed. Conservatives see Net Neutrality as a power grab that will benefit big Internet players such as Amazon and Google while stifling smaller competitors.
The libertarian CATO Institute, in a 2004 policy analysis concluded: "The regulatory regime envisioned by Net Neutrality mandates would also open the door to a great deal of potential 'gaming' of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors. Worse yet, it would encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets in general."
Democrats in Congress have pushed for such controls in the past without success. In 2006 House Democrats offered an amendment to make Net Neutrality law, but the motion failed.
At the time Republicans warned of efforts to control the Internet.
"I want a vibrant Internet just like they do," Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, said during the 2006 House debate over the issue. "Our disagreement is about how to achieve that. They say let the government dictate it . . . I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Obama Abandons Third-Site Missile Shield in Poland, Czech Republic
Last month news outlets in Poland reported that the Obama administration had made the decision to abandon our anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Today Czech Premier Jan Fischer confirmed those reports telling reporters that President Obama phoned him overnight to say that “his government is pulling out of plans to build a missile defense radar on Czech territory.”
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration is justifying its decision on their determination that Iran’s long-range missile program hasn’t progressed as rapidly as previously estimated. This despite the facts that:
On February 2nd, Iran successfully launched a satellite into orbit using a rocket with technology similar to that used in a long-range ballistic missile.
On May 20th, Iran test-fired a 1200-mile solid-fueled two-stage ballistic missile.
On July 15th, Germany’s foreign intelligence service, BND, announced that Iran will be able to produce and test a nuclear weapon within six months. BND also stated that it has “no doubt” that Iran’s missile program is aimed solely at the production of nuclear warheads.
On August 3rd, The Times of London reported that Western intelligence sources concluded that Iran has not only perfected the technology to build and detonate a nuclear weapon, could assemble a weapon in just six months, and could deliver the weapon on Iran’s Shebab-3 ballistic missile.
Just yesterday French President Nicolas Sarkozy said: “It is a certainty to all of our secret services. Iran is working today on a nuclear [weapons] program.”
The only country other than Iran that is happy with President Obama’s decision is Russia. State Duma foreign affairs committee head Konstantin Kosachev told the Associated Press: “The U.S. president’s decision is a well-thought (out) and systematic one. Now we can talk about restoration of (the) strategic partnership between Russia and the United States.” But, in fact, the missile defense capitulation is just one in a long line of Obama surrenders to Russia.
Heritage Fellow Ariel Cohen explains from Moscow:
"All these concessions the Russians pocketed, smiled, and moved on to new demands: European security reconfiguration; additional global reserve currency which would weaken the dollar; and a strong push-back on sanctions against the Iranian nuclear program. …. While the Russians clearly like the better atmospherics, and somewhat toned down the shrill anti-American rhetoric, the Iranians and the Venezuelans, who also received Obama’s “stretched hand” and, in case of Hugo Chavez, a pat on the back, are refusing to play ball. They, like their friends in Moscow, are also pocketing concessions while continuing the mischief."
The decision to abandon the “third site” deployment of 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic violates President Obama’s pledge to support missile defense that is “pragmatic and cost-effective.” Ground based missile defense is effective, affordable, and available now. According to the Congressional Budget Office, alternatives to the third site do not provide a comparable level of defense. The CBO concluded that the estimated $9-14 billion 20-year cost of the third site was half of the estimated costs of a sea-based alternative. Abandoning our best missile defense option in Europe only encourages Iran to speed up their ballistic missile program so that they can get their threat in place before a European missile defense system is available.
The Poles and the Czechs know what it means to live under the boot of Russian domination. The third-site issue is of huge symbolic importance to both nations, and if Moscow emerges the victor, with an effective veto over U.S. policy in Europe, it would represent a massive surrender of American strategic influence and a betrayal of two of its closest friends in the region.
Go to 33minutes.com for more on missile defense, the threat posed to us and our allies by nuclear weapons, and the action plan necessary to revive a strategic missile defense system that only America
Friday, September 18, 2009
BEWARE THE PUBLIC OPTION TRAP
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
As any good Persian rug dealer knows, you have to hold back a bargaining chit so that you can whip it out at the very end to tie down the sale. That's how Obama is playing the so-called public option in his healthcare program. His plan seems to be to combine its abandonment with some form of tort reform and try to buy off some Republicans - maybe only Maine's Olympia Snowe - to give moderate Democrats enough confidence in the veneer of bi-partisanship to win their backing for his bill.
