PLEASE forward this outstanding article to every liberty-loving person you know - especially to every woman you know. I'm forwarding it in honor of Neda Soltan, the young, innocent Iranian woman who wanted "peace for all." Recall she was randomly shot in the heart by government goons in mid June, shortly after Obama's Middle Eastern tour, in which he drew the moral equivalency between our Republic and these despot Islamic regimes. She was randomly shot just a little over one week after Obama said Iran should have nukes and nobody should stop Iran from having nukes. Shortly after the infamous video and photos of beautiful Neda dying like a dog in a dusty Tehran street flashed like a thunderbolt around the world, Obama mumbled vaguely about "not meddling" and rode in a 12-vehicle motorcade (paid for by taxpayers) across the the Potomac River to Alexandria,VA, to get ice cream. And for 8 DAYS after her death, as the uprising, beatings of women and deaths grew more violent, Obama said NOTHING, finally mumbling vaguely to the Iranian regime to "stop the violence," which it did by rounding up more people, beating, jailing and disappearing them. Now, more than 3 months later, the violence, beatings, rapes, disappearances and deaths continue, and Neda's family members and others are forbidden to visit her grave. Now, three months later, we have just learned that Iranian regime has a second secret underground nuclear facility and is preparing to test-fire missiles that could hit Israel and U.S. bases. Neda means, "a voice, calling." But, apparently, Obama did not and cannot hear. Rome in chaos and flames had its Emperor-Fiddler, Nero. France in riots and revolt had its "Let Them Eat Cake" Marie Antoinette. And America? ... Enjoy your ice cream, Barack, as the wolf approaches.
Diana the Huntress
September 6, 2009
The Muslim Wolf at Feminism's Door More than 5000 women are victims of honor killings each year. Most of those women are Muslim, and while most of them are killed in Muslim countries-- more and more of them are being killed in Europe, Canada and America. A 2007 study by Dr. Amin Muhammad and Dr. Sujay Patel in Canada's Memorial Hospital observed that honor killing spreads when those whose who practice it emigrate to Western countries.
Honor killings however are only the final act in the drama of a Muslim woman's life. Before that, she is expected to walk behind a man, to be a second class citizen, to cover herself as much as possible in order to deflect male desire and to take the blame for the sexual intentions that men have toward her. She knows that if she fails to deflect male desire, she may suffer a variety of penalties from imprisonment to death. In countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran, those penalties are imposed by courts. In countries like Afghanistan or Pakistan, they are imposed by rough tribal justice. In the West, where there is no Islamic court system or tribal courts, they are imposed by the family.
The burka, the chador, the hijab or any of the other covering garments are assigned to Muslim women to "protect" them from men, and to protect men from them. These garments are meant to cover their "Awrah", which in Arabic means nakedness, fault or defect. While for a Muslim man "Awrah" is only the swimsuit region, a Muslim woman is entirely "Awrah".
Al-Qadhi Ibn-Al-Arabi Maliki states: “And all of a woman is ‘awrah; her body, her voice, and it is not permissible for her to uncover that unless out of necessity, or need such as witnessing in court, or a disease that is affecting her body…” [Ahkam Al Quran 3/1579]
Imam Al-Qurtubi stated went even further stating; “It is forbidden for a woman to speak when non-related men are present and it is forbidden for men to hear the voice of a non-mahram woman as long as there is no need for that.”
What that means is that all of a woman is "a zone of shame" and obscene. Even the sound of her voice is a form of "nakedness" or "lewdness". Various Muslim authorities claim that this applies to even a woman's fingernails and eyes. A woman who fails to dress this way is behaving obscenely and is open to being assaulted, as the Koranic verse which orders Muslim women to cover themselves makes clear.
"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested." -Al-Ahzab:59 (Qur'an)
The key word here of course is "that they shall be known as such and not molested". Conversely the failure to fully cover up (a covering that Mohammed demonstrated by cloaking himself and leaving only one eye uncovered in order to see) leaves them open to being molested under the code of "she was asking for it."
In the wake of the brutal Sydney gang rapes in which the perpetrators told the victims and exchanged messages among themselves making it clear that the attacks were motivated by the girls being Australian and Christian, Australia's top Muslim cleric, the infamous Sheikh Hilaly delivered a sermon stating;
"When it comes to rape, it’s 90 percent the woman’s responsibility. Why? Because a woman owns the weapon of seduction. It’s she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying. It’s she who shortens, raises and lowers. Then, it’s a look, a smile, a conversation, a greeting, a talk, a date, a meeting, a crime, then Long Bay jail. Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years."
"But when it comes to this disaster, who started it? In his literature, writer al-Rafee says, if I came across a rape crime, I would discipline the man and order that the woman be jailed for life. Why would you do this, Rafee? He said because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn’t have snatched it."
The "uncovered meat" were girls as young as 14, whom the attackers brutalized for hours. Their crime was that they were meat, and they had left themselves uncovered by failing to wear Chadours or Hijabs to prevent themselves from being "molested".
This is the Muslim wolf that now stands growling outside the feminist door. The wolf dictates that women in any country with a sizable Muslim population have two choices, to cover up or be assaulted. By covering up the woman accepts her inferiority to the male. Refusing to do that could get her raped or killed. There is no third option within Islam. In Iraq, in Kashmir, in Pakistan; women have had acid thrown in their faces for not wearing the appropriate Muslim garb.
But why speak of countries under medieval Islamic laws, when you can speak of the "Free West". A French survey found that 77 percent of the women who wear Hijabs did so because of threats by Islamist groups. 77 percent. France. We are not speaking about some backward little Third World nation where the tribal elders decide what goes. We are speaking of Paris, the glittering city of lights, the capital of art and music. The birthplace of Republican Europe.
This is what Hijab feminism looks like in France,
More often the girls were under orders from their fathers and uncles and brothers, and even their male classmates. For the boys, transforming a bluejeaned teen-age sister into a docile and observant "Muslim" virgin was a rite de passage into authority, the fast track to becoming a man, and more important, a Muslim man.... it was also a license for violence.
Girls who did not conform were excoriated, or chased, or beaten by fanatical young men meting out "Islamic justice." Sometimes the girls were gang-raped. In 2002, an unveiled Muslim girl in the cite of Vitry-sur-Seine was burned alive by a boy she turned down.
Jane Kramer, Taking the Veil, New Yorker
Despite that 77 percent number, American feminists insist on fighting for "the right" of Muslim women in France and America to wear the veil. They might as well be fighting for the right of women to be barefoot and pregnant, since they are one and the same.
Much as they might eagerly parrot the propaganda of the Muslim Student Association, itself an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, regarding the veil being liberating, the veil is a statement of female submission and degradation. There is nothing feminist about being inferior. The hijab is part of a larger agenda to force Muslims in the West, and even non-Muslims to live under Islamic law. A law which states that women are inferior to men.
