America It Is Time to Revolt

RI Tea Party Sounds Off On Pelosi on Neil Cavuto

2010-03-01T14:11:00.000-08:00

My Interview on Neil Cavuto re: Scott Brown Election

2010-02-11T14:48:00.000-08:00

Pledge of Renewal

2010-02-10T20:44:00.000-08:00

Please take a minute to read the Pledge of Renewal, a beautifully crafted document written by my fellow Patriots in RI. Send this pledge around the country, in hopes that it will revive American's hopes for a stronger United States of America, which is more closely aligned with that great nation for which our founding fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

Pledge of Renewal

How To Fix Rhode Island; Steve Laffey at RI Tea Party Meeting

2010-02-09T11:34:00.000-08:00

The Tea Party’s Focus: Elections

2010-02-07T19:45:00.000-08:00

The Tea Party’s Focus: Elections

Massachusetts Miracle

2010-01-17T14:28:00.000-08:00

2010 Will Be Worse

2010-01-02T07:20:00.000-08:00

2010 Will Be Worse

And WND's 2009 'Person of the Year' is ...

2009-12-30T17:58:00.000-08:00

And WND's 2009 'Person of the Year' is ...

Go, Jim, Go!

2009-12-22T16:40:00.001-08:00

Tea Partiers Most Popular

2009-12-17T17:13:00.001-08:00

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Poll-TeaPartyPatriotsMostPopular/2009/12/17/id/343602?s=al

Unions Out for Blood at the Red Cross – Time for a Hostage Negotiator?

2009-12-15T05:45:00.000-08:00

Unions Out for Blood at the Red Cross – Time for a Hostage Negotiator?

MUST WATCH! Let's take this country back!

2009-12-05T06:53:00.000-08:00

Tea Party Activists are the New GOP

2009-12-03T16:03:00.001-08:00

Tea Party Activists Are the New GOP

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 7:11 AM

By: Richard A. Viguerie Article Font Size

After withdrawing from the special election for New York’s 23rd Congressional District, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, who had been the Republican candidate, threw her support to the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens, rather than Doug Hoffman, a Republican running on the Conservative Party ticket.

That was one more example of the “closed tent” mentality of big-government, establishment Republicans who have worked long and hard to keep conservatives out of power at the national, state, and local levels.

The GOP leadership’s backing of Ms. Scozzafava was a slap in the face to tea party activists, town-hall protesters, and conservatives across the country. The Washington GOP establishment’s abandonment of fiscal responsibility led directly to the election of Barack Obama as president, Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House, and Harry Reid as Senate majority leader.

The American people see the GOP leadership and establishment every bit as much a part of the problem as the Democrats.

Doug Hoffman and N.Y.-23 are an earthquake in American politics, the first of many challenges to establishment Republicans that we will see for the 2010 elections and beyond. The Republican leaders' stupid decision to pour $900,000 into the race against a conservative has unleashed a fury that will lead to new GOP leadership.

Conservatives’ anger at Washington-establishment Republicans will cost the national committees tens of millions of dollars, as conservative money will start flowing directly to the tea parties and their candidates.

It’s clear that the main opposition to President Obama and Pelosi’s agenda is not from Republican politicians, but rather conservative talk-show hosts, bloggers, cable TV hosts, tea party activists, town-hall attendees, and other grass-roots conservatives.

Tea party activists and conservatives feel betrayed by Republican leaders: John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Pete Sessions, Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Michael Steele, and Newt Gingrich.

These GOP leaders would rather follow the advice of professional political consultants, who are not small-government conservatives. These people would rather satisfy their friends in the media than win — and win with principle. They are the same people who try to denigrate the tea party and town-hall protesters by calling them “teabaggers.”

That type of thinking, which actively opposes the rise of conservatives and others who challenge the old Washington political establishment, will keep the GOP as a small tent. The tea party movement, like Reaganism, is the real big tent.