But it's a fraud and a trick.
(a) Whether or not there is a public option makes no difference in the fundamental objection most elderly have to the bill - that it guts Medicare and Medicaid. All of the bills now under consideration cut these two programs by one half of a trillion dollars. And all of them require the medical community to serve thirty to fifty million new patients without any concomitant growth in the number of doctors or nurses. These cuts and shortages will lead to draconian rationing of medical care for the elderly, whether under a public option or not.
(b) The most likely proposal is to replace the public option with some form of buyer's co-op. But since there is no currently existing co-op to serve as a vehicle for health insurance, it would have to be formed. By who? The government, of course. That would mean, as a practical matter, that the "co-op option" would be a government run plan for several years. In fact, they may not get around to setting up a co-op at all.
(c) The other alternative, mentioned by Senator Snowe herself, would be for a "trigger" mechanism. This provision would require the creation of a public alternative to private insurance plans if, after a specified period of time, they did not lower rates to a pre-determined level. Given the escalation of healthcare costs, it is almost inevitable that this provision would lead to a government plan. And, anyway, who says that the government insurance option would be more successful in reducing costs?
But Obama has to at least appear to be willing to compromise, so he has invented the idea of re-packaging the public option in order to seem to be flexible.
The key, here, is not to be distracted by the debate over the public option. It matters very much to private insurance companies whether the government becomes their competitor, but, for the elderly (and the near-elderly), the key concern is not the public option by the rationing and cuts projected under the program.
In the Clinton Administration, we worked hard to kill the proposed Medicare cuts and are no less committed to stopping them in the Obama presidency. That they were once proposed by the right and are now being pushed by the left makes no difference. A cut is a cut is a cut. And Medicare should not be cut.
Note from the League: Obama is campaigning all around the nation to re-gain support for Obamacare. We have a good chance of stopping him but we must continue the fight. Please help us — Go Here Now.
Paid for by the League of American Voters. Contributions to the League of American Voters are not tax deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Contributions from individuals and corporations are permitted by law and welcome.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Huckabee: No Palestinian State in Israel
Former Arkansas Governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said during a trip to Israel that the land "belongs to the Jewish people alone." He acknowledged that the
Palestinians deserve a state of their own, but insisted: "It just can't be in Israel."
Huckabee, a Baptist minister and Fox News personality, was accompanied on his trip by Helen Freedman, executive director of Americans for a Safe Israel.
He told reporters that two sovereign nations cannot control the same piece of territory, and said: "Many people with many different faiths believe in a strong Israel. They believe in Israel based on issues of security as well as promises made in the Bible. This land belongs to the Jewish people alone." Asked about the so-called Israeli "occupation" of Palestine, Huckabee said he would characterize the Israeli government's efforts as "accommodation, not occupation," the Jewish Voice and Opinion reported.
He referred to the Barack Obama administration's criticism of the Israeli government over construction of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem, and his backing away from campaign promises of support for a unified Jerusalem.
"The current administration has taken a different track from the one followed by the Bush and Clinton administrations, and Obama's position now is different from what it was during the campaign," Huckabee observed.
He also said: "Jews should have the right to live wherever they choose in their homeland. If the Arabs didn't want to lose land, they shouldn't have started wars."
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
DIVORCE AGREEMENT 2009
THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM.
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists, Obama supporters, et al: We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement: Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion.. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.
You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU, and abortion clinics.
Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, Katie Couric and Rosie O'Donnell...
We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.
You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens.
We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms and rednecks.
We'll keep the Bibles and give you CBS, NBC, CNBC and Hollywood ..
You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.
You can have the peaceniks, and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.
We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N., but we will no longer be paying the bill.
We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks American made cars and oversized luxury cars.
You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.
You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.
We'll continue to believe healthcare is not a right..
We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem and "In God We Trust" where it belongs. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya" or "We Are the World".
We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give 'trickle up poverty' your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag. Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which 'one' of us will need whose help in 15 years (or less).
Sincerely, John J. WallLaw Student and an American
P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand and Jane Fonda with you.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Malkin points out only one of the many cases where the unions are the problem and not the cure. Case in point is the automakers and how unions now own them. Disaster in the making.