In the process apologists for Islam like Karen Armstrong or Noah Feldman misrepresent key Arabic words, for example defining "Awrah" as beauty, or "Zina" as meaning only adultery, or seizing on whatever property Sharia law allowed women to hold as feminist, while completely ignoring the larger issue that women were considered inferior by Mohammed and his men, and are considered inferior under Islamic law today. Not simply in theory, but in fact. A fact that expresses itself in the rapes, beatings and murders of women, both Muslim and non-Muslim, by Muslim men on a regular basis.
Rather than confront the threat to women posed by Islamic law, feminist authors like Naomi Wolf are instead claiming that the wolf is really a misunderstood poodle. They have tried to transform the Hijab into a statement of Muslim feminism, while completing ignoring the fact that the Hijab only exists because Islamic law views all of a woman as obscene and treats the woman's presence in the public sphere as a source of Fitna and Zina, Discord and Immorality, that incites men to do immoral things, including rape her. Under Islam the woman is a threat to men that can only be rendered safe for men by fully covering her up and keeping her apart from men as much as possible.
What does Naomi Wolf think is an urgent issue? Based on her blog, it isn't women, but Muslim men. Specifically defending the sort of Muslim men who kill women who don't wear the veil. Wolf's blog is filled with posts fulminating against Guantanamo Bay and the plight of the Taliban and assorted other Islamists imprisoned there. The same men who if given a chance would have a knife to her neck in minutes.
This spring in Pakistan's Sindh province alone, 40 honor killings took place. One woman took refuge in a police station, only to be handed over to her brother who killed her. A 14 year old girl was burned to death. Two women had acid poured on them after being raped. Two women had their noses chopped off for violating family honor. The Sindh province had been overrun by the Taliban.
Rather than writing about any of these women, Naomi Wolf instead wrote demanding to know "What Happened to Mohamed al-Hanashi?" Her article describes Mohamed al-Hanashi as "a young man" who could shed light on many crimes. Not the crimes of Islamist terrorists, but the crimes of the US in detaining in Islamist terrorists. At no point in time throughout the article does Naomi Wolf mention that Mohamed al-Hanashi was a member of the Taliban. The same Taliban which mandated complete covering for women, forbade women to be treated by male doctors or to get an education.
In April 2009, Sitara Achakzai, a leading women's rights activist in Afghanistan, was murdered by the Taliban because she supported rights for women. Three days later, Naomi Wolf did not write about her. Instead she wrote an article claiming that the American people had "blood on their hands" over Gitmo and demanded that we hold Nuremberg Trials to determine who gave the order to "torture" captured Al Queda and Taliban terrorists in order to gain information about future attacks against America.
Unfortunately Naomi Wolf, like most modern liberal feminists had no interest in defending those women, only in defending their abusers. While women were being murdered by the Taliban, she sweated blood and tears to defend members of the Taliban. Finally in August, Naomi Wolf went to a Muslim country, put on a headscarf and described how it made her feel free. That seems like a reasonable preparation for the sort of environment that Naomi Wolf and much of the feminist movement are helping to create for women in the West.
In 1984 the Party's slogan is "Slavery is Freedom." The political use of such an idea is that it is easier to enslave people, if they believe that being enslaved makes them free. It is why every one party Communist dictatorship made sure to call themselves a "Democratic People's Republic". It is why the Muslim Brotherhood fronts understand that it will be easier to sell Westerners on subjugation to Islam, if they believe that this subjugation makes them free.
For almost a decade, Wolf and those like her, have been assailing the brave men and women who helped liberate women from the Taliban... while fighting for the Taliban. In the name of freedom of course. The freedom of those who shot up girls' schools, who threw teachers down staircases and beat women in the streets. Now the Muslim wolf has its snout thrust into half of Europe, into Australia, Canada and America. The honor killings continue to rise. Bodies continue to show up in hospitals and morgues. The bodies of the victims of Islam.
Treasury Memo: Cap and Trade Would Devastate U.S. Industrial Base
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 7:11 PM
By: John Rossomando
President Obama's cap-and-trade plan could deliver several blows to the U.S. economy, according to a Treasury Department memo that one observer described as "damning."
The country could lose 1 percent of its gross domestic product, face accelerated outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, and experience energy rationing if cap and trade became law, according to the memo, which the Competitive Enterprise Institute obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
“The memo was damning particularly . . . by pointing out what opponents of cap and trade have long said is the point of cap and trade, and has been proven by Europe’s experience,” said Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the institute. "You will chase off energy intensive industries — meaning manufacturing jobs. The memo singles out steel, cement, chemical . . . glass, plastic, and ceramics — the same ones that have been clobbered in Europe by this.
“This is the largest outsourcing scheme in history, not just in theory, but in practice,” he said.
The memo, prepared after Obama’s Feb. 24 speech to a joint session of Congress, details Treasury's analysis of the economic impact of cap and trade, which ties climate change to business practices.
The United States gained steel jobs from Spain because the manufacturer's costs under the European Union’s cap-and-trade program chased the jobs to Kentucky, Horner said. However, that foreshadows how cap and trade could cost the United States jobs that move abroad, he said.
The report concludes that cap and trade could result in the loss of the U.S. market share in the global economy.
The administration expects cap and trade to double the economic costs of all environmental regulations to the economy, and Horner said the 1 percent reduction in GDP would “institutionalize recession.”
Cap and trade could generate between $100 billion and $200 billion in federal revenue each year and would increase the cost of existing energy tax provisions, according to the memo.
The Treasury official who wrote the memo suggests using either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system that would price carbon at either a fixed tax rate or at a variable market price of emission allowances. The price would be set at a level where firms and consumers would experience enough financial pain to compel them to reduce their emissions.
“Cap and trade has one purpose, and that’s axiomatic, and that is to increase the cost of energy,” Horner said. “The president’s proposal — and that’s what the Treasury is talking about — would cause electricity prices to skyrocket [because] the cost of energy is embedded in everything, so you are talking about a very economically damaging proposal.
“Unless it really hurts, you are not going to really change your lifestyle.”
The memo also estimates that auctioning carbon allowances would generate $300 billion annually and could be used to offset taxes on labor and capital.
These internal revenue estimates stand in stark contrast to the Obama administration’s public statements concerning cap and trade.
“They are only vowing in their budget proposals, both in February and just three weeks ago in August, that they plan through selling all the ration coupons to raise only $65 billion,” Horner said. “The key is [they are] admitting privately what they won’t admit publicly.”
Cap and trade is a tax scheme, Horner said, noting that even Obama budget director Peter Orszag repeatedly wrote reports and testified that cap and trade is a tax when he ran the Congressional Budget Office.