Over the last dozen years, Republican Party leaders have broken the bond of trust between them and the base of the party. It will not be restored until the GOP selects new leaders who represent the views and values of grass-roots Americans, not Washington views and values.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

A Year of Jihad in America

2009-11-30T20:55:00.001-08:00

A Year of Jihad in America
By; Christopher Holton
www.StanduUpAmericaUS.com

There is mounting evidence that the global Jihadist insurgency is fully entrenched in the United States After the Fort Hood massacre news services seem divided between those hell-bent-for-leather on denying that the Fort Hood massacre was a case of anything other than a persecuted loner "snapping" and those who proclaimed it the first "terrorist" attack on US soil since September 11th.

This focus is wrong. Fort Hood was an act of Jihad and that's really all that matters: It is essential that we find out how extensive Nidal Malik Hasan's ties to other Jihadists were. Of this there can be no doubt.

But we must refrain from entering into a debate on what amounts largely to semantics about whether or not the Fort Hood massacre was an act of "terrorism." We need to get away from focusing on the term "terrorism" anyway. Some observers still don't consider the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing by Hezbollah, which killed 241 Marines, sailors and soldiers, an act of "terrorism" because, by some widely recognized definitions, attacks on combatants cannot be termed "terrorism."

The Fort Hood massacre and the attack on the Marine Barracks were acts of Jihad. The Jihadis themselves don't refer to themselves as "terrorists." But they most assuredly refer to themselves as "Jihadis." We should let them own that title.

This was never a war on "terrorism." Jihad is being waged against us and we have tied ourselves in knots to deny that reality. Moreover, Fort Hood was hardly the first act of Jihad on US soil since September 11th. A few examples come to mind:

* The Anthrax Attacks (Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I do NOT buy the official line on these attacks, but that's a subject for another time and place.)
* The DC "Sniper" Shootings (There is a great deal of evidence that John Mohammed carried out these attacks in the name of Allah.)
* The LAX Shooting at the El Al Ticket Counter

Note that whether the perpetrators are members of a previously known terrorist organization (such as Al Qaeda) or were lone actors, these were still acts of Jihad.

It is difficult to combat a shadowy organization like Al Qaeda, but it is far more difficult to prevent "lone wolf" actors from attacking. Al Qaeda may be difficult to infiltrate and gather intelligence on, but how do we "infiltrate" a lone Jihadist?

This is symptomatic of a revolutionary Jihadist subculture metastasizing within the American Muslim community, especially within its mosques and organizations. This revolutionary subculture has produced an atmosphere in which Muslims are inspired to act violently. This is a very dangerous and volatile situation.

Over the last 12 months alone, we have been provided with a stack of evidence of the Jihadist insurgency inside America. Americans have largely ignored this evidence, or at least failed to "connect the dots." Seemingly completely unrelated cases do in fact have common threads: they are acts of Jihad.

I decided to go back and research examples of Jihad in America over the last 12 months, roughly 1 December 2008 to 1 December 2009. Here is a list of incidents, cases, actions, statements and plots which point to a Jihadist insurgency in our midst (Keep in mind that insurgencies are both civilizational/political and violent/militant.).

The list is compiled in reverse chronological order, meaning that the most recent items are listed first. We no doubt left out some cases. I believe that all of these cases and incidents brought together on a single listing will prompt most readers to conclude that the magnitude of the threat we face inside the United States is greater than they previously believed.

NOVEMBER 2009

* Ten Indicted in Philadelphia in Case Involving Material Support for Jihadist Terrorist Group Hezbollah
* Terrorism Charges Unsealed in Minnesota Against 8 Somali Members of Jihadist Terrorist Group al-Shabaab
* Feds in New York Move to Seize Assets of Iran-tied Alavi Foundation
* Nidal Malik Hasan Kills 13, Wounds 20 In Shooting Rampage at Fort Hood, Texas

OCTOBER 2009

* US Jails Al Qaeda Sleeper Agent (Ali al-Marri was previously held in brig at Charleston, SC Naval Station)
* Two Chicago Men Charged in Jihadist Terrorist Plot in Denmark
* Eleven Members of Jihadist Group Arrested in Detroit; Imam Killed in Shootout with FBI (Luqman Ameen Abdullah Shot and Killed FBI Dog During Arrest)
* Boston Muslim Charged in Plot to Kill Shoppers, Troops
* Three Ohio Residents Sentenced in Plot to Commit Terrorist Acts Against Americans Overseas
* Massachusetts Man Charged With Conspiracy to Provide Material Support for Terrorists
* University of California-Irvine Files Complaint with Feds that Muslim Student Union Raised Money for Jihadist Terrorist organization HAMAS