Raiding rail security
By MICHELLE MALKIN NY Post/Last Updated:/ 3:51 AM, September 12, 2009/Posted:/ 1:12 AM, September 12, 2009New Delhi. Mumbai. Chechnya. Madrid. London.
The question isn't whether America will suffer a jihadi attack on our passenger rail lines, but when. So why has President Obama neutered the nation's most highly trained post-9/11 counterterrorism rail-security team? All signs point to cronyism and pandering to union bosses.
Amtrak's Office of Security Strategy and Special Operations -- OSSSO -- grew out of a counterterrorism and intelligence unit developed by the Bush administration in the wake of global jihadi attacks on mass-transit systems. The office was staffed with Special Forces veterans, law-enforcement officers, railroad specialists, other military personnel and experts who collectively possessed hundreds of years of experience fighting on the front lines against terrorism.
Each member underwent at least 800 hours of rail-security-related training, including advanced marksmanship, close-quarters combat and protective-security exercises. OSSSO's mobile-prevention teams acted as "force multipliers" working with local, state and federal authorities across the country to detect, deter and defend against criminal and terrorist attacks on mass transit. They conducted hundreds of show-of-force, uniformed and rail-marshal rides. OSSSO also provided security services for President Bush, the pope, the 2008 Democratic and GOP conventions, -Obama's campaign events and Joe Biden's Amtrak whistle-stop tours.
The unit's push to conduct random passenger and baggage screening won bipartisan praise on Capitol Hill. Even Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, who chairs the House homeland-security subcommittee on transportation security, hailed the rail-security team's work last year. "Let me congratulate them for being aware" of the threat to rail passengers, she told USA Today in July 2008. "[But] this has to be the new standard for Amtrak."
How will Congress react to the news that this high standard has been obliterated? Multiple government sources (who declined to be identified for fear of retribution) say OSSSO's East Coast and West Coast teams haven't worked in a counterterrorism capacity since the summer. Their long arms were put under lock and key after the abrupt departures of Amtrak Vice President for Security Strategy and Special Operations Bill Rooney and Amtrak Inspector General Fred Weiderhold.
Weiderhold played an instrumental role in creating OSSSO's predecessor at Amtrak, the Counter-Terrorism Unit. He tapped Rooney to oversee the office. But Rooney was quietly given the heave-ho in May, and Weiderhold was unexpectedly "retired" a few weeks later -- just as Amtrak faced mounting complaints about its meddling in financial audits and probes. Weiderhold had blown the whistle on intrusion of Amtrak's Law Department into his financial audits and probes. A damning report from an outside legal firm concluded that the "independence and effectiveness" of the Amtrak inspector general's office were "being substantially impaired" by the Law Department -- which happens to be headed by Eleanor Acheson, a close pal of Vice President Biden.
Biden himself is tight with the Fraternal Order of Police, the powerful union that represents the Amtrak Police Department. OSSSO sources say the APD brass have been aggrieved from the start over the nonunionized counterterrorism unit's existence. A West Coast OSSSO team member told me that union leaders blocked police credentialing efforts by his office for more than a year. An East Coast member told me that the union recently filed a grievance against one of its counterterrorism officers for assisting a train conductor who asked for help in ejecting a ticketless passenger.
Unlike OSSSO's specialized personnel, APD officers have minimal counterterrorism training. Past studies show alarmingly low pass rates among APD patrolmen who'd attended basic special-operations classes, government sources say. The Amtrak Fraternal Order of Police continues to squabble over turf with the rival Teamsters union -- its leaders can't even agree on minimal physical fitness standards for its members.
Nevertheless, OSSSO is now under the command and control of the APD -- and federal stimulus funding earmarked for the counterterrorism unit has now been absorbed by the police department. Amtrak didn't respond to my questions about OSSSO by my column deadline.
Al Qaeda operatives have repeatedly plotted to wreak havoc on our mass-transit systems. They'll try, try again. American jihadi Bryant Neal Vinas recently gave the feds details about a plot to blow up a Long Island Rail Road commuter train in New York's Penn Station.
