As much as the liberals would like for us believe that Sarah is a loser, we, down here in the trenches, know she is a winner and will destroy the liberals and their efforts to "change" America into a third world sump hole of fear and intimidation. Why else would the media and liberal Democrats continually attack her and her family? They are scared of her because they know she represents the people of this county. Liberal Democrats care nothing for such things.
The people of this country see her as one of us witch is just the opposite of the liberal agenda. The liberals are the elites, the power brokers, masters of the universe, all powerful rulers of all things necessary for the good life.
We, the people, are here only to serve.
With her efforts to position herself now for a run in the near future brings conservatives, and all other common sense people of all strips and political ideologies, some real "hope" for our county and the American way of life. Sarah has shown herself to be the real thing.
Go to her site and keep the faith - let the liberals know that the battle is only beginning.
Sarah Palin Unveils National 'SarahPAC' Organization
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
By: David A. Patten
In a major step closer to a future run for national office, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Tuesday established SarahPAC, a political action committee expected to play a key role in financing upcoming political endeavors.
“SarahPAC believes the Republican Party is at the threshold of a historic renaissance that will build a better future for all,” the SarahPAC.com Web site announced Tuesday. “Health care, education, and reform of government are among our key goals.”
The site, which invites donations, calls energy independence “a cornerstone of the economic security and progress that every American family wants and deserves.”
NBC’s Norah O’Donnell characterized the creation of the fund-raising organization as “a sign Sarah Palin wants to continue to be a player on the national political stage.” O’Donnell added that the Virginia-based PAC “is modeled after HillPAC, Hillary Clinton’s former political committee. Palin’s committee allows her to raise money for other Republicans.”
The PAC Web site describes the organization as “Dedicated to building America's future, supporting fresh ideas and candidates who share our vision for reform and innovation.”
The Alaska governor’s popularity remains undiminished since the election. O’Donnell reports Sen. John MCain’s running mate has over 465,300 supporters on Facebook.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Islamic Law Is Total Consumption of All Western Existence
Well, very interesting stuff on our Islamic enemy, and given how Obama is going to have a 'sit down' with these people and explain how they must "change" to join the world community, we all can expect a new and safer world. Right? Hey, the "savior of the world" has proclaimed it. How can we doubt the word of the "one".
Keep the faith - believers in freedom unite!
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's Book: "Slavery, Terrorism, And Islam The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat"
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components. Islamizing begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works. As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:United States -- Muslim 0.6% Australia -- Muslim 1.5% Canada -- Muslim 1.9% China -- Muslim 1.8% Italy -- Muslim 1.5% Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:Denmark -- Muslim 2% Germany -- Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7% Spain -- Muslim 4% Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.
This is occurring in:France< -- Muslim 8% Philippines -- Muslim 5% Sweden -- Muslim 5% Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5% Trinidad &Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings Any non -Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammad cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in: Guyana -- Muslim 10% India -- Muslim 13.4% Israel -- Muslim 16% Kenya-- Muslim 10% Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in: Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:Bosnia -- Muslim 40% Chad -- Muslim 53.1% Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in: Albania -- Muslim 70% Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4% Qatar -- Muslim 77.5% Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in: Bangladesh -- Muslim 83% Egypt -- Muslim 90% Gaza -- Muslim 98.7% Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1% Iran -- Muslim 98% Iraq -- Muslim 97% Jordan -- Muslim 92% Morocco -- Muslim 98.7% Pakistan -- Muslim 97% Syria -- Muslim 90% Tajikistan -- Muslim 90% Turkey -- Muslim 99.8% United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because every body is a Muslim, the Madrases are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in: Afghanistan -- Muslim 100% Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100% Somalia -- Muslim 100% Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, "The Haj"It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos.
There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend Madrases. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death.
Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews, and all others . Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: "Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat"
Keep the faith - believers in freedom unite!
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's Book: "Slavery, Terrorism, And Islam The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat"
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components. Islamizing begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works. As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:United States -- Muslim 0.6% Australia -- Muslim 1.5% Canada -- Muslim 1.9% China -- Muslim 1.8% Italy -- Muslim 1.5% Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:Denmark -- Muslim 2% Germany -- Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7% Spain -- Muslim 4% Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.
This is occurring in:France< -- Muslim 8% Philippines -- Muslim 5% Sweden -- Muslim 5% Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5% Trinidad &Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings Any non -Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammad cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in: Guyana -- Muslim 10% India -- Muslim 13.4% Israel -- Muslim 16% Kenya-- Muslim 10% Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in: Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:Bosnia -- Muslim 40% Chad -- Muslim 53.1% Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in: Albania -- Muslim 70% Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4% Qatar -- Muslim 77.5% Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in: Bangladesh -- Muslim 83% Egypt -- Muslim 90% Gaza -- Muslim 98.7% Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1% Iran -- Muslim 98% Iraq -- Muslim 97% Jordan -- Muslim 92% Morocco -- Muslim 98.7% Pakistan -- Muslim 97% Syria -- Muslim 90% Tajikistan -- Muslim 90% Turkey -- Muslim 99.8% United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because every body is a Muslim, the Madrases are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in: Afghanistan -- Muslim 100% Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100% Somalia -- Muslim 100% Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, "The Haj"It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos.
There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend Madrases. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death.
Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews, and all others . Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: "Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat"
Lawrence Summers, Obama's Money Man, Just Profoundly Ignorant?
Please tell me this man isn't as ignorant as he sounds - or maybe he is just being what we all know to be true - he is just another liberal Democrat that has a taste for cool aide. They just can't seem to help them selves. They are stuck in a rut of a socialist agenda and no matter what happens they use the same play book to solve all problems.
Who are these people? Why don't they seem to have any common sense, none at all? Can these liberals be so hungry for power and control that they will sell their very souls, that is if they had any to start with, to gain a few rungs on the ladder of power?
History means nothing to these people - they don't care that FDR failed to stop the depression of the 1930's. Now they are going to go ahead and use the same failed agenda that FDR used only double or triple the effort. After 8 years, unemployment under FDR was still 14%!
Maybe it isn't ignorance after all, maybe they are just mentally incapable of rational thought. Maybe they are genetically different form the rest of us. After decades, generations, of hate and lusting for power, maybe they have become a separate species. Why not? Just listen to them and you decide.
Keep the faith - rational thought will win in the end to save the battle.
Summers: Bush Tax Cuts Won't Be Extended
Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:25 PMBy: Newsmax Wires
President Obama's senior economic advisor made clear Sunday that any idea of renewing the Bush tax cuts, set to expire in 2010, is a dead issue.
Lawrence H. Summers, a former Treasury secretary and head of the White House's National Economic Council, made clear to “Meet the Press” host David Gregory that Obama is committed to allowing the tax cuts to die.
Summers also left open the possibility that the administration may revoke the tax cuts early, an idea pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
But he emphasized that the Obama administration is dead against extending the tax cuts, an idea favored by Republicans.