SEPTEMBER 2009

* Najibullah Zazi of Colorado Indicted in New York for Conspiracy to Use Explosives Against Persons or Property (Zazi had contact with Al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan). (More here and here)
* Illinois Jihadist Arrested in Plot to Bomb Illinois Federal Building
* Jordanian Muslim Arrested After Placing Inactive Bomb in Dallas High-Rise
* Lebanese-born Swede Sentenced to Life in Prison for Oregon Terrorist Training Camp Plot
* Three British Muslims Convicted In Plot to Bomb Airliners Bound for America (Plot could have killed 10,000)
* Apostate from Islam, Rifqa Bary, Flees Family After Her Father Threatens Her

AUGUST 2009

* Member of Prison Islamist Group Sentenced to 70 Months for Plot to Kill Jews, Attack Military Bases
* Atlanta Muslim, Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, Convicted of Supporting Foreign Terrorist Organization (Supported Lashkar-e-Tayyiba which carried out Mumbai attack)
* German Jihadists Describe Hatred of US as Reason for Terror Plot
* Yemeni Sheikh Pleads Guilty to Aiding HAMAS in New York Court

JULY 2009

* "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid Sues to Resume Jihad From Prison
* The Odyssey of a Jihadist: From Long Island to Pakistan. (More here and here)
* Seven Charged in North Carolina for Terrorism (Plot to attack Marine Corps Base Quantico) (More here)
* American Al Qaeda Jihadist Sentenced to Life for Bush Assassination Plot
* Hizb ut-Tahrir Jihadi Conference Held in Chicago

JUNE 2009

* New Jersey Muslim Convicted of Providing Material Support to Jihadist Terrorist Group Hezbollah
* Tennessee Muslim Convert Kills One Soldier, Wounds Another Outside Little Rock Recruiting Office
* Ex-Georgia Tech Student Convicted on Terrorism Charges

MAY 2009

* Texas Muslim Charity Officials Sentenced to 65 Years for Financing HAMAS Jihadist Terrorist Organization
* New York Jihadist Plot to Target Synagogues Disrupted
* Canadian from Somalia Living in Minneapolis Pleads Guilty to Aiding Al Qaeda
* Five Miami Jihadists Convicted in Sears Tower Bombing Plot

APRIL 2009

* Three New Jersey Jihadists Sentenced to Life in Fort Dix Terrorist Plot

MARCH 2009

* Somali-Americans Recruited for Al Qaeda-linked Group, Says FBI

FEBRUARY 2009

* Ohio Jihadist Sentenced to 20 Years in Terror Bomb Plot
* Muslim Television Channel Founder Charged With Beheading His Wife in Honor Killing
* FBI Director Warns of Terror Attacks on US Cities
* Lashkar-e-Taiba Mumbai Attackers Had Worldwide List of 320 Targets
* Jailhouse Islam Convert Murders Philadelphia Police Officer

JANUARY 2009

* FBI Cuts Ties with Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Over HAMAS Ties
* Terrorist Who Plotted to Bomb New York Targets in 1970s Released From Prison, Deported to Sudan. (More here)
* Chicago Cousins Plead Guilty to Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to Terrorism

DECEMBER 2008

* Staten Island Satellite TV Operator Pleads Guilty to Supporting Hezbollah
* Former University of South Florida Student Sentenced to 15 Years in Terrorism Case
--------------------

7 stories Barack Obama doesn't want told - John F. Harris - POLITICO.com

2009-11-30T09:20:00.000-08:00

7 stories Barack Obama doesn't want told - John F. Harris - POLITICO.com

The Art of Political War for Tea Parties – by David Horowitz

2009-11-30T08:50:00.000-08:00

The Art of Political War for Tea Parties – by David Horowitz

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

2009-11-24T09:07:00.000-08:00

BUSTED!