“It quacks like a tax, looks like a tax, and does everything else like a tax,” Horner said. “The problem is cap and trade is too high of a tax.”
Horner speculated that the Treasury admission could impact the votes of certain senators such as Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who have sat on the fence regarding cap and trade. It also could affect the votes of some moderate House Democrats if cap and trade goes back to the House for a final vote.
The liberal Center for American Progress believes a large shift of U.S. jobs abroad is unlikely as a result of cap and trade because much of the world already has far more stringent environmental rules than the United States does.
“Unlike the United States, the rest of the world is actually already governed by a climate treaty,” said Brad Johnson, a climate researcher with the Center for American Progress. “And the entire European Union has not only committed to act, they have committed to essentially redouble their efforts if the U.S. joins. Other nations have already enacted things that are above and beyond what the United States is considering to enact.”
The free trade policies of the Reagan, Clinton, and both Bush administrations have had a far greater negative economic impact on the American manufacturing base than cap and trade would have, Johnson said.
“The idea that the reform of the energy sector — that closing this huge pollution loophole and increasing regulatory oversight over the energy markets — would do harm in a way that hasn’t been done by our current system . . . I find hard to stomach,” Johnson said.
Michael Connelly is a Constitutional lawyer and has read the entire health care bill. He has some comments, not just about the bill, but also about the effects it would have on our Constitution. It's a much broader picture than just health care "reform." Here's what he as to say:
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected. To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession. The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled. However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed. The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care. This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide. If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law. So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control. I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable. For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us. Michael Connelly Retired attorney, Constitutional Law Instructor Carrollton, Texas email@example.com
We rarely get a chance to see another country's editorial about the USA
Read this excerpt from a Romanian Newspaper. The article was written by Mr. Cornel Nistorescu and published under the title 'C'ntarea Americii, meaning 'Ode To America ') in the Romanian newspaper Evenimentulzilei 'The Daily Event' or 'News of the Day'.
~An Ode to America ~
Why are Americans so united? They would not resemble one another even if you painted them all one color! They speak all the languages of the world and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations and religious beliefs.
On 9/ll, the American tragedy turned three hundred million people into a hand put on the heart. Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the Army, or the Secret Service that they are only a bunch of losers. Nobody rushed to empty their bank accounts. Nobody rushed out onto the streets nearby to gape about.
Instead the Americans volunteered to donate blood and to give a helping hand.
After the first moments of panic, they raised their flag over the smoking ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colors of the national flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every place and on every car a government official or the president was passing. On every occasion, they started singing: 'God Bless America !'
I watched the live broadcast and rerun after rerun for hours listening to the story of the guy who went down one hundred floors with a woman in a wheelchair without knowing who she was, or of the Californian hockey player, who gave his life fighting with the terrorists and prevented the plane from hitting a target that could have killed other hundreds or thousands of people.
How on earth were they able to respond united as one human being? Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some turned into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call, millions and millions of dollars were put into collection aimed at rewarding not a man or a family, but a spirit, which no money can buy. What on earth can unites the Americans in such way? Their land? Their history? Their economic Power? Money? I tried for hours to find an answer, humming songs and murmuring phrases with the risk of sounding commonplace, I thought things over, I reached but only one conclusion... Only freedom can work such miracles.
It is the ninth month of the year 2009 of the reign of what was supposed to be our post-racial administration, and racism is a more common topic than ever. Where before racism applied to individuals, now opposing government policies has itself become a racist act.
Politicians and pundits spend enormous amounts of time analyzing the racial implications of Obama posters at rallies, and former President and active bigot, Jimmy Carter crawled out of his cage to proclaim that Congressman Joe Wilson's famous shout of "You Lie" was motivated by racism. Which is frankly quite obvious. "You Lie", is there any phrase more obviously racist than that?
At the New York Times, Maureen Dowd wrote, "what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!" Which is a lot like the patient who studies a series of Rorschach ink blots and comes up with increasingly racist interpretations of them. When the psychiatrist finally calls him on it, he exclaims, "I'm prejudiced? You're the one with all the racist cartoons!"
When the collective wisdom of the liberal media finds racism where there isn't any, it's fair to ask whether the racism they're finding is imaginary or in their own heads. And by fair, of course I mean it's unacceptably racist. But that's the kind of polarization that living in a black and white world gets you. You're either racist or you're not. And the only way to not be a racist is to be a visibly condescending liberal who makes a point of talking about how much of a racist he or she isn't.
Political correctness has spent a long time defining liberalism, and the attitudes that go with it, as the opposite of racism. The result is a thermometer that instead of running from -40 to 50 degrees Celsius, instead runs from liberal to racist. The more liberal you are, the less racist you can be judged as. The less liberal you are, the more likely you are to be considered a racist. Actual racist content has very little to do with it, or an ex-President from Georgia who called Obama a "black boy" would not be trotted out to denounce an Obama opponent as a racist in the first place. Nor would a Klansman on the Democratic side of the aisle still be sitting in the Senate.
So Maureen Dowd who couldn't hear Jimmy Carter say "black boy" when he did, heard Joe Wilson say, "boy", when he didn't. Because it's not what you actually say that counts, but what the New York Times columnists and op ed writers decide you really meant. Accordingly Ex-Klansman Senator Byrd's use of a racial slur was completely harmless, while a Tea Party protester condemning deficit spending is a bigot. It's not the crime of bigotry that we're dealing with here, but the thoughtcrime. The thing which your opponents, who conveniently enough happened to be the New York Times columnists and op ed writers, think you really meant.
What we are talking about then is actual prejudice and bigotry vs political racism or the race card. Actual bigots spout racial slurs, discriminate against, abuse and assault people for their race or national or religious background. Political bigotry by contrast is the modern day version of the witchhunt that involves denouncing someone you don't like as a racist or a witch.
When denouncing someone for political bigotry, you don't actually need to get your facts straight. You don't even need any facts. All you need is a vague feeling that he probably might and could very well be bigoted, as proven by your politically correct seventh sense tingling with the warning that there's a "boy" at the end of his sentence. It was the classic Soviet way of doing things. And it still works.
Why bother debating whether Joe Wilson's claim was true or not true, when instead you can trot out a man who rejected a Christian professor for the board of the Holocaust Memorial Council because his name "sounded too Jewish" to condemn Joe Wilson as a racist. Now the debate becomes is Joe Wilson a racist, and when you haven't actually made any racist statements, the only way to defend yourself is by going on the defensive, which easily comes across like an admission of guilt.
Before Democrats had been forced to subsist on borrowed Mau-Mauing. Today with Obama in the White House it has become childishly easy to condemn anyone in the opposition for racism. After all they're in the opposition, and why would they be in the opposition... unless they had problems with a black man in the White House? This kind of reductio ad absurdum racial argument has become the default party line when dealing with political opponents. "There's only one possible reason they could oppose our wholly reasonable political program, because they're racists."