Asked if he was open to extending the cuts to 2013, Summers responded, "First, it's a bad idea because we simply can't afford it. The president's inherited a trillion-dollar deficit, and a deficit with a baseline that is terrible as far as the eye can see."
During the presidential campaign last year, Obama had pledged he would rescind the Bush tax cuts early and redirect the new revenues to tax cuts for lower and middle class wage earners. But in September, Obama indicated he might delay rescinding the tax cuts if he faced a severe recession. At the time he also insisted he would allow the tax cuts to expire no later than 2010.
The Heritage Foundation has warned that if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, "taxes will rise dramatically for most taxpayers" with tax rates rising "substantially in each tax bracket, some by 450 basis points."
For example, top wage earners currently in the 35 percent tax bracket will see their tax rate increase to over 39 percent -- an increase of more than 10 percent in extra taxes they will have to pay.
Last year, the Bush White House claimed that allowing the tax cuts to expire would mean a family of four would have an additional tax burden of $1,900 annually. They also claimed 43 million families with children would see an increase of taxes over $2,000.
Summers' exchange with NBC's David Gregory follows:
MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about tax cuts. About a third of his package is made up of tax cuts. Republicans want more. Specifically there's a question about the Bush tax cuts which, of course, expire next year. Does the president want to actually repeal those tax cuts this calendar year?
DR. SUMMERS: I don't think there's any question they have to be repealed. The country can't afford them for the long run.
MR. GREGORY: So repeal them this year? Because they expire next year.
DR. SUMMERS: What the timing -- what the -- they expire, expire at the end of next year, and they have to be allowed to expire. What the timing will be, that's something that's going to have to get worked out.
MR. GREGORY: Because the House speaker says do it this year.
DR. SUMMERS: That's something that's going to have to get worked out through the legislative process.
MR. GREGORY: All right.
DR. SUMMERS: There's no question that the president's been very emphatic about this, as he was very emphatic during his campaign, that they can't be part of...
MR. GREGORY: OK, but timing is important.
DR. SUMMERS: They can't be, they can't be part of the long-run budget picture.
MR. GREGORY: Well, understood. But...
DR. SUMMERS: And it's a timing--it's something that's going to be--that's something that's going to be worked out in the course of the...
MR. GREGORY: But what's his position, repeal them this year?
DR. SUMMERS: ...in the course of the legislative, legislative process. The president has made clear they--that the question of timing is one we're going to have to reach as we see how the economy unfolds...
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
DR. SUMMERS: ...as Congress reaches its judgments. But they're not going to be with us for long.
MR. GREGORY: Why not? Why not? Conservatives make the argument, why would you want to raise taxes--if you repeal those tax cuts, taxes do go up on upper-income Americans, primarily. Why would you want to raise taxes right now? Why not put that expiration date off into, say, 2013? Why is that a bad idea?
DR. SUMMERS: Put the expiration date off into...
MR. GREGORY: 2013.
DR. SUMMERS: ...2013? First, it's a bad idea because we simply can't afford it. The president's inherited a trillion-dollar deficit, and a deficit with a baseline that is terrible as far as the eye can see. We've got to spend money now while we have a recession, while we've got this serious economic crisis, but as soon as the economy recovers we are going to have to find ways of getting the government's finances under some kind of control. Second, we have to focus on, frankly, the parts of the economy that need help. If you look at what's happened over the last 10 years, the incomes of middle-income families have barely or kept up with inflation, or in many, many cases fallen behind inflation. The people who are the beneficiaries, the small minority, a little over 1 percent of the population that are the beneficiaries of those tax cuts have actually seen their incomes rise much more, much more rapidly. And so I think it's a pretty clear question of priority as to where the, where the assistance needs to be channeled.
MR. GREGORY: But you say...
DR. SUMMERS: But understand this, the president has vowed that there will be tax cuts for more than 95 percent of Americans, for all working families with incomes below $250,000. They will see their taxes cut, they will not see tax increases.
MR. GREGORY: Well, let me just press you on this point. You say we can't afford to let those Bush tax cuts expire later, but we can afford to, to spend up to $700 billion for the tax cut that you like?
DR. SUMMERS: We can--we--it's a good question. We certainly can afford to do what is necessary now to stimulate this economy, to put money--frankly, when you put money into the hands of middle-class families, history and experience suggest that they spend a substantial part of it, pushing the economy forward. When you put money into the hands of those with very high incomes, only a much smaller fraction of it is spent and so you derive much less benefit in terms of pushing the economy, in terms of pushing the economy forward.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Who are these people? Why don't they seem to have any common sense, none at all? Can these liberals be so hungry for power and control that they will sell their very souls, that is if they had any to start with, to gain a few rungs on the ladder of power?
History means nothing to these people - they don't care that FDR failed to stop the depression of the 1930's. Now they are going to go ahead and use the same failed agenda that FDR used only double or triple the effort. After 8 years, unemployment under FDR was still 14%!
Maybe it isn't ignorance after all, maybe they are just mentally incapable of rational thought. Maybe they are genetically different form the rest of us. After decades, generations, of hate and lusting for power, maybe they have become a separate species. Why not? Just listen to them and you decide.
Keep the faith - rational thought will win in the end to save the battle.
Summers: Bush Tax Cuts Won't Be Extended
Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:25 PMBy: Newsmax Wires
President Obama's senior economic advisor made clear Sunday that any idea of renewing the Bush tax cuts, set to expire in 2010, is a dead issue.
Lawrence H. Summers, a former Treasury secretary and head of the White House's National Economic Council, made clear to “Meet the Press” host David Gregory that Obama is committed to allowing the tax cuts to die.
Summers also left open the possibility that the administration may revoke the tax cuts early, an idea pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
But he emphasized that the Obama administration is dead against extending the tax cuts, an idea favored by Republicans.
Asked if he was open to extending the cuts to 2013, Summers responded, "First, it's a bad idea because we simply can't afford it. The president's inherited a trillion-dollar deficit, and a deficit with a baseline that is terrible as far as the eye can see."
During the presidential campaign last year, Obama had pledged he would rescind the Bush tax cuts early and redirect the new revenues to tax cuts for lower and middle class wage earners. But in September, Obama indicated he might delay rescinding the tax cuts if he faced a severe recession. At the time he also insisted he would allow the tax cuts to expire no later than 2010.
The Heritage Foundation has warned that if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, "taxes will rise dramatically for most taxpayers" with tax rates rising "substantially in each tax bracket, some by 450 basis points."
For example, top wage earners currently in the 35 percent tax bracket will see their tax rate increase to over 39 percent -- an increase of more than 10 percent in extra taxes they will have to pay.
Last year, the Bush White House claimed that allowing the tax cuts to expire would mean a family of four would have an additional tax burden of $1,900 annually. They also claimed 43 million families with children would see an increase of taxes over $2,000.