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

SEIU and the Law of Intended Consequences

2009-11-24T07:59:00.000-08:00

SEIU and the Law of Intended Consequences

How To Cut Healthcare Costs Chapter 1: Kill Women

2009-11-19T11:14:00.000-08:00

The Wall Street Journal
NOVEMBER 19, 2009
A Breast Cancer Preview
The mammogram decision is a sign of cost control to come.

A government panel's decision to toss out long-time guidelines for breast cancer screening is causing an uproar, and well it should. This episode is an all-too-instructive preview of the coming political decisions about cost-control and medical treatment that are at the heart of ObamaCare.

As recently as 2002, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force affirmed its recommendation that women 40 and older undergo annual mammograms to check for breast cancer. Since regular mammography became standard practice in the early 1990s, mortality from breast cancer—the second leading cause of cancer death among American women—has dropped by about 30%, after remaining constant for the prior half-century. But this week the 16-member task force ruled that patients under 50 or over 75 without special risk factors no longer need screening. [As a matter of fact, it was only 6 MONTHS AGO -- before health care legislation had moved to the front burner -- that this panel re-issued its own WARNING about the importance of early breast cancer detection, annual mammograms after age 40, and self-examinations. Now we have their VERY ABRUPT reversal of a VERY longstanding opinion, which for many years had concurred with the American Cancer Society's recommendations. The government panel has suddenly decided to oppose the ACS's recommendations -- on the basis of absolutely no new medical evidence.

So what changed? Nothing substantial in the clinical evidence. But the panel—which includes no oncologists or radiologists, who best know the medical literature—did decide to re-analyze the data with health-care spending as a core concern.

The task force concedes that the benefits of early detection are the same for all women. But according to its review, because there are fewer cases of breast cancer in younger women, it takes 1,904 screenings of women in their 40s to save one life and only 1,339 screenings to do the same among women in their 50s. It therefore concludes that the tests for the first group aren't valuable, while also noting that screening younger women results in more false positives that lead to unnecessary (but only in retrospect) follow-up tests or biopsies.
Of course, this calculation doesn't consider that at least 40% of the patient years of life saved by screening are among women under 50. That's a lot of women, even by the terms of the panel's own statistical abstractions. To put it another way, 665 additional mammograms are more expensive in the aggregate. But at the individual level they are immeasurably valuable, especially if you happen to be the woman whose life is saved.

The recommendation to cut off all screening in women over 75 is equally as myopic. The committee notes that the benefits of screening "occur only several years after the actual screening test, whereas the percentage of women who survive long enough to benefit decreases with age." It adds that "women of this age are at much greater risk for dying of other conditions that would not be affected by breast cancer screening." In other words, grandma is probably going to die anyway, so why waste the money to reduce the chances that she dies of a leading cause of death among elderly women?

The effects of this new breast cancer cost-consciousness are likely to be large. Medicare generally adopts the panel's recommendations when it makes coverage decisions for seniors, and its judgments also play a large role in the private insurance markets. Yes, people could pay for mammography out of pocket. This is fine with us, but it is also emphatically not the world of first-dollar insurance coverage we live in, in which reimbursement decisions deeply influence the practice of medicine.

More important for the future, every Democratic version of ObamaCare makes this task force an arbiter of the benefits that private insurers will be required to cover as they are converted into government contractors. What are now merely recommendations will become de facto rules, and under national health care these kinds of cost analyses will inevitably become more common as government decides where finite tax dollars are allowed to go. [IE, it is THIS PANEL which will be tasked with / authorized to determine what procedures will or won't be allowed for whom, under every single version of Health Reform Legislation sponsored by the Democrats. With the passage of any of these bills, this panel's recommendations will become the rules under which medical care is provided, BY LAW. Reminder: there are NO oncologists and NO radiologists on the panel. -- Morry]

In a rational system, the responsibility for health care ought to reside with patients and their doctors. James Thrall, a Harvard medical professor and chairman of the American College of Radiology, tells us that the breast cancer decision shows the dangers of medicine being reduced to "accounting exercises subject to interpretations and underlying assumptions," and based on costs and large group averages, not individuals.

"I fear that we are entering an era of deliberate decisions where we choose to trade people's lives for money," Dr. Thrall continued. He's not overstating the case, as the 12% of women who will develop breast cancer during their lifetimes may now better appreciate.