As America marks the 9/11 anniversary and the "never forget" mantra echoes, an OSSSO team member told me, "There is no room for internal protectionism, vested interests of unions or asset-manipulating bureaucracies where the safety of our national passenger railroad is concerned."Does anyone else in Washington email@example.com/
Monday, September 14, 2009
I believe this article by Ralph Peters says what we all are thinking - the Marxist liberal Democrats are making a mockery of those the died for our country, even those that gave their all to found this country.
Obama and his kind are a disgrace to us all and anyone that loves freedom. I can't add a thing to this great piece.
Betraying our dead
By RALPH PETERS
Last Updated: 10:39 AM, September 11, 2009
Eight years ago today, our homeland was attacked by fanatical Muslims inspired by Saudi Arabian bigotry. Three thousand American citizens and residents died.We resolved that we, the People, would never forget. Then we forgot. We've learned nothing.
Instead of cracking down on Islamist extremism, we've excused it. Instead of killing terrorists, we free them. Instead of relentlessly hunting Islamist madmen, we seek to appease them. Instead of acknowledging that radical Islam /is/ the problem, we elected a president who blames America, whose idea of freedom is the right for women to suffer in silence behind a veil -- and who counts among his mentors and friends those who damn our country or believe that our own government staged the tragedy of September 11, 2001.
Instead of insisting that freedom will not be infringed by terrorist threats, we censor works that might offend mass murderers. Radical Muslims around the world can indulge in viral lies about us, but we dare not even publish cartoons mocking them. Instead of protecting law-abiding Americans, we reject profiling to avoid offending terrorists. So we confiscate granny's shampoo at the airport because the half-empty container /could/ hold 3.5 ounces of liquid. Instead of insisting that Islamist hatred and religious apartheid have no place in our country, we permit the Saudis to continue funding mosques and madrassahs where hating Jews and Christians is preached as essential to Islam.
Instead of confronting Saudi hate-mongers, our president bows down to the Saudi king. Instead of recognizing the Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi cult as the core of the problem, our president blames Israel. Instead of asking why Middle Eastern civilization has failed so abjectly, our president suggests that we're the failures. Instead of taking every effective measure to cull information from terrorists, the current administration threatens CIA agents with prosecution for keeping us safe. Instead of proudly and promptly rebuilding on the site of the Twin Towers, we've committed ourselves to the hopeless, useless task of rebuilding Afghanistan. (Perhaps we should have built a mosque at Ground Zero -- the Saudis would've funded it.)
Instead of taking a firm stand against Islamist fanaticism, we've made a cult of negotiations -- as our enemies pursue nuclear weapons; sponsor terrorism; torture, imprison, rape and murder their own citizens -- and laugh at us.
Instead of insisting that Islam must become a religion of responsibility, our leaders in both parties continue to bleat that "Islam's a religion of peace," ignoring the curious absence of Baptist suicide bombers. Instead of requiring new immigrants to integrate into our society and conform to its public values, we encourage and subsidize anti-American, woman-hating, freedom-denying bigotry in the name of toleration.
Instead of pursuing our enemies to the ends of the earth, we help them sue us.
We've dishonored our dead and whitewashed our enemies. A distinctly unholy alliance between fanatical Islamists abroad and a politically correct "elite" in the US has reduced 9/11 to the status of a non-event, a day for politicians to preen about how little they've done.
We've forgotten the shock and the patriotic fury Americans felt on that bright September morning eight years ago. We've forgotten our identification with fellow citizens leaping from doomed skyscrapers. We've forgotten the courage of airline passengers who would not surrender to terror.
We've forgotten the men and women who burned to death or suffocated in the Pentagon. We've forgotten our promises, our vows, our commitments. We've forgotten what we owe our dead and what we owe our children. We've even forgotten who attacked us. We have betrayed the memory of our dead. In doing so, we betrayed ourselves and our country. Our troops continue to fight -- when they're allowed to do so -- but our politicians have surrendered.
Are we willing to let the terrorists win?
Ralph Peters' new thriller, "The War After Armageddon," goes on sale next Tuesday/.NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Joe Wilson is correct, Obama lied and he continues to lie to get what he wants - 'changing' America from a free nation into a socialist nightmare.
Rep. Wilson Apologizes, But Still Thinks Obama Wasn't Honest
Thursday, September 10, 2009
By: David A. Patten
Rep. Joe Wilson is apologizing for blurting out "You lie!" during President Obama's nationally televised address Wednesday night — but he's not backing down one bit about Obama being wrong in saying healthcare reform won't subsidize insurance for illegals.