Summers' exchange with NBC's David Gregory follows:
MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about tax cuts. About a third of his package is made up of tax cuts. Republicans want more. Specifically there's a question about the Bush tax cuts which, of course, expire next year. Does the president want to actually repeal those tax cuts this calendar year?
DR. SUMMERS: I don't think there's any question they have to be repealed. The country can't afford them for the long run.
MR. GREGORY: So repeal them this year? Because they expire next year.
DR. SUMMERS: What the timing -- what the -- they expire, expire at the end of next year, and they have to be allowed to expire. What the timing will be, that's something that's going to have to get worked out.
MR. GREGORY: Because the House speaker says do it this year.
DR. SUMMERS: That's something that's going to have to get worked out through the legislative process.
MR. GREGORY: All right.
DR. SUMMERS: There's no question that the president's been very emphatic about this, as he was very emphatic during his campaign, that they can't be part of...
MR. GREGORY: OK, but timing is important.
DR. SUMMERS: They can't be, they can't be part of the long-run budget picture.
MR. GREGORY: Well, understood. But...
DR. SUMMERS: And it's a timing--it's something that's going to be--that's something that's going to be worked out in the course of the...
MR. GREGORY: But what's his position, repeal them this year?
DR. SUMMERS: ...in the course of the legislative, legislative process. The president has made clear they--that the question of timing is one we're going to have to reach as we see how the economy unfolds...
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
DR. SUMMERS: ...as Congress reaches its judgments. But they're not going to be with us for long.
MR. GREGORY: Why not? Why not? Conservatives make the argument, why would you want to raise taxes--if you repeal those tax cuts, taxes do go up on upper-income Americans, primarily. Why would you want to raise taxes right now? Why not put that expiration date off into, say, 2013? Why is that a bad idea?
DR. SUMMERS: Put the expiration date off into...
MR. GREGORY: 2013.
DR. SUMMERS: ...2013? First, it's a bad idea because we simply can't afford it. The president's inherited a trillion-dollar deficit, and a deficit with a baseline that is terrible as far as the eye can see. We've got to spend money now while we have a recession, while we've got this serious economic crisis, but as soon as the economy recovers we are going to have to find ways of getting the government's finances under some kind of control. Second, we have to focus on, frankly, the parts of the economy that need help. If you look at what's happened over the last 10 years, the incomes of middle-income families have barely or kept up with inflation, or in many, many cases fallen behind inflation. The people who are the beneficiaries, the small minority, a little over 1 percent of the population that are the beneficiaries of those tax cuts have actually seen their incomes rise much more, much more rapidly. And so I think it's a pretty clear question of priority as to where the, where the assistance needs to be channeled.
MR. GREGORY: But you say...
DR. SUMMERS: But understand this, the president has vowed that there will be tax cuts for more than 95 percent of Americans, for all working families with incomes below $250,000. They will see their taxes cut, they will not see tax increases.
MR. GREGORY: Well, let me just press you on this point. You say we can't afford to let those Bush tax cuts expire later, but we can afford to, to spend up to $700 billion for the tax cut that you like?
DR. SUMMERS: We can--we--it's a good question. We certainly can afford to do what is necessary now to stimulate this economy, to put money--frankly, when you put money into the hands of middle-class families, history and experience suggest that they spend a substantial part of it, pushing the economy forward. When you put money into the hands of those with very high incomes, only a much smaller fraction of it is spent and so you derive much less benefit in terms of pushing the economy, in terms of pushing the economy forward.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Laws and Lawyers Dictate/Suffocat Freedom of Choice
What a great article on just what it means to have a "free choice" and how we are loosing it through suffocating laws and lawyers. We have a tendency to find this a little simplistic but given some thought, it describes most of how we live our lives. Just imagine how it would be without freedom of choice.
Think of how the DNR and the EPA alone have taken over so many choices that use to be ours - We have to wonder just how far this will go and how fast will this happen. Our new president seems to have plans for us that don't include freedom of choice - he feels government is all we need to make the "right" choices for everyone - It's not about Us, it's about Them. Is this the 'change' he was talking about? hmmmm
Keep the faith - and always remember "freedom means having nothing else to lose".
JANUARY 26, 2009 WSJ
By PHILIP K. HOWARD
Calling for a "new era of responsibility" in his inaugural address, President Barack Obama reminded us that there are no limits to "what free men and women can achieve." Indeed. America achieved greatness as the can-do society. This is, after all, the country of Thomas Paine and barn raisings, of Grange halls and Google. Other countries shared, at least in part, our political freedoms, but America had something different -- a belief in the power of each individual.
President Obama's clarion call of self-determination -- "Yes We Can" -- hearkens back to the core of our culture.[Commentary] David Klein But there's a threshold problem for our new president. Americans don't feel free to reach inside themselves and make a difference. The growth of litigation and regulation has injected a paralyzing uncertainty into everyday choices. All around us are warnings and legal risks. The modern credo is not "Yes We Can" but "No You Can't."
Our sense of powerlessness is pervasive. Those who deal with the public are the most discouraged. Most doctors say they wouldn't advise their children to go into medicine. Government service is seen as a bureaucratic morass, not a noble calling. Make a difference? You can't even show basic human kindness for fear of legal action. Teachers across America are instructed never to put an arm around a crying child.
The idea of freedom as personal power got pushed aside in recent decades by a new idea of freedom -- where the focus is on the rights of whoever might disagree. Daily life in America has been transformed. Ordinary choices -- by teachers, doctors, officials, managers, even volunteers -- are paralyzed by legal self-consciousness. Did you check the rules? Who will be responsible if there's an accident? A pediatrician in North Carolina noted that "I don't deal with patients the same way any more. You wouldn't want to say something off the cuff that might be used against you."
Here we stand, facing the worst economy since the Great Depression, and Americans no longer feel free to do anything about it. We have lost the idea, at every level of social life, that people can grab hold of a problem and fix it. Defensiveness has swept across the country like a cold wave. We have become a culture of rule followers, trained to frame every solution in terms of existing law or possible legal risk. The person of responsibility is replaced by the person of caution. When in doubt, don't.
The Opinion Journal Widget Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
All this law, we're told, is just the price of making sure society is in working order. But society is not working. Disorder disrupts learning all day long in many public schools -- the result in part, studies by NYU Professor Richard Arum found, of the rise of student rights.
Health care is like a nervous breakdown in slow motion. Costs are out of control, yet the incentive for doctors is to order whatever tests the insurance will pay for. Taking risks is no longer the badge of courage, but reason enough to get sued. There's an epidemic of child obesity, but kids aren't allowed to take the normal risks of childhood. Broward County, Fla., has even banned running at recess.The flaw, and the cure, lie in our conception of freedom.
We think of freedom as political freedom. We're certainly free to live and work where we want, and to pull the lever in the ballot box. But freedom should also include the power of personal conviction and the authority to use your common sense. Analyzing the American character, Alexis de Tocqueville, considered "freedom less necessary in great things than in little ones. . . . Subjection in minor affairs does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to sacrifice their own will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated."