Democrats had spent eight years calling Bush a liar. Eight years. But calling Obama a liar is now a hate crime. Drawing a cartoon of him is a hate crime. Attending a rally protesting his policies is of course a hate crime. Voting while Republican is also naturally a hate crime. Essentially being on the opposite side of Obama has become a hate crime, by the convenient logical trick of presuming that Obama is equivalent to all black people, and that therefore opposition to him is equivalent to opposing all black people.
Taking that argument to the next level, since Obama is also half-white, anyone black or white who opposes him, is a bigot. And FDR's opponents probably just hated disabled people. JFK's opponents hated the Irish. And Al Gore lost the election, because Joe Lieberman was Jewish. While there's humor in that absurdity, there is also the ominous stench of dictatorship.
It's Un-American to ban political dissent, unless you define all political dissent as bigotry. And next thing you know, your secret ballot has been determined to make you a statistically probable candidate for domestic terrorism. After all it's just a small hop from not wanting a government boondoggle of a health care program to being a racist to blowing up FBI buildings. That's the way liberal logic runs and that's who runs the Justice Department now.
We have now entered the golden post-racial age in which it is proof positive of racism to call a politician a liar. So long as the politician is a democrat and of a race different than yours. Yet if anything 2008 proved that Americans were willing and even eager to vote for a black man. But 2008 did not birth the post-racial society, it was there for a long time already.
That isn't to say that prejudice is dead. Most human beings have their prejudices, acknowledged and unacknowledged, which is what gives liberal accusations of racism such power. But most people also have long ago put aside those prejudices when it comes to working, going to school, living side by side with, and yes voting into office. We have been living in a post-racial country for some time now. The old divisions have the most power when interested parties begin playing them like an organ, because for all their talk about overcoming prejudice they are determined that we go on living in a black and white world, because it suits them. Because it gives them power.
The opposition to Obama has not come over racial issues, with only the exception in the Gates case. It has come over political issues, over the key question of how much power government can wield over people. It is in the interests of those wielding that power to frame the question as a racial one, rather than a political one, in order to delegitimize those daring to ask the question. It is in their interest to play the race card, because then instead of being forced to explain their misconduct, they can successfully force their critics to account for that invisible "boy" at the end of a sentence.
Criticizing the government is not a hate crime, being suspicious of politicians is a great American tradition and the essence of democracy, and opposing Obama is not a hate crime. Much as the talking heads and the op ed writers may try to spin dissent as racism, dissent is not racism, it is simply dissent. Without the right to dissent, there would be no civil rights movement. Without the right to dissent, there will be no America.
I realize you may not like or want to have your head clouded with facts. Nevertheless, here are a few:
You are incorrect about about “50% of the country supports him.” 50% of the country DID not support and currently DOES not support Barack Hussein Obama nor his policies. Do you even know what percentage of the electorate participated in this last election? Obviously not.
No, this country was not “set up,” as you call it, as a democracy nor to practice democracy, which is mob rule. This nation was established as a democratic republic and is based on U.S. constitutional law, not mob rule. And it remains (barely, “thanks” to people like YOU) a Republic. And the overwhelming majority of Americans intend to keep it that way – because the overwhelming majority of Americans value and support the Constitution and want to preserve it as it was written – a FACT that every independent poll in this country shows.
Your definition of conservatism is biased and patently absurd. Conservatism seeks to CONSERVE, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. And I, like millions of Americans, will fight with my last breath those who seek to usurp, diminish and destroy it – or as you so quaintly put it “change.” It appears that you were either too lazy and disinterested – or worse, intent on helping to weaken this nation – to even bother to ask, “Change what? And change into what? What SPECIFIC change?” Can you even articulate the change you want or sought, Marty? State your case, SPECIFICALLY, and we will listen – because Obama sure didn’t specify and STILL does not specify what he wants to change that he believes is so “fundamentally flawed” (his own words) about the Constitution and the United States.
A FACT about the right wing, Marty: the majority of Americans describe themselves as right of center, not left. Additionally, numerous polls show that, if given the chance, more voters would vote for a Republican candidate over a Democrat candidate. Rather than seeking to restore your once great Democrat Party, through your insults (and probably your actions, too) you seek to destroy the other party. And thus, though you say otherwise, you seek to destroy the check and balances of our two-party system and thus, you really seek one-party rule (which is also Obama’s policy and actions to date, so at least you’re consistent), which is tyranny. Thus, you insult the majority of Americans (which is also what Obama constantly does, so again, at least you’re consistent with him in your shared hatred of most Americans); and unknowingly or not, you support tyranny, which is the enemy of America and American principles. What does that make YOU, Marty?
Wrong again, Marty, the right was not built around all the utter nonsense you parrot. It was and remains built around the Constitution, and that which is outlined by the Constitution, including: limited government, not this big, bloated, ever-growing, ever-invasive, ever-spending behemoth we now have “thanks” to people like you; the right was and remains built on equal rights and justice for all under the law, not special rights for one group over another group based on race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, income, etc, etc, that we now have “thanks” to people like you; the right was and remains built on a strong national defense and national security based on diplomacy and peace through strength, not appeasement of our enemies whilst they use the time to strengthen and further arm themselves to attack us and/or our national interests and our allies, which is the situation we now have, “thanks” to people like you.
BTW, “peace through strength” is the foundation of what’s called Neo-Realism in foreign affairs/relations and diplomacy, Marty, a subject that you should spend a little bit of time actually reading, studying and understanding before you attempt to expound upon it or criticize previous administrations and/or individuals who are far more skilled and knowledgeable in that area than are you. Read a little bit of economics, military affairs, and history, too, and definitely read the U.S. Constitution. Since you obviously don’t do a lot of reading in any of those areas, I would also strongly suggest you at least check out these two links, as they will explain more to you than you currently seem to know:
The latter link is a very interesting video of a 1985 interview with Yuri Bezmenov, ex-KGB. It is as relevant today as it was then, and speaks to our current financial melt-down. Listen to it, Marty, and perhaps you will begin to understand or at least have an inkling (one would hope) as to just how much of a “useful idiot” you and Barack Hussein Obama are to those who seek to do us real harm.
Now, of course, I realize you - being resistant and close-minded as you are whilst accusing others of the same – will instinctively take your ostrich-head-in-the-sand stance and dismiss the latter as “right wing scare tactics.” I assure you this video is not. It reveals the very real and ongoing strategy of those who are anything BUT right wing, those who very much appreciate what Barack Hussein Obama is doing to this country. You must understand something, Marty: There are individuals throughout the world who wake up every morning actively seeking ways in which to literally destroy this nation and everything its represents and destroy you. That is not a scare tactic, Marty, that is a FACT. They do this not because of anything we’ve done to them. They do it because they hate the founding principles on which this nation stands, they hate our liberty, they hate our independence (that which remains of it and hasn’t yet been squandered) and they hate who and what we are. And they hate you, Marty.