More spending on "prevention" has long been the cry of health reformers, and President Obama has been especially forceful. In his health speech to Congress in September, the President made a point of emphasizing "routine checkups and preventative care, like mammograms and colonoscopies—because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse."

It turns out that there is, in fact, a reason: Screening for breast cancer will cost the government too much money, even if it saves lives.

[And that money is needed for bailouts -- ie corporate welfare to the top 1% of the nation's business firms -- as well as for stimulus packages and all the pork and earmarks so crucial to keeping our essential political elite comfy in the style they've become accustomed to. -- Morry]
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
***************************************************************************
THE RELEVANT FACTS:
In England today, the success rate for curing breast cancer is 2 out of 4 cases. (Many cases become terminal while the woman is waiting for surgery.) In the US it is 3 out of 4. Breast cancer strikes roughly 12 % of women. This means that breast cancer will strike roughly 18 million women who are alive today in the US. Of those our present system, if it survives, will cure 13.5 million; the British system would cure 9 million. There is no reason to believe government run medical care in the US will be any more successful than it is in Britain. Indeed, Hillary Clinton and others have praised the British system and stated that we should do more or less the same thing in the US. This means that of the 18 million victims of breast cancer, 4.5 million will die unnecessarily. It is not unreasonable to expect that 4.5 million women, alive and healthy today in the US, will be killed by ObamaCare.

And that is just breast cancer. Consider colon cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, . . . .etc.
Lewis

------------------------------------------------------------
THERE IT IS, FOLKS, THE 1st step to be taken by ObamaCare to fulfill its promise of making healrh care affordable. It's so simple, it's amazing no one thought of it before!! We inaugurate the plan with the beautiful-in-its-simplicity step of killing 4.5 million American women. True, this will only cut medical costs by 1 or 2% overall, but don't lose heart!! Remember, there's still colon cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, bladder cancer, stomach cancer, heart disease, lung diseases, etc, etc,etc, each one a very promising area for effecting further cuts. We will probably be able to cut costs by up to 20% or more simply by arranging for the premature deaths of another 40-60 million Americans. True, simple tort reform has cut costs by an average of 30% in the few states which have enacted it, but this would be unfair to lawyers, as the currently considered Senate bill wisely recognizes. Lawyers are necessary because they are huge contributors to the Democrats' campaign chests, and the nation needs all the concerned, big-hearted Democrat accessories to murder it can get. (The bill currently under consideration in the Senate explicitly provides for substantial cuts in Federal funding to any state which places any restrictions or limits on awards in medical cases.) So . . . KUDOS FOR OBAMACARE. It's the smart way to go, and even if it is grossly dishonest and literally murderous, this is just part of the nature of many politicians, and in a nation of diversity, we must accomodate their viewpoint. So let's patch up our differences and all join together with the nation's medical malpractice attorneys and with our hard-working morticians in praising the virtues of ObamaCare!! -- Morry

A view of Obama from across the pond

2009-11-19T07:24:00.000-08:00

A view of Obama from across the pond

What Will It Take for You to Take a Stand?

2009-11-15T10:52:00.000-08:00

Last night I attended a GOP “Meet and Greet,” hosted by a group of beautiful women at one of their gorgeous “House and Garden” homes in an affluent neighborhood. The food was delicious, the wine sublime, and the hospitality of genteel like minded couples unparalleled. The Governor and his delightful wife made an appearance, and both gave heartwarming speeches, as did a candidate for Governor of our state. It was a picture perfect evening which went off without a hitch.

So why did I awake the next morning with a sinking feeling? I had just met a great group of educated and presumably informed people who had an understanding of the issues which face our state and our nation. These are not your average folks; the resources at their disposal put them in a unique position, somewhat buffered by the economy which ravages the average working folks, and with the time, money, and access to information which give them a distinct advantage over those who live from paycheck to paycheck.