This is not an ideological point. Freedom in daily choices is essential for practical reasons -- necessary for government officials and judges as well as for teachers, doctors and entrepreneurs. The new legal order doesn't honor the individuality of human accomplishment. People accomplish things by focusing on the goal, and letting their instincts, mainly subconscious, try to get them there.
"Amazingly few people," management guru Peter Drucker observed, "know how they get things done." Most things happen, the philosopher Michael Polanyi wrote, through "the usual process of trial and error by which we feel our way to success." Thomas Edison put it this way: "Nothing that's any good works by itself. You got to make the damn thing work." Modern law pulls the rug out from under all those human powers and substitutes instead a debilitating self-consciousness.
Teachers lose their authority, Prof. Arum found, because the overhang of law causes "hesitation, doubt and weakening of conviction." Skyrocketing health-care costs are impossible to contain as long as doctors go through the day thinking about how they will defend themselves if a sick person sues.
The overlay of law on daily choices destroys the human instinct needed to get things done. Bureaucracy can't teach. Rules don't make things happen. Accomplishment is personal. Anyone who has felt the pride of a job well done knows this.
How do we restore Americans' freedom in daily choices? Freedom is notoriously malleable towards self-interest. "We all declare for liberty," Abraham Lincoln observed, "but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing."Freedom, however, is not just a shoving match.
Freedom has a formal structure. It has two components:1) Law sets boundaries that proscribe what we must do or can't do -- you must not steal, you must pay taxes.2) Those same legal boundaries protect an open field of free choice in all other matters.The forgotten idea is the second component -- that law must affirmatively define an area free from legal interference.
Law must provide "frontiers, not artificially drawn," as philosopher Isaiah Berlin put it, "within which men should be inviolable."This idea has been lost to our age. When advancing the cause of freedom, law today is all proscription and no protection. There are no boundaries, just a moving mudbank comprised of accumulating bureaucracy and whatever claims people unilaterally choose to assert.
People wade through law all day long. Any disagreement in the workplace, any accident, any incidental touching of a child, any sick person who gets sicker, any bad grade in school -- you name it. Law has poured into daily life.The solution is not just to start paring back all the law -- that would take 10 lifetimes, like trying to prune the jungle. We need to abandon the idea that freedom is a legal maze, where each daily choice is like picking the right answer on a multiple-choice test. We need to set a new goal for law -- to define an open area of free choice. This requires judges and legislatures to affirmatively assert social norms of what's reasonable and what's not.
"The first requirement of a sound body of law," Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote, "is that it should correspond with the actual feelings and demands of the community."The profile of authority structures needed to defend daily freedoms is not hard to imagine. Judges would aspire to keep lawsuits reasonable, understanding that what people sue for ends up defining the boundaries of free interaction. Schools would be run by the instincts and values of the humans in charge -- not by bureaucratic micromanagement -- and be held accountable for how they do.
Government officials would have flexibility to meet public goals, also with accountability. Public choices would aspire to balance for the common good, not, generally, to appease someone's rights.
Reviving the can-do spirit that made America great requires a legal overhaul of historic dimension. We must scrape away decades of accumulated legal sediment and replace it with coherent legal goals and authority mechanisms, designed to affirmatively protect individual freedom in daily choices.
"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing," Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison, "and as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical . . . ." The goal is not to change our public goals. The goal is make it possible for free citizens to achieve them.
Mr. Howard, a lawyer, is chair of Common Good (www.commongood.org), and author of the new book "Life Without Lawyers," published this month by W.W. Norton & Co.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Will Jimmy Carter Haunt Obama's Foreign Policy?
Will Obama listen to the warnings of Bush concerning the global trotting nemesis Jimmy Carter? No, of course not. Obama agrees with the agenda of Jimmy Carter. I believe Obama is a brother to Carter in that they both are in favor of creating a world wide socialist network to control all populations.
If Obama can gain control of all aspects of our lives in this country through government regulation and intimidating, it will go a long way in convincing other nations, that are Democracies, to do the say and all in the name of piece, prosperity and world wide harmony.
Of course the down side is if you, as an individual, don't agree with this philosophy, you will become an enemy of the state and need to be rehabilitate.
Again, " that can't happen in America". Really? Wake up America - it's happening right now!! As I have stated on many other occasions, millions of American citizens will be in chains, mentally and or physically, and not know it or care because it has to be "someone else's fault". That is the cry of the modern liberal to answer all questions regarding difficult situations that liberals find them selves in. It's who they are. They are being controlled by a "quick fix" lotto mentality.
Remember, it's our job, as conservatives and all others with common sense as their guide, to fight this insanity where ever we run across it. 56 million voted against the "savior of the world".
Keep the faith.
Bush Warns Obama on Jimmy Carter (Newsmax)
Outgoing President George W. Bush had a warning for President-elect Barack Obama when they gathered with three former presidents at the White House — be wary of “meddlesome” Jimmy Carter.
Bush, Obama, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Carter met for a photo op and lunch on Jan. 7, and W. told Obama the guy he has to watch out for is “James Earl Carter,” a source disclosed to Newsmax.
According to a source close to the Bush White House, Bush called Carter “extremely meddlesome” and “a real pain in the neck.” Interestingly, Bush also told Obama that Bill Clinton had been helpful and supportive dealing with foreign leaders.
Carter has irked Bush with his globe-trotting efforts over the years.
In April 2008, Carter reportedly met in Syria with a leader of Hamas, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization, and laid a wreath at the grave of Yasser Arafat.
Carter met with Hamas leadership again last December.
The former president has created controversy by equating Israel’s policies in the Palestinian territories with apartheid.
In May 2002, Carter visited Cuba and met with Fidel Castro. He has called for an end to the U.S. economic embargo of the island nation.
Carter criticized the Iraq war as “unnecessary.”
In June 2005, Carter urged the Bush administration to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
In 1994, Carter had traveled to North Korea and brokered an agreement on that nation’s nuclear program. But the agreement collapsed in 2002 after Bush included North Korea in the “axis of evil.”
If Obama can gain control of all aspects of our lives in this country through government regulation and intimidating, it will go a long way in convincing other nations, that are Democracies, to do the say and all in the name of piece, prosperity and world wide harmony.
Of course the down side is if you, as an individual, don't agree with this philosophy, you will become an enemy of the state and need to be rehabilitate.
Again, " that can't happen in America". Really? Wake up America - it's happening right now!! As I have stated on many other occasions, millions of American citizens will be in chains, mentally and or physically, and not know it or care because it has to be "someone else's fault". That is the cry of the modern liberal to answer all questions regarding difficult situations that liberals find them selves in. It's who they are. They are being controlled by a "quick fix" lotto mentality.