And speaking of scare tactics, Marty, it is astonishing - even from one so myopic and naïve as you seem to be - that you do not and/or chose not to see the conspiracy, fear and scare tactics that this Obama administration constantly propagates and puts forth. Obama handpicked and appointed a czar who actually believes in that absurd 9/11 conspiracy – such an insult to the families of those 3,000 lost lives. And please don’t say he “didn’t know.” You’re not still buying that line from Obama are you? Obama knows the backgrounds, beliefs and worldviews of those whom he chose. So what can you logically conclude, Marty (that is. if you CAN logically conclude) that says about the background, beliefs and worldview of Barack Hussein Obama? As a candidate, Obama ran as a centrist, a moderate, a post-racial and post-partisan president. He lied. He is none of those things. And we all know that by what Barack Hussein Obama said himself about himself: “Judge me and judge me for who and what I am by the people I will have around me in my administration.” Tax evaders, Marxists, radicals, self-avowed communists. Need I go on, about who and what they and Obama are, Marty? These are FACTS.
Inscribed upon the fireplace mantel in the State Dining Room of the White House is the prayer/blessing that John Adams wrote to his wife on Nov. 2, 1800: “I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.”
HONEST and WISE. We now inarguably know – by HIS OWN criteria of how we should judge him by whom he has CHOSEN to have around him - that the current occupant of the White House, Barack Hussein Obama, is neither a honest nor wise man.
Wise and honest leaders and their administration do not set up Web sites that encourage citizens to turn upon one another, to snitch on ordinary citizens for something vaguely described as “fishy.” This is the tactic of fascists. It was used by the Nazis in 1930s Germany. All for change. A wise and honest leader whose party dominates all branches of government, and who gets every stimulus, bailout and other legislative bills he has sought since taking office (legislation that he has repeatedly said will improve the economy and save jobs but in fact has made the economic and employment situation far, far worse) does not behave as a little boy and constantly blame it on previous administrations nor seek to shirk responsibility for an economy he OWNS and for which he IS responsible. This constant juvenile behavior and shirking of responsibility is unseemly and unprecedented – especially from someone who relentlessly sought the high office he now occupies and said he was prepared and knew what he was getting into. This is not the behavior of a wise and honest man, but of a child seeking to make excuses for his own bad decisions and refusing to accept the consequences of them. My six and eight-year-old nephews know better than to try that and aren’t allowed to get away with that behavior. So I cannot expect less of a president than what I would expect from a six or eight-year-old.
Some things for you to consider about what you call “messes.” You do not define those “messes,” you only parrot. So because you then immediately follow that parroting with vague, ill-defined statements about war, money, the will of the American people and foreign aid/assistance, one has to assume those are the primary areas of concern for you. Yet the following appears to be perfectly OK with you: In less than six months, Barack Hussein Obama spent at least four times the amount of money that the previous administration did in eight years. In fact, the Obama administration has now spent more than all the other combined previous administrations. So Barack Hussein Obama abysmally fails the test on money spending. With the exception of those strategies of the Bush administration, Obama himself has no strategies for victory in Afghanistan and Obama himself has no exit strategy. Only days into his administration, Obama approved bombing that killed women and children on the Pakistan border. So on all these, Obama fails your test standards on war.
In fact, Obama does more than just fail those test standards about war – because he has made some of those changes you love so much and he is in the process of making more. And since he has done so, these changes have and will continue to get some of our best and bravest needlessly killed. But you probably like that ours and our troops’ enemies should be marandized. Obama has also changed the ROE over there. That’s Rules of Engagement for people like you who have never served and know NOTHING about the military. And BTW, Marty, the VASTLY overwhelming majority of military members are also those right wing and conservatives for whom you have such contempt, and who also did not vote for Barack Hussein Obama – and that, too, is a FACT. Additionally, you make reference to the war in Afghanistan being the “right" war and the one in Iraq being the “wrong” war. You might want to learn more about the difference between Al Qaeda and the Taliban and learn more about the primary areas out of which Al Qaeda and the Taliban operate before you offer any further critiques of “where we should have been in the first place.”
Know this: The inexperienced junior senator Obama wanted war in Afghanistan and the still inexperienced and unskilled Obama, who has never studied military affairs or foreign affairs, still wants war in Afghanistan and this is HIS war, he OWNS it, it's on HIM. Know that those Russian battleships armed with nuclear missiles that recently sailed into the Carribean are on him too. Do you have any idea how close that is to the southern shores of the U.S.? Do you have any idea of the range of those missiles? I doubt it. I doubt you're even aware of that situation. That's on Obama too. So is North Korea's first time ever threat to target Hawaii with missiles. You speak of "inflaming." You have no idea of what's been inflamed in world in the past eight months the since Obama the apologetic and appeasing "peacemaker" has taken office. It's all on him. So, yeah, Mary he sure has brought up some "issues," as you call them. And in his "dealing" with them, notice that with his historical recordbreaking big spending programs (including his recent enormous funding of Brazil's oil industry - gee, ya think the Brazilian government will cover all the expenses of and do a good job of cleaning any their oil spills that float up on our southern shores?), he continues to ensure China - a real bastion of "liberty" - will own a bigger part of yours, your children's and grandchildren's lives. Know, too, that the recent sale of missiles to Iran by Russia is on Obama, too, as well as everything else currently happening in the Middle East. I’ve been in the Middle East, Marty, as well as lived in some of the socialist countries of Europe. You should visit and/or live in both of those regions of the world and under their cultures and systems of government for a while, as I have. I assure you that it will be an enlightening experience for you and will open your eyes – especially in regards to what we should or shouldn’t change – which brings me to another topic you raised:
Some facts about Islam, Marty: Well, FINALLY an Obama supporter admits the obvious: Obama is Islamic, if not in actual daily practice, then certainly in acculturation and attitudinally. The rest of us knew what people such as you chose to ignore and deny along with his denials in his campaign. And that is another lie. What does it matter? For one thing, it was part of the information deliberately withheld from voters because he and his advisors knew he would not be elected if most voters knew what they now know about Obama, his background and his true policy positions.