As I watched the speakers perched on an impressive staircase in front of a rapt audience discuss their ideas for a better tomorrow, I pictured similar scenes taking place 240 years ago, in which our founding fathers stood to make their pitch for the creation of new nation; a nation of the people, for the people, by the people. I imagine that those orators would have suggested to their listeners that the time had come for action; that as leaders of their communities, with resources, means to spread the word, and ability to sway the masses working simply for their everyday survival, that now was the time to take a stand for freedom. And not just for their freedom, but for the freedom of generations to come.

In my state and my country, we are at a not so dissimilar point in history. Our freedoms are under assault in all corners of our state and federal government. As the leader of the tea party movement in RI, I am proud and honored to have met thousands of average working folks who have had “enough” and are willing to take a stand for their freedom. Junkyard owners and nurses, retirees and teachers, stay at home moms, and small business owners; each and every one fills me with a sense of hope that all is not lost.

But some members of the political party which should embrace the tea party ideals of fiscal responsibility, accountability, and a return to Constitutional principles seem content to converse amongst themselves and host beautiful gatherings with beautiful people. By and large, they do not show the fortitude to speak amongst a room full of foes, and debate the merits of their stances on the issues. Why is this? Why are people, even educated people of means, cowed by the opposition, which has nothing but tired long disproved theories in their arsenal?

My charge to the leaders of our communities is this: it is time for bold action in defense of our freedom and freedom of our children. It is no longer acceptable to simply host gatherings and hope that change will come, for without the concerted action that only you can take, it will not. You must consider running for political office (no matter how distasteful that seems), you must donate your time and money to go on offense against the corrupt status quo, you must speak the truth, even if you feel you may offend some. Times which test us require men and and women of strength and resources to reach outside of our comfort zones. Be models for your children. Our future, and theirs, depends on it.

Tribute to our Soldiers on Veteran's Day

2009-11-09T20:33:00.001-08:00

Hi everyone,

On Veteran's Day, we take the opportunity to honor those who have served and are actively serving our country. We so often forget to thank those who have made the ultimate sacrifice so that all of us can continue to live freely. Considering many of the oppressive regimes overseas against which our brave servicemen have fought, it is easy to forget how much of a luxury it really is to be able to even argue about healthcare, global warming, or any other issue that matters to us.

It means so much to an a soldier in harm's way to receive a letter from an American civilian, telling them that we here at home are behind them 100%. These brave men and women are our country's best. Let them know!!

I strongly encourage you to consider sending a letter to a serviceman or woman. Please take just a few minutes!! Someone will really appreciate it.

Below are some directions on how to use the website anysoldier.com to do so:

First, follow this link

http://www.anysoldier.com/WhereToSend/

Look at the list at the far left of your screen. There are a list of officers in active duty. When you click on one's name, you can request their current address. Remember, the officer you are sending to is not the person to which you should address your letter, because the officer will hand the letters sent to him/her to the soldiers under his/her command. Just address it "Dear Soldier."

You can request the address by email. They ask that you be 18 or older to participate (as you need to give your information to get the address), so this can be a great thing to do with the family.

Follow the recommendations found in the "How to Send" tab at the top as well when writing your letter.

Thanks so much! Those fighting for your freedom will appreciate it.

U-S-A!!!!

Dismantling America

2009-10-28T05:03:00.000-07:00

Dismantling America
By Thomas Sowell
Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers-- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?

Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?

Does any of this sound like America?

How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.

How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.

We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.

How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.

Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.

Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "God damn America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.

Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.

Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government-- people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America's influence in the world.

Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration's enemies list.

Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year-- each bill more than a thousand pages long-- too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question-- and the biggest question for this generation.

Not One More Drop of American Blood

2009-10-06T19:36:00.000-07:00

AMERICAN FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN ABANDONED

God in Heaven protect our warriors from the Washington, DC arm chair generals as You alone are the Hope we can trust.

Members of Congress and civilian bureaucrats that can't balance a budget, spending America into eternal debt, participate in all sorts of immoral behavior, fully corrupt, can't drive themselves from point A to point B, speak at the level of 8 year olds, are only focused on a personal self serving agenda, totally devoid of courage, integrity, personal responsibility...in short are greedy cowards...with no credible experience in national security and less than zero military service, now want to second guess a seasoned military chain of command in devising strategy and tactics in the Afghanistan war.

The political apparatus in Washington, DC has abandoned