Remember, it's our job, as conservatives and all others with common sense as their guide, to fight this insanity where ever we run across it. 56 million voted against the "savior of the world".
Keep the faith.
Bush Warns Obama on Jimmy Carter (Newsmax)
Outgoing President George W. Bush had a warning for President-elect Barack Obama when they gathered with three former presidents at the White House — be wary of “meddlesome” Jimmy Carter.
Bush, Obama, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Carter met for a photo op and lunch on Jan. 7, and W. told Obama the guy he has to watch out for is “James Earl Carter,” a source disclosed to Newsmax.
According to a source close to the Bush White House, Bush called Carter “extremely meddlesome” and “a real pain in the neck.” Interestingly, Bush also told Obama that Bill Clinton had been helpful and supportive dealing with foreign leaders.
Carter has irked Bush with his globe-trotting efforts over the years.
In April 2008, Carter reportedly met in Syria with a leader of Hamas, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization, and laid a wreath at the grave of Yasser Arafat.
Carter met with Hamas leadership again last December.
The former president has created controversy by equating Israel’s policies in the Palestinian territories with apartheid.
In May 2002, Carter visited Cuba and met with Fidel Castro. He has called for an end to the U.S. economic embargo of the island nation.
Carter criticized the Iraq war as “unnecessary.”
In June 2005, Carter urged the Bush administration to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
In 1994, Carter had traveled to North Korea and brokered an agreement on that nation’s nuclear program. But the agreement collapsed in 2002 after Bush included North Korea in the “axis of evil.”
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
John Hopkins Cancer Research Continues : Good Nutrition and Positive Demeanor
This research goes a long way in helping us all to take an interest in how we live - we must be responsible for our own actions and if we aren't then we must suffer the consequences
Remember the saying - "there is no free lunch", we have to live with intention. As there is also the saying that effects us all directly. " elections have consequences". The responsibility for who we are is the same person that we see in the mirror every morning.
Keep the faith and I repeat - 'live with intention'.
AFTER YEARS OF TELLING PEOPLE CHEMOTHERAPY IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRY AND ELIMINATE CANCER, JOHNS HOPKINS IS FINALLY STARTING TO TELL YOU THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY .
Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins
Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the testsare unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached thedetectable size.
Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person's lifetime.
When the person's immune system is strong the cancer cells will bedestroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumours.
When a person has cancer20it indicates the person has multiplenutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.
To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet andincluding supplements will strengthen the immune system.
Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastro-intestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.
Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.
Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.
When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb20to various kinds of infections and complications.
Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.
An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply.
WHAT CANCER CELLS FEED ON:
Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off oneimportant food supply to the cancer cells . Sugar substitutes likeNutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it isharmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in colour. Better alternative is Bragg'saminos or sea salt.
Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milkand substituting with unsweetened soy milk, cancer cells are beingstarved .
Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet isacidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.
A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed attemperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).
Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties. Water-best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.
Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines become putrified and leads to more toxic buildup.
Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refrainingfrom or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the proteinwalls of cancer cells and allows the body's killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.
Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-essence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the body's own killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body's normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.
Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactiveand positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor..Anger, unforgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.
Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily , and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.
Remember the saying - "there is no free lunch", we have to live with intention. As there is also the saying that effects us all directly. " elections have consequences". The responsibility for who we are is the same person that we see in the mirror every morning.
Keep the faith and I repeat - 'live with intention'.
AFTER YEARS OF TELLING PEOPLE CHEMOTHERAPY IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRY AND ELIMINATE CANCER, JOHNS HOPKINS IS FINALLY STARTING TO TELL YOU THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY .
Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins
Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the testsare unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached thedetectable size.
Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person's lifetime.
When the person's immune system is strong the cancer cells will bedestroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumours.
When a person has cancer20it indicates the person has multiplenutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.
To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet andincluding supplements will strengthen the immune system.
Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastro-intestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.
Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.
Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.
When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb20to various kinds of infections and complications.
Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.
An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply.
WHAT CANCER CELLS FEED ON:
Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off oneimportant food supply to the cancer cells . Sugar substitutes likeNutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it isharmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in colour. Better alternative is Bragg'saminos or sea salt.
Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milkand substituting with unsweetened soy milk, cancer cells are beingstarved .
Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet isacidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.
A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed attemperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).
Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties. Water-best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.
Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines become putrified and leads to more toxic buildup.
Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refrainingfrom or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the proteinwalls of cancer cells and allows the body's killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.
Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-essence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the body's own killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body's normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.
Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactiveand positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor..Anger, unforgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.
Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily , and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Hugo Chavez Threatens All North and South America
We can thank Jimmy Carter for this mess in Latin America and, of course in part, for the financial mess that we are in now. Remember how Jimmy help Hugo by declaring the election lawful when it wasn't at all, and also how Jimmy looked the other way with the peoples efforts to reject Chavez with the second vote count and Jimmy declared that recount valid?
Jimmy and the liberal Democrats have a real opportunity now to bring down the United States as Obama, like Carter, believes this country is over reaching in it's attempts to stabilize the terrorists community. Never forget, liberals love tyrants - Castro and now Chavez.
How does this apply to our current leadership? After all, look were Obama came from, Chicago. Do we have a more corrupt political system in this country, other than Washington DC? Hugo Chavez is an admitted communist and Obama is practicing socialist - it's just a matter of degree that separates the two - for now.
This is an interview from NewsMax with the author of a new book on Chavez and what a threat he is to us. Very good and frightening.
Keep the faith
Chavez Poses Real Danger, Authors Say
Doug Schoen and Michael Rowan, both long-time observers of Venezuelan politics, have written a blockbuster expose of the anti-American agenda of that nation’s President Hugo Chavez and warn that his nation should be added to the list of terrorist sponsors .
In their book, “The Threat Closer to Home: Hugo Chavez and the War Against America” (Free Press), the authors make it clear that Chavez poses a real threat to the United States through his country's sponsorship of terrorists.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax, Schoen explains why this clear and present threat to this nation’s interests and security has largely gone unnoticed.
“Arguments that should have been made a long time ago, and for a variety of reasons — Chavez is a clown, he’s been anti-Bush, is currying favor with a massive PR campaign in the West, particularly among liberals — he's managed to operate under the radar with a lot of his nefarious activities,” Schoen tells Newsmax.
Schoen ominously adds, “He is an avowed supporter of Hamas. He says what Israel is doing is a Holocaust. He says that Hamas is welcome anytime in Caracas. He is training Hezbollah's fighters in Venezuela.
"Just this week, the Turks interdicted a shipment of what they believe were explosives, but were called tractor parts, that were heading from Tehran to Caracas. This is just a random week in the life of Hugo Chavez and look what's going on.”
Newsmax: In the book you stress how Chavez has been able to use huge oil revenues to promote his anti-American agenda. Now that the price of oil has plummeted, won’t this somewhat cripple his efforts?