Have you ever read anything in the Qur’an / Koran, Marty? I have. I own a copy. This enables me to check for myself the accuracy and validity of what the media and others quote. Contrary to what you said and apparently believe, Islam is far more than simply a religion, and far more than a creed. It is also a geo-socio-politico-government system. It is not compatible with western democracy or democratic republics. Now, you might be shocked by and you might think, “oh, how intolerant” that last sentence is, Marty, but that is true Islam. And if you think that sentence is intolerant, you ain’t seen nothing yet until you’ve experienced the “tolerance” of Islam. So you go ahead and buy all that those secular catch phrases, whitewashing and packaging / rebranding that they’re trying to sell to you as being Islam, but I don’t. Why? Because I’ve been in that part of the world and because I’ve heard it straight from the horses’ mouths numerous times, in detail and at length. I’ve talked with people who’ve grown up under the Islamic system, people who have successfully escaped it, and people who would like to escape it. One of its main principles/tenets is expansionism and conversion. In other words, Marty, that means world domination and you not having a choice or any say whatsoever in whether or not you convert to Islam. Unlike Christianity, Islam has not undergone a Reformation. So all those arguments about it being no more bloody and violent than and just as peaceful as Christianity are absurd and patently false. Furthermore, unlike Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism, which all accommodate other regions, Islam does NOT accept or accommodate any other religion (BTW, Hinduism is extraordinarily accommodating). Islamic (or what you know as Sharia law) does not recognize or accept any other law as being equal to or above it, usurping all others, including the secular laws of western democracies and republics and including our U.S. Constitution. What that means, Marty, is that Islamists in our country can and MUST, according to their law, ignore our laws and our Constitution, and obey only Islam. OK with you?
LOTS of detailed passages are in the Qur’an/Koran about how to deal with/what do do with Unbelievers (like you, Marty) of the “One and Only True Religion,” and they’re not pretty. And under Islamic law, women are absolutely NOT equal. LOTS of Koranic passages about that too, and about how unclean, evil and seductive women and EVERY part of women’s bodies are. So they must not be shown. Even exposed ankles and hands are such dangerous spell casters and tempting body parts, ya know. And bonus, Marty! – as a True Beliver, you legally get to beat your wife if she has a “headache” and isn’t in the mood to share your bed and/or if she’s disobedient to you in others ways both small and large. Another example: In matters of justice when a jury of men is selected – if and ONLY if there aren’t enough men around for that ALL MALE jury, then TWO women must be selected to replace ONE man. You see, Marty, that’s because, at best, one woman is only equal to half a man and is only half as valuable as a man. (To hell with being entitled to a jury of your peers, as we are entitled to under our system.) I forget which Qur’anic passage number (Surah) that one is. Ah, but here’s one number I do remember (Surah 4:11) because it’s interesting and just sooo reeks of “equality” too: A female heir can only inherit half the portion that a male inherits. In fact, Marty, YOU have little say to no say in who gets what of your estate because Allah (Islamic law) determines all that for you in great detail.
Innocence and ignorance of these obscene repressive and oppressive laws is not an excuse. Let me tell you of just one of the many incidents that happened during the time I was in an Islamic country. It was one of those more “moderate” Islamic countries, though there’s really no such thing as “moderate Islam.” That’s just what they tell you to get you to accept their expansionism in the West and what some of those so-called moderate Islamic countries do to attract businesses and tourism and to show a very, very thin veneer of tolerance to secularism to outsiders and other foolish Unbelievers. Four young Dutch women were in bathing suits at a seaside beach. So other folks in bathing suits were there, as well (most of them vacationing Europeans). But these Dutch girls happened to be quite good looking and without male escorts, which is not good. The Islamic “justice” for those four Dutch girls: they were brutally gang raped. Of course, the rapists would probably get a minimum of 6 to 10 years in most states of the U.S., but in this case, the perps – the “guilty” party - were those innocent women. Of course, being a “moderate” Islamic country, there were no arrests and no trial where the women would’ve – and should have, according to their laws - received further punishment for their “crime.” So you bet your butt that I wore a scarf on my head, loose ankle-length skirts and loose long sleeved shirts that covered my arms and kept a low profile in public and went almost everywhere in the company of men – definitely in the bazaars – while I was over there. (And I always tried to conduct my routine business with shop keepers who were known to me, thus to reduce the risk of my being kidnapped - or worse - all of which happens often over there to women.) And even all that was considered racy in some places. And I’m absolutely sickened that Barack Hussein Obama apologized for us to these regimes. I am sickened that Barack Hussein Obama (and YOU, Marty) had the temerity to lecture us about tolerance, and say that we as a nation need to show more respect and tolerance towards Islam and Islamic countries. I am sickened that he draw a moral equivalency between Islamic and American principles.
More than 50% of the U.S. population is female, Marty, and I can assure you that most Americans will resist and will NOT tolerate those kinds of backward and oppressive laws, values and attitudes here in our country. I can assure you that both conservative and liberal American women will not tolerate that kind of oppression in our own homeland, and for you to suggest we do so, is - unintentionally or not - an obscenity and an affront to liberty-loving people.
This will be harsh for you Marty, but someday you will realize this, and hopefully, you won’t realize this too late: You are ignorant, inexperience and too arrogant to know you’re both. You are young, Marty, and you must open your eyes because you will likely live a long time and you must protect what’s been hard won and given to you by others before you. You must open your eyes and protect the personal liberty and and rights that have been handed to you. Otherwise you may someday wake up and no longer have those liberties and rights and the sovereign nation in which you live and the associate opportunities all of these allow for you to pursue. These things are a gift that has been handed to you and to all of us. That gift has been at great cost to others before you. And you must think well, hard and long before you would so casually exchange or trade that gift for something of far less value. That you would cast away so rare a more than 200-year-old heirloom gift simply for the sake of change is both shortsighted and immature. And your casting it aside is also viewed as incredibly selfish by the millions of people who share in that 200-year-old gift and VALUE it and do NOT want to change it.
Lastly, in regards to your last sentence – “So, if you don't like that America can elect someone who wants change, then leave” you don’t speak for all Americans, Marty, nor were you elected to do so. And as the lower voter turnout of the last election shows and as all the current polls show, neither does Barack Hussein Obama speak for all Americans; nor does he even appear to be interested in speaking for or representing all Americans, as evidenced by his months long relentless attempts to ignore the will of more than 85% of the American people and ram ObamaCare down our throats. My family has been in this country for almost 375 years, Marty, the length of which matters not, except to point out to you that members of my family and others like them have bled for this country; and thus, they and others like them were and are heavily invested in the survival and future of this Republic with a fierce devotion and in ways that you cannot even begin to fathom. They and others like them bled and continue to bleed for future generations, including foolish and easily beguiled young puppies like you, Marty. But they did NOT bleed for the Republic so that you and others like you would give it away. Know this: Those of us who did NOT vote for Obama’s hopey-changey crap and those of us who hear the spirits of our Founders and Framers crying out are NOT leaving, Marty. We will NOT leave or sit down or be silent. There are PLENTY of socialist countries in the world (and funny how so many of their citizens always want to come here, huh?); and since you seem to prefer socialism, as evidenced by your support of Obama and his socialist programs and policies, here’s an invitation for YOU, Marty: YOU leave. Take your pick of any one of those countries, pack up, go there, live there, and leave this Republic alone! Or stay here, but only if you open your eyes and GROW UP! Meanwhile, as you ponder you decision, here’s a clue for you and all the foolish pups like you so blindly eager to be shackled:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget ye were our countrymen.” – Samuel Adams
As for the rest of us - in the finest American tradition (which is contrast to change), we choose perseverance, strength, self-reliance, and liberty. We stand faithfully by and in honor of the Republic and the Constitution.