"This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President's remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the healthcare bill," the South Carolina Republican said in a statement issued shortly after the president's speech to a joint session of Congress ended. "While I disagree with the President's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the president for this lack of civility."
Reaction to Wilson's outburst came fast and furious. Republicans distanced themselves from the breach of protocol — Sen. John McCain of Arizona decried it as "totally disrespectful" adding, "there is no place for it in that setting — and House Democrats actually called for Wilson to be censored.
Efforts by Democrats to pillory Wilson for doing the same thing Town Hall protesters did around the nation during the August recess — speaking the truth as they see it to those in power — may backfire. Already, the nation's attention is turning to the actual issue Wilson raised — an accusation that billions of taxpayers' dollars will go to pay for health insurance coverage for undocumented workers, if the current reform proposals go through.
Supporters of so-called "Obamacare" point out that the measures being drafted all specifically forbid illegal aliens from gaining coverage. But conservatives say those stipulations are useless without the normal enforcement procedures which Democrats omitted.
"Obama is correct," Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, tells Newsmax. "The legislation states illegals won't get the affordability credits [to pay for their healthcare]. But Wilson's comment is correct in that the normal enforcement mechanism was excluded from the bill. I think that's the fundamental question."
Camarota's organization has estimated that due to the lack of enforcement provisions — which were specifically excluded from the legislation when it was being drafted — healthcare reform would benefit 6.6 million illegals at a cost of some $31 billion. "In that sense it is disingenuous," Camarota tells Newsmax, "to argue that the bill is excluding illegal immigrants. I'm not going to say lie. It's disingenuous. It's not entirely correct. And that's a big deal."
Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., had offered an amendment that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving government-subsidized healthcare under the proposed plan.
The House Ways and Means Committee nixed the Heller amendment by a 26-to-15 vote along straight party lines. Many states give illegals drivers licenses, which will be sufficient to get free healthcare under the plan.
Critics also contend that millions of illegals already have counterfeit Social Security cards or other fraudulent documents. There also is no enforcement mechanism in the legislation to prevent illegals who use fake IDs 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 states, "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 healthcare 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. That coverage for illegals has become an explosive issue is not surprising, considering that a recent Rasmussen Reports poll found an overwhelming 80 percent of Americans oppose covering illegals in any public healthcare bill.
Moreover, 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 healthcare 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 view, stating: "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 a small fraction of illegals end up deported, and millions use 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. Many use false identification to obtain regular employment.
John Sheils of the Lewin Group, a healthcare 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 healthcare 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.
While President Obama has stated employees currently covered by their employers' plans would not be eligible for the taxpayer-subsidized "public option," they would become eligible as soon as they lose their job or if their employers drop their coverage. And Republicans say that without enforcement measures, the citizenship of those workers wouldn't matter.
"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.
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 healthcare reform, Democrats have made it clear that amnesty is the next item on their ambitious legislative agenda anyway. Undocumented workers who obtain amnesty would almost certainly become eligible for subsidized healthcare.
"I've got to do healthcare, 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 healthcare reform. "We have an immigration system that's broken and needs repair," Reid said.
Rep. Wilson said Wednesday his outburst was a "spontaneous" reaction. He tried to call the president after the speech to apologize, and ended up speaking with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to head off efforts to have Wilson sanctioned. "It's time for us to talk about healthcare, not Joe Wilson," she said Wednesday. Wilson told the media he's actually for immigration, "But people who come to our country and violated our laws, we should not be providing full services."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
There is no way to police what happens out in the country with the HR3200 plan leaving the entire system open to anyone from anywhere to use it while the tax payers, the productive members of our country, pick up the tab, again.
The real nasty part of this is the people that will be paying for the system will get the same service as those that don't pay a cent, the unproductive. Read this as unemployable liberal voting Democrats.
Thank the Marxist socialists in our government.
Health Bill Could Benefit 6.6 Million Illegals, Cost $31 Billion
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Center for Immigration Studies
As President Obama addresses the nation on healthcare reform, a new analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that 6.6 million uninsured illegal immigrants could receive benefits under the House health reform bill (H.R. 3200).
While the bill states that illegal immigrants are not eligible for the new taxpayer-funded affordability credits, there is nothing in the bill to enforce this provision. Congress defeated efforts to require the use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program.