Schoen: This is a man who first and foremost puts his militaristic and expansionist and aggressive tendencies first. While it's certainly going to hurt him, I think it is only going to make him more authoritarian and aggressive.
He is still buying Russian arms and he is still supporting anti-American interests around the world.
Newsmax: Won't the loss of revenues have an effect on his relationships with his bought-and-paid-for allies?
Schoen: There will be less money available to do that for sure. But I don't think he's going to cut back doing it in any way. For example, this week Chavez was going to cut off low-cost oil to Kennedy's Citizen Energy program in Massachusetts. But he got a little bad press, so he's going to keep doing it because it gives him political cover — and that gets him the Kennedy family supporting his activities.
It's been completely cynical, because it's not as if he had any commitment to poor people in the United States. It is just his way of saying, Look, I can do good things.
Newsmax: Talking about his commitment to poor people, a lot of his own people's loyalty has been bought with his oil revenues. Will not that be affected?
Schoen: I think it will when he substitutes intimidation for blandishments. There have been more than a few opponents of the state who have been either economically hurt or imprisoned. I think that what this means is he is going to just clamp down harder and be more aggressive.
Newsmax: Isn't there a growing opposition to Chavez in Venezuela?
Schoen: There is, and I've worked with it over the years. The problem is that it is not organized. It is not cohesive, and he buys it off, he threatens it, he intimidates it, and he will cheat in counting the votes. A combination of those factors makes it very difficult for an organized coherent opposition to exist.
In the case of the Philippines with Marcos, or Serbia with Milosevic, we worked directly with the opposition . . . We haven’t engaged directly with the opposition in Venezuela, and we should. It's just not an organized and disciplined counterforce to Chavez.
Newsmax: Does he now have complete control over the military, which in the beginning was very much opposed to him?
Schoen: Absolutely. [After Chavez instituted] the referendum on extending term limits two Decembers ago, the military came to him and said, "Hugo, you're not going to steal this one, too." And so they let him say that it was a 51-49 defeat and that he had just narrowly missed. But he didn't narrowly miss. The vote was like 60-40 or 65-35 against him. But the deal he made with the military was, We'll let you appear to have a close vote as long as you back off being president for life.
Newsmax: In short, you don’t think there is any chance he’s going to be overthrown?
Schoen: No. He is going to have another referendum next month on extending term limits. I think he's going to try to cheat if he can get away with it.
Newsmax: How should the United States deal with the Chavez threat?
Schoen: First, I think that Venezuela must be declared a state sponsor of terrorism . . . [Chavez] supports terror, supports Hezbollah, Hamas, has said nice things about al-Qaida, and is in alliance with Iran . . .
We should also break our dependence on foreign oil generally, and particularly, on his oil. And we need to have a Marshall plan for Latin America, where we engaged economically and democratically, with opposition groups who support our values.
Newsmax: What are his connections with Iran?
Schoen: Chavez has made seven trips to Tehran, and [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad has made five or six trips to Caracas. There's no reason for those countries to be engaging, other than to oppose the United States.
Newsmax: Given our current economic situation, do you see any possibility he will attempt to further cripple our economy?
Schoen: He's made it very clear he wants to hurt the United States, and one of the practical things he's done is try to get OPEC to cut production so that oil prices could rise. He's also tried to get OPEC off the dollar standard onto a euro standard to undermine the American dollar.
The facts in this case paint a picture of a man who is chillingly and dangerously threatening our interests in many ways. This is a problem of very, very serious proportions that has not been seriously addressed.
[Editor's Note: Get Doug Schoen’s new book, “The Threat Closer to Home: Hugo Chavez and the War Against America” — Go Here Now.]
Jimmy and the liberal Democrats have a real opportunity now to bring down the United States as Obama, like Carter, believes this country is over reaching in it's attempts to stabilize the terrorists community. Never forget, liberals love tyrants - Castro and now Chavez.
How does this apply to our current leadership? After all, look were Obama came from, Chicago. Do we have a more corrupt political system in this country, other than Washington DC? Hugo Chavez is an admitted communist and Obama is practicing socialist - it's just a matter of degree that separates the two - for now.
This is an interview from NewsMax with the author of a new book on Chavez and what a threat he is to us. Very good and frightening.
Keep the faith
Chavez Poses Real Danger, Authors Say
Doug Schoen and Michael Rowan, both long-time observers of Venezuelan politics, have written a blockbuster expose of the anti-American agenda of that nation’s President Hugo Chavez and warn that his nation should be added to the list of terrorist sponsors .
In their book, “The Threat Closer to Home: Hugo Chavez and the War Against America” (Free Press), the authors make it clear that Chavez poses a real threat to the United States through his country's sponsorship of terrorists.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax, Schoen explains why this clear and present threat to this nation’s interests and security has largely gone unnoticed.
“Arguments that should have been made a long time ago, and for a variety of reasons — Chavez is a clown, he’s been anti-Bush, is currying favor with a massive PR campaign in the West, particularly among liberals — he's managed to operate under the radar with a lot of his nefarious activities,” Schoen tells Newsmax.
Schoen ominously adds, “He is an avowed supporter of Hamas. He says what Israel is doing is a Holocaust. He says that Hamas is welcome anytime in Caracas. He is training Hezbollah's fighters in Venezuela.
"Just this week, the Turks interdicted a shipment of what they believe were explosives, but were called tractor parts, that were heading from Tehran to Caracas. This is just a random week in the life of Hugo Chavez and look what's going on.”
Newsmax: In the book you stress how Chavez has been able to use huge oil revenues to promote his anti-American agenda. Now that the price of oil has plummeted, won’t this somewhat cripple his efforts?
Schoen: This is a man who first and foremost puts his militaristic and expansionist and aggressive tendencies first. While it's certainly going to hurt him, I think it is only going to make him more authoritarian and aggressive.
He is still buying Russian arms and he is still supporting anti-American interests around the world.
Newsmax: Won't the loss of revenues have an effect on his relationships with his bought-and-paid-for allies?
Schoen: There will be less money available to do that for sure. But I don't think he's going to cut back doing it in any way. For example, this week Chavez was going to cut off low-cost oil to Kennedy's Citizen Energy program in Massachusetts. But he got a little bad press, so he's going to keep doing it because it gives him political cover — and that gets him the Kennedy family supporting his activities.
It's been completely cynical, because it's not as if he had any commitment to poor people in the United States. It is just his way of saying, Look, I can do good things.
Newsmax: Talking about his commitment to poor people, a lot of his own people's loyalty has been bought with his oil revenues. Will not that be affected?
Schoen: I think it will when he substitutes intimidation for blandishments. There have been more than a few opponents of the state who have been either economically hurt or imprisoned. I think that what this means is he is going to just clamp down harder and be more aggressive.
Newsmax: Isn't there a growing opposition to Chavez in Venezuela?