Why would some twenty eight states feel it necessary to enact legislation to protect their sovereignty today?
Why are so many people purchasing ammunition and weapons at a rate never seen before in this country?
Why does the White House think it necessary to have an Internal Security Force as large, as well equipped, as the entire US Military? What is the requirement for that?
Why, if the second stated purpose of the Stimulus Bill was to provide relief to "those recently unemployed", has nothing been done to get people back to work quickly?
Why did so many states consider not accepting the government money from the Stimulus Bill?
If the Republicans are correct, and the national debt is going to increase to $20 Trillion as a result of the Stimulus Bill and the Government Bailouts of Wall Street, Banks, AIG, and Detroit, are you aware that every man, woman, and child in the United States, all 300 million people, will each owe $66,666.66?
Do you like the idea of paying your mortgage and someone else's mortgage? Do you like the idea of paying for your health care, and someone else's health care, and in return receiving lower quality and rationing of that care?
Do you like the idea of the government telling your doctor what he can prescribe for you?
Why would Obama pay attorneys a million dollars to hide virtually all his records if he has nothing to hide? Is this transparency?
Why won't Obama release the names of the visitors to the White House since 20 January 2009? Is this transparency?
Why have Inspector Generals been muzzled? Is this transparency?
Do you like the idea of Government taking over banks, the mortgage industry, and the automobile industry?
Do you still think ACORN is a “swell bunch of community organizers”?
Get ready for Detroit-style labor relations in our hospitals.
By MARK MIX
In the heated debates on health-care reform, not enough attention is being paid to the huge financial windfalls ObamaCare will dole out to unions—or to the provisions in the various bills in Congress that will help bring about the forced unionization of the health-care industry. Tucked away in thousands of pages of complex new rules, regulations and mandates are special privileges and giveaways that could have devastating consequences for the health-care sector and the American economy at large.
The Senate version opens the door to implement forced unionization schemes pursued by former Govs. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois in 2005 and Gray Davis of California in 1999. Both men repaid tremendous political debts to Andy Stern and his Service Employees International Union (SEIU) by reclassifying state-reimbursed in-home health-care (and child-care) contractors as state employees—and forcing them to pay union dues. Following this playbook, the Senate bill creates a "personal care attendants workforce advisory panel" that will likely impose union affiliation to qualify for a newly created "community living assistance services and support (class)" reimbursement plan.
The current House version of ObamaCare (H.R. 3200) goes much further. Section 225(A) grants Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius tremendous discretionary authority to regulate health-care workers "under the public health insurance option." Monopoly bargaining and compulsory union dues may quickly become a required standard resulting in potentially hundreds of thousands of doctors and nurses across the country being forced into unions.
Ms.=2 0Sebelius will be taking her marching orders from the numerous union officials who are guaranteed seats on the various federal panels (such as the personal care panel mentioned above) charged with recommending health-care policies. Big Labor will play a central role in directing federal health-care policy affecting hundreds of thousands of doctors, surgeons and nurses.
Consider Kaiser Permanente, the giant, managed-care organization that has since 1997 proudly touted its labor-management "partnership" in scores of workplaces. Union officials play an essentially co-equal role in running many Kaiser facilities. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney called the Kaiser plan "a framework for what every health care delivery system should do" at a July 24 health-care forum outside of Washington, D.C.
The House bill has a $10 billion provision to bail out insolvent union health-care plans. It also creates a lucrative professional-development grant program for health-care workers that effectively blackballs nonunion med ical facilities from participation. The training funds in this program must be administered jointly with a labor organization—a scenario not unlike the U.S. Department of Labor's grants for construction apprenticeship programs, which have turned into a cash cow for construction industry union officials on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
There's more. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has suggested that the federal government could pay for health-care reform by taxing American workers' existing health-care benefits—but he would exempt union-negotiated health-care plans. Under Mr. Baucus's scheme, the government could impose costs of up to $20,000 per employee on nonunion businesses already struggling to afford health care plans. Mr. Baucus's proposal would give union officials another tool to pressure employers into turning over their employees to Big Labor. Rather than provide the lavish benefits required by Obamacare, employers could allow a union to come in and negotiate less costly benefits than would otherwise be required. Such plans could be continuously exempted.
=0 A Americans are unlikely to support granting unions more power than they already have in the health-care field. History shows union bosses could abuse their power to shut down medical facilities with sick-outs and strikes; force doctors, nurses and in-home care providers to abandon their patients; dictate terms and conditions of employment; and impose a failed, Detroit-style management model on the entire health-care field. ObamaCare is a Trojan Horse for more forced unionization.
Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America's true living legends- an acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize him as the foremost leader in change management. Lou changed the way America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to be known as "partnering." Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.
AN OPEN LETTER TO:
Dear President Obama: You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you. You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support. You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American. You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core. You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others. You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail. You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America ' crowd and deliver this message abroad. You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector. You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one. You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves. You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world. You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations. You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals. You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people. You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient. You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do. You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view. You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing. Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it. Big surprise. Since it hit the internet, however, it has had over 500,000 hits. Keep it going.
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. It's happening right now.
HEALTH BILL WILL HIKE MEDICARE DRUG COVERAGE PREMIUMS 20 PERCENT, SAYS CBO
Tell Congress No Government-Run Health Insurance
Alert: If the health-care reform bill under consideration in the House of Representatives becomes law, seniors will pay Medicare prescription drug program premiums that are 20-percent higher than they would be under current law, says the Congressional Budget Office.
The increase in premiums will start with an average 5-percent hike in 2011 and reach 20 percent by 2019.
The CBO estimated the increase in premiums in response to an inquiry from Rep. Dave Camp (R.-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, who wanted to know how changes to the Medicare system that are incorporated into the House version of the health-care reform bill would impact the premiums paid by seniors for their prescription drug benefit mknown as Medicare Part D.
"Overall, CBO estimates that enacting the proposed changes would lead to an average increase in premiums for Part D beneficiaries, above those under current law, of about 5 percent by 2011," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said to Camp in a letter. "That effect would rise over time and reach about 20 percent in 2019."
The increase in premiums would be tied to increased coverage that closes the so-called doughnut hole in current Medicare prescription drug coverage.