More than 70 other programs of this kind use SAVE.
The report is available at http://www.cis.org/IllegalsAndHealthCareHR3200. Among the findings:
In 2007, there were an estimated 6.6 million illegal immigrants without health insurance who had incomes below 400 percent of poverty, which is the income ceiling for the new affordability premium credits.
If all uninsured illegal immigrants with incomes below 400 percent of poverty received the new credits, the estimated cost to the federal government would be $30.5 billion annually.
The current cost of treating uninsured illegal immigrants at all levels of government is an estimated $4.3 billion a year, primarily at emergency rooms and free clinics.
On July 16 an amendment by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) that would have required the use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving the affordability credits was defeated by the House Ways and Means Committee.
At present 71 other means-tested federal programs require use of the SAVE system to prevent illegal immigrants and other ineligible non-citizens from accessing them.
Even though there is no mechanism to prevent enrollment, it is likely that many income-eligible illegal immigrants would not enroll out of fear or lack of knowledge of the new programs. Thus the actual costs would be less than the maximum estimate of $30.5 billion. However, if illegal immigrants are legalized and could receive affordability credits, a much larger percentage would be expected to enroll, with a corresponding increase in costs.
Uninsured illegal immigrants tend to use less in healthcare on average than others without health insurance because they tend to be young. This fact is incorporated into the current cost estimate of $4.3 billion. However, government-provided affordability credits paid to insurance companies are the same for everyone regardless of age or preexisting conditions. Therefore, the younger age of illegals does not result in lower average costs for taxpayers for this program.
It is also worth noting that the report estimates that 38 percent of illegal immigrants had health insurance in 2007. Additionally, the report estimates that there are at least 360,000 uninsured illegal immigrants with incomes above 400 percent of poverty who would not qualify for benefits under H.R. 3200.
It is also possible that illegal immigrants could benefit from the expansion of Medicaid under H.R. 3200. The bill does not require identity verification for those claiming U.S. birth. Of illegal immigrants with incomes under 400 percent of poverty, about half live under 133 percent of poverty, which is the new ceiling for Medicaid eligibility.
On July 30 an amendment by Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) that would have required identity variation for those claiming U.S. birth was defeated by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution that examines the impact of immigration on the United States. It has no position on the health reform legislation before Congress or any other matter unrelated to immigration.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Did you ever give any thought to just how much energy the wind industry can generate given that the number of mills is finite? There just so many places where you can put them and then that's the end of it. There are just so many places where the wind blows sufficiently to warrant installation. And what about the environmental impact of these monsters?
Our beautiful Midwest is ravaged with the damn things with more to come. And what about the power lines to get the power away from the remote sites? More super structures to devastate the land.
Hey, where are the fascists eco-nutjobs that demand more and more non-petroleum sources of energy and the destruction of nature's prairies? Why they are in Washington getting more money to feed their bank accounts, of course.
Windmills Are Killing Our Birds
By ROBERT BRYCE<http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=ROBERT+BRYCE&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND>
On Aug. 13, ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with crude oil or other pollutants in uncovered tanks or waste-water facilities on its properties. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees.
ExxonMobil is hardly alone in running afoul of this law. Over the past two decades, federal officials have brought hundreds of similar cases against energy companies. In July, for example, the Oregon-based electric utility PacifiCorp paid $1.4 million in fines and restitution for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over the past two years. The birds were electrocuted by poorly-designed power lines.
Yet there is one group of energy producers that are not being prosecuted for killing birds: wind-power companies. And wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds every year. A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds—nearly all protected by the migratory bird act—are being whacked every year at Altamont.
Altamont's turbines, located about 30 miles east of Oakland, Calif., kill more than 100 times as many birds as Exxon's tanks, and they do so every year. But the Altamont Pass wind farm does not face the same threat of prosecution, even though the bird kills at Altamont have been repeatedly documented by biologists since the mid-1990s.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is highly variable. And biologists believe Altamont, which uses older turbine technology, may be the worst example. But that said, the carnage there likely represents only a fraction of the number of birds killed by windmills. Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy estimates that U.S. wind turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds per year. Yet the Justice Department is not bringing cases against wind
companies."Somebody has given the wind industry a get-out-of-jail-free card," Mr. Fry told me.