Schoen: There is, and I've worked with it over the years. The problem is that it is not organized. It is not cohesive, and he buys it off, he threatens it, he intimidates it, and he will cheat in counting the votes. A combination of those factors makes it very difficult for an organized coherent opposition to exist.
In the case of the Philippines with Marcos, or Serbia with Milosevic, we worked directly with the opposition . . . We haven’t engaged directly with the opposition in Venezuela, and we should. It's just not an organized and disciplined counterforce to Chavez.
Newsmax: Does he now have complete control over the military, which in the beginning was very much opposed to him?
Schoen: Absolutely. [After Chavez instituted] the referendum on extending term limits two Decembers ago, the military came to him and said, "Hugo, you're not going to steal this one, too." And so they let him say that it was a 51-49 defeat and that he had just narrowly missed. But he didn't narrowly miss. The vote was like 60-40 or 65-35 against him. But the deal he made with the military was, We'll let you appear to have a close vote as long as you back off being president for life.
Newsmax: In short, you don’t think there is any chance he’s going to be overthrown?
Schoen: No. He is going to have another referendum next month on extending term limits. I think he's going to try to cheat if he can get away with it.
Newsmax: How should the United States deal with the Chavez threat?
Schoen: First, I think that Venezuela must be declared a state sponsor of terrorism . . . [Chavez] supports terror, supports Hezbollah, Hamas, has said nice things about al-Qaida, and is in alliance with Iran . . .
We should also break our dependence on foreign oil generally, and particularly, on his oil. And we need to have a Marshall plan for Latin America, where we engaged economically and democratically, with opposition groups who support our values.
Newsmax: What are his connections with Iran?
Schoen: Chavez has made seven trips to Tehran, and [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad has made five or six trips to Caracas. There's no reason for those countries to be engaging, other than to oppose the United States.
Newsmax: Given our current economic situation, do you see any possibility he will attempt to further cripple our economy?
Schoen: He's made it very clear he wants to hurt the United States, and one of the practical things he's done is try to get OPEC to cut production so that oil prices could rise. He's also tried to get OPEC off the dollar standard onto a euro standard to undermine the American dollar.
The facts in this case paint a picture of a man who is chillingly and dangerously threatening our interests in many ways. This is a problem of very, very serious proportions that has not been seriously addressed.
[Editor's Note: Get Doug Schoen’s new book, “The Threat Closer to Home: Hugo Chavez and the War Against America” — Go Here Now.]
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Could Harry Reid Steal Horses or Rob Trains? Sure! It's in The Blood Line
This won't will surprise you on how the politicians spin everything they touch! A politican can not tell the truth.Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher here in southern California , was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Harry Reid's great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor.
The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the galws in Montana territory.
On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research�is this inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.'So Judy recently e-mailed Congressman Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle. Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:
'Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the �railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.'
NOW THAT is how it's done folks! That's real SPIN.
Do you think this guy could rob a bank or steal horses? Sure, why not - he steals billions of dollars from all of us every day - I guess it's in the blood.
US Senator Harry Reid
�
�
Friday, January 23, 2009
Cass Sunstein Worst Appointment Yet?
How can the appointments get worst than Treasury Secretary Geithner? Well, here we are - Sunstein is an urban terrorist in the trenches with PETA -
Licensed socialists, tax cheats, Marxist and urban terrorists - how low can the others go after this? Sorry, my mistake - these are liberal Democrats, there is no limits to how far down liberals will go to find people with absolutely no morals to lead us!
Keep the faith -
Why the Obama White House May Go to the Dogs
(and the Cows, and the Deer, and the Lab Rats)*
Friday, January 16, 2009
Townhall.com
Forget about Barack Obama's income tax-challenged Treasury Secretary or the conflict of interest controversy at the State Department. The most outrageous Obama appointee just might be Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law School professor who's flying under everyone's radar and into a job that hardly anyone has ever heard of.
Cass Sunstein is slated to run the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. He's going to be America's chief "regulatory czar." And shocking new research from the Center for Consumer Freedom shows that he's a dedicated animal-rights zealot.
The 8 Biggest Celebrity Financial Mistakes Hold on to your sirloin.The anti-meat nuts at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the anti-hunting lobbyists at the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) used to think that putting Dennis Kucinich in the White House would be their best hope of wielding real power in Washington . But even they didn't see Cass Sunstein coming.
Sunstein has the legal mind of Chief Justice John Roberts and the animal-rights agenda of PETA president Ingrid Newkirk. We're not talking about animal welfare---the idea of making sure we don't cause animals unnecessary suffering when we use them for food, clothing, entertainment, or lifesaving medical research. Sunstein believes in animal rights---the notion that people shouldn't "own" or "use" animals at all, for any purpose, no matter what the stakes are for mankind.
Cancer research? Not if lab rats are used against their will.
Hunting? Absolutely forbidden, especially if it's for sport.
Leather jackets? The cows need their skin more that you do.
Seeing-eye dogs? They're nothing more than slaves.
And that T-bone steak? Fuhgeddaboudit! If animals have any "rights" at all, the right to not be your dinner is at the top of the list. All of this makes perfect sense to Cass Sunstein, who organized the "Chicago Project on Animal Treatment Principles" at the University of Chicago. He will soon have the political authority to push for a radical overhaul of the way the federal government regulates everything Americans do with animals.
How radical? Sunstein supports making sport hunting illegal, and completely phasing out the consumption of meat. And if that's not nutty enough, he's actually in favor of giving animals the legal right to sue people. Think we're joking? Think again. Here's what Sunstein wrote in his 2004 book, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions:"[A]nimals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives ... Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients' behalf."
Conservative commentators have been openly fretting that Barack Obama may try to turn welfare entitlements and single-payer healthcare into a new Bill of Rights. But Cass Sunstein threatens to expand the whole concept of "rights" to include the rest of the animal kingdom.
That fish wriggling at the end of your hook could soon be a federal offense (if the fish doesn't file a lawsuit first). Don't say we didn't warn you. Find out more at ConsumerFreedom.com
Licensed socialists, tax cheats, Marxist and urban terrorists - how low can the others go after this? Sorry, my mistake - these are liberal Democrats, there is no limits to how far down liberals will go to find people with absolutely no morals to lead us!
Keep the faith -
Why the Obama White House May Go to the Dogs
(and the Cows, and the Deer, and the Lab Rats)*
Friday, January 16, 2009
Townhall.com
Forget about Barack Obama's income tax-challenged Treasury Secretary or the conflict of interest controversy at the State Department. The most outrageous Obama appointee just might be Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law School professor who's flying under everyone's radar and into a job that hardly anyone has ever heard of.
Cass Sunstein is slated to run the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. He's going to be America's chief "regulatory czar." And shocking new research from the Center for Consumer Freedom shows that he's a dedicated animal-rights zealot.
The 8 Biggest Celebrity Financial Mistakes Hold on to your sirloin.The anti-meat nuts at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the anti-hunting lobbyists at the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) used to think that putting Dennis Kucinich in the White House would be their best hope of wielding real power in Washington . But even they didn't see Cass Sunstein coming.
Sunstein has the legal mind of Chief Justice John Roberts and the animal-rights agenda of PETA president Ingrid Newkirk. We're not talking about animal welfare---the idea of making sure we don't cause animals unnecessary suffering when we use them for food, clothing, entertainment, or lifesaving medical research. Sunstein believes in animal rights---the notion that people shouldn't "own" or "use" animals at all, for any purpose, no matter what the stakes are for mankind.
Cancer research? Not if lab rats are used against their will.
Hunting? Absolutely forbidden, especially if it's for sport.
Leather jackets? The cows need their skin more that you do.
Seeing-eye dogs? They're nothing more than slaves.
And that T-bone steak? Fuhgeddaboudit! If animals have any "rights" at all, the right to not be your dinner is at the top of the list. All of this makes perfect sense to Cass Sunstein, who organized the "Chicago Project on Animal Treatment Principles" at the University of Chicago. He will soon have the political authority to push for a radical overhaul of the way the federal government regulates everything Americans do with animals.
How radical? Sunstein supports making sport hunting illegal, and completely phasing out the consumption of meat. And if that's not nutty enough, he's actually in favor of giving animals the legal right to sue people. Think we're joking? Think again. Here's what Sunstein wrote in his 2004 book, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions:"[A]nimals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives ... Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients' behalf."
Conservative commentators have been openly fretting that Barack Obama may try to turn welfare entitlements and single-payer healthcare into a new Bill of Rights. But Cass Sunstein threatens to expand the whole concept of "rights" to include the rest of the animal kingdom.
That fish wriggling at the end of your hook could soon be a federal offense (if the fish doesn't file a lawsuit first). Don't say we didn't warn you. Find out more at ConsumerFreedom.com
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Financial Crash A Liberal Democrat Crisis : Fannie, Freddie and Now Hannie
As we all knew the liberal Democrats are responsible for the financial mess we are in now and that they want to make it worse with the "buyouts". That is, they want to control, dictate, all aspects of our lives from how and where we live to what we think and do. Bush has a hand in this financial mess as well by not stopping some of the Congressional spending that came across his desk for the last eight years.
But with the federal government taking over the banks and other financial institution now, along with the environmental departments, EPA and the DNR, it isn't lost on me that we are looking at a huge loss in personal freedoms.
But I have to come back to a point that I have pounded on from other posts, and that is, a majority of those that voted for the liberal, socialist agenda won't know when the are without personal freedom as they never knew they had in the first place. They were always looking for the easy way out of everything in life - it's the lotto mentality - the quick fix for every situation. "If only I could win the big one, I will be on easy street". Blind to reality and deaf to reason.
Many will point the accusing finger at Bush when the worst happens and it will if we stay on this path of "something for nothing" course, but the real culprits are the voters that put these socialists into office and are keeping them there. Will these people recognize their own personal failure? Fat chance!
Keep the faith, the battle goes on!
Fannie, Freddie And Now, Hannie
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009
Subprime Crisis:* The media have pounded President Bush for a wave of Hispanic home foreclosures. But it was Democrats who launched a drive to loosen credit for Hispanics — many of them illegals.
Read More: *Economy http://www.ibdeditorials.com/FeaturedCategories.aspx?sid=1805
Democrats and their advocacy groups also prodded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy the high-risk NINJA (no income, no job, no assets) loans they'd pressured banks to make to Hispanic immigrants. Now immigrants are defaulting on subprime mortgages in droves, adding to the toxic debt that is poisoning the financial industry.
Yes, Bush was "eager," as the Washington Post described it, to put more Hispanic families into their own homes, even setting a goal of higher minority homeownership soon after taking office. But Bush didn't pressure lenders to adopt sloppy underwriting standards. Nor did he encourage Fannie and Freddie to underwrite subprime loans to meet quotas for minority lending.That was done under the previous administration.
The groundwork for disaster was laid by Clinton and his social engineers — in this case, former HUD chief Henry Cisneros, now a major lobbyist for Latino homeownership. During the Bush years, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus fanned the flames of the crisis. Led by Democratic Rep. Joe Baca, whose California district is 60% Hispanic, the caucus teamed up with a lobbyist group that Cisneros advises — as well as La Raza and other inner-city agitators — to pressure Fannie and Freddie into making risky subprime loans to Hispanic immigrants that required neither income nor asset documentation.
By 2006, before the bubble burst, Hispanics had taken out 40% of all subprime loans. Now these chickens are coming home to roost. The mortgage giants, internal memos show, warned that although the loans were popular with Hispanic borrowers, they had much higher delinquency rates of 8% to 13%.The loans were aggressively pushed by a Hispanic lobbying group advised by Cisneros, who originally set the minority lending quotas at Fannie and Freddie.
Even as foreclosures mounted, the Washington-based National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals, known as NAHREP, lobbied lenders, as well as Freddie and Fannie, to ease down-payment and credit standards for immigrants."NAHREP maintains that California, Texas and other states with large numbers of immigrants could see a dramatic jump in homeownership if a greater number of major lenders adopted alternative credit-scoring systems," the group said in a 2007 report that included a foreword written by Cisneros, urging the closing of the homeownership gap between Latinos and whites.
Giving new meaning to chutzpah, NAHREP and the caucus now blame subprime lenders for the flood of Hispanic foreclosures, claiming Hispanics fell prey to their "predatory lending practices.
"Not so fast. According to a recent Federal Reserve report, the problem centers on bad credit. Hispanics and African-Americans, on average, "have lower credit scores than non-Hispanic whites and Asians," it found. They also have higher default rates on mortgages — and not just higher-cost subprime mortgages, but all types of loans, the Fed noted.
Hispanics defaulted for the simple reason that they were less likely to qualify to own a home in the first place. Least-qualified were illegal immigrants, but that didn't faze NAHREP and the Hispanic caucus on Capitol Hill. They actually encouraged lending to aliens.
No Social Security? No problem. NAHREP pushed the use of ITINs — individual tax information numbers — along with the Mexican-issued Matricula Consular cards in lieu of Social Security numbers.By law, banks don't have to check immigration status, and after heavy lobbying by Hispanic housing advocates, they made loans to illegals — lots of them. By some estimates, millions of undocumented workers became undocumented borrowers almost overnight.
Until recently, ITIN mortgages couldn't be sold on the secondary market, as Fannie and Freddie wouldn't touch them as a matter of policy. So with the support of NAHREP and the Hispanic caucus, "Hannie Mae" was created — the Hispanic National Mortgage Association, based in San Diego. And it began buying ITIN mortgages from lenders, helping them spread the risk.
Now Hannie Mae itself risks defaulting on more than $200 million in loans it has acquired. These politically correct casas were built on sinking sand, and now we're all having to foot the bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