The doughnut hole works like this: Once a senior's total drugs costs--what Medicare pays, plus the deductible and co-payments--exceed a certain amount ($2,700 in 2009), Medicare will cover no more of the person's drug costs that year until the person spends a certain amount out of his or her own pocket ($4,350 in 2009). When a senior reaches the upper threshold of the doughnut hole, catastrophic drug coverage kicks in automatically and Medicare pays 95 percent of the person's additional drug costs for the remainder of the year.
Under the health care bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 3200, the doughnut hole would be phased out by 2022, when Medicare Part D would cover prescription drug purchases within the window it does not cover as of now.
"Beyond the 10-year budget window, the premiums would increase slightly more until the doughnut hole was eliminated in 2022, beyond that point, enrollees premiums would grow along with the cost for covered drugs," says CBO.
The change in the rules would have a varying net financial impact on individual seniors, depending on the volume of their prescription drug use.
"Of course, the effect of total spending would vary among beneficiaries: Those who ended up purchasing a relatively small amount of drugs in a year would pay more in additional premiums than they would gain from lower cost sharing, while those who purchased a relatively large amount of drugs in a year would gain more from lower cost sharing than they would pay in higher premiums,' says CBO.
About 3.8 million seniors were subject to the doughnut hole in 2007, according to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
Rep. Camp argues that most seniors would suffer a net financial loss under the change envisioned in the health-care bill.
Among Medicare Part D beneficiaries, he said in a statement citing data from CMS, 10.9 percent would save money under the Democratic health bill, while about 76 percent would pay more.
"Health care reform should make health care more affordable, not more expensive," said Camp. "Clearly, it is time to scrap this bill and start over with open, bipartisan talks."
However, Robert Kocher of the President's National Economic Council said in a recent White House video that prescription drugs will become less expensive.
"You will have lower drug costs," Kocher said. "Right now in the Medicare program, when you reach the point at which Part D can't cover a drug, you have to pay full price. Under insurance reform, you will pay lower prices for those pills you take."
However, CBO said in its letter to Rep. Camp that the new rules would cause drug manufacturers to increase prices on new breakthrough drugs.
"Drug manufacturers would be constrained from increasing prices for existing drugs but could offset the rebates they would be required to pay for full-benefit dual-eligible individuals by charging higher prices for new drugs particularly for breakthrough drugs (the first drugs that use new mechanisms to treat illnesses)," said CBO. (CNSNews)
"We're no longer a Christian nation." - President Barack Obama, June 2007 "America has been arrogant." - President Barack Obama "After 9/11, America didn't always live up to her ideals."- President Barack Obama "You might say that America is a Muslim nation."- President Barack Obama, Egypt 2009
Thinking about these and other statements made by the man who wears the title of president. I keep wondering what country he believes he's president of.
In one of my very favorite stories, Edward Everett Hale's "The Man without a Country," a young Army lieutenant named Philip Nolan stands condemned for treason during the Revolutionary War, having come under the influence of Aaron Burr. When the judge asks him if he wishes to say anything before sentence is passed, young Nolan defiantly exclaims, "Damn the United States ! I wish I might never hear of the United States again!"
The stunned silence in the courtroom is palpable, pulsing. After a long pause, the judge soberly says to the angry lieutenant: "You have just pronounced your own sentence. You will never hear of the United States again.. I sentence you to spend the rest of your life at sea, on one or another of this country's naval vessels - under strict orders that no one will ever speak to you again about the country you have just cursed."
And so it was. Philip Nolan was taken away and spent the next 40 years at sea, never hearing anything but an occasional slip of the tongue about America. The last few pages of the story, recounting Nolan's dying hours in his small stateroom - now turned into a shrine to the country he fore swore - never fail to bring me to tears. And I find my own love for this dream, this miracle called America, refreshed and renewed. I know how blessed and unique we are.
But reading and hearing the audacious, shocking statements of the man who was recently elected our president - a young black man living the impossible dream of millions of young Americans, past and present, black and white - I want to ask him, "Just what country do you think you're president of?"
ou surely can't be referring to the United States of America, can you? America is emphatically a Christian nation, and has been from its inception! Seventy percent of her citizens identify themselves as Christian. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were framed, written and ratified by Christians. It's because this was, and is, a nation built on and guided by Judeo-Christian biblical principles that you, sir, have had the inestimable privilege of being elected her president.
You studied law at Harvard, didn't you, sir? You taught constitutional law in Chicago? Did you not ever read the statement of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and an author of the landmark "Federalist Papers": "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers - and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation - to select and prefer Christians for their rulers"?
In your studies, you surely must have read the decision of the Supreme Court in 1892: "Our lives and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."
Did your professors have you skip over all the high-court decisions right up till the mid 1900's that echoed and reinforced these views and intentions? Did you pick up the history of American jurisprudence only in 1947, when for the first time a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson about a "wall of separation between church and state" was used to deny some specific religious expression - contrary to Jefferson's intent with that statement?
Or, wait a minute, were your ideas about America 's Christianity formed during the 20years you were a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ under your pastor, Jeremiah Wright? Is that where you got the idea that " America is no longer a Christian nation"? Is this where you, even as you came to call yourself a Christian, formed the belief that " America has been arrogant"?
Even if that's the understandable explanation of your damning of your country and accusing the whole nation (not just a few military officials trying their best to keep more Americans from being murdered by jihadists) of "not always living up to her ideals," how did you come up with the ridiculous, alarming notion that we might be "considered a Muslim nation"?
Is it because there are some 2 million or more Muslims living here, trying to be good Americans? Out of a current population of over 300 million, 70 percent of whom are Christians? Does that make us, by any rational definition, a "Muslim nation"?
Why are we not, then, a "Chinese nation"? A "Korean nation"? Even a "Vietnamese nation"? There are even more of these distinct groups in America than Muslims. And if the distinction you're trying to make is a religious one, why is America not "a Jewish nation"? There's actually a case to be made for the latter, because our Constitution - and the success of our Revolution and founding - owe a deep debt to our Jewish brothers.
Have you stopped to think what an actual Muslim America would be like? Have you ever really spent much time in Iran? Even in Egypt? You, having been instructed in Islam as a kid at a Muslim school in Indonesia and saying you still love the call to evening prayers, can surely picture our nation founded on the Quran, not the Judeo-Christian Bible, and living under Shariah law. Can't you? You do recall Muhammad's directives [Surah 9:5,73] to "break the cross" and "kill the infidel"?
It seems increasingly and painfully obvious that you are more influenced by your upbringing and questionable education than most suspected. If you consider yourself the president of a people who are "no longer Christian," who have "failed to live up to our ideals," who "have been arrogant," and might even be "considered Muslim" - you are president of a country most Americans don't recognize.