"If there were even one prosecution," he added, the wind industry would be forced to take the issue seriously. According to the American Wind Energy Association, the industry's trade association, each megawatt of installed wind-power results in the killing of between one and six birds per year. At the end of 2008, the U.S. had about 25,000 megawatts of wind turbines.
By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to be producing 20% of its electricity from wind. Meeting that goal, according to the Department of Energy, will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, a 12-fold increase over 2008 levels. If that target is achieved, we can expect some 300,000 birds, at the least, to be killed by wind turbines each year.
On its Web site, the Wind Energy Association says that bird kills by wind turbines are a "very small fraction of those caused by other commonly accepted human activities and structures—house cats kill an estimated one billion birds annually." That may be true, but it is not much of a defense. When cats kill birds, federal law doesn't require marching them to our courthouses to hold them responsible.
During the late 1980s and early '90s, Rob Lee was one of the Fish and Wildlife Service's lead law-enforcement investigators on the problem of bird kills in Western oil fields. Now retired and living in Lubbock, Texas, Mr. Lee tells me that solving the problem in the oil fields "was easy and cheap." The oil companies only had to put netting over their tanks and waste facilities.Why aren't wind companies prosecuted for killing eagles and other birds?
"The fix here is not easy or cheap," Mr. Lee told me. He added that he doesn't expect to see any prosecutions of the politically correct wind industry. This is a double standard that more people—and not just bird lovers—should be paying attention to. In protecting America's wildlife, federal law-enforcement officials are turning a blind eye to the harm done by "green" energy.—
Mr. Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His latest book is "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence'" (PublicAffairs, 2008).Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A19
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
This is a good analysis of how the liberal and Conservative understands the meaning of the word 'patriot'.
This is from my brother that lives near D.C.
The problem is that there is no longer any such thing as a non-partisan "Patriot" because the left defines patriotism as working to limit the freedom of the individual, reduce the sovereignty of the US, and increase the size and power of central government.Conservatives tend to define patriotism as defending US sovereignty, preserving individual freedom, and limiting the power of government at all levels.
These two visions of what is patriotic" have been at war with each other since the founding of the US, and over the last 50 years, the left, with its control of the schools and major media, has been winning the battle to define patriotism. In simplest terms, the debate over patriotism is between upper-class elites who believe they are so superior that they should control everything, and the educated middle-class who believes in the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of independence.
There is no simple way to reconcile these two sides, and over the whole course of human history, this debate/conflict has come to dominate every society that evolved some semblance of individual freedom.
The US we grew-up in is gone, it has been destroyed by a loss of perspective by its citizens about the meaning and value of our individual freedoms, and by a growing assault by the left. Our education system has worked to distort US history, and destroy any understanding of the value of the freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. All that is left to us is a fight to the death between the two sides, that is what it has come down to!
There will be no amicable settlement of differences in this fight! If the left wins we can expect all the benefits of classic totalitarian dictatorships; total control of all media, all public forums, all education, all aspects of the economy and of course, health care. Concentration camps will be established to handle those not willing to go along, and of course, there will be secret police, extensive goon squads, book burning, or in the case of on-line media, electronic deletion of unwanted opinions or information.
And yes, there will an establishment of a "superior" class of citizens who will serve the elites and help to keep the rest of the prols under control. I leave it to your imagination as to which group will be chosen to enforce the edicts of the elites. [ (/Added for this post) /If the conservatives win, we will also lose some, but not all, freedoms, and the economy will thrive, but the left will remain free to mount another attack]. Not pretty, but when a nation loses its collective understanding and memory of its own history, ugly things often happen.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
On the other hand, maybe he knows exactly what he is doing and this would explain what he means by "hope and change". He 'hopes to change' America into a socialist nightmare with him as supreme leader for life. Little wonder he is known by the company he keeps - Hugo Chavez and Raoul Castro among other world tyrants.
Obama is America's worst nightmare - the liberal Democrats have elected a Marxist tyrant to lead our country. Many realize their error but can not come to grips with such a catastrophic event that they are responsible for. Worse, they will vote for him again no matter how destructive his agenda is to our country, even to a complete collapse of normal life. They will still vote Democrat. Proof that Liberalism rots your very soul and destroys all moral and physical courage.
No one could have imagined this could happen in our country even two years ago, but here we are.
Keep the faith - the battle rages on for the very soul of America!
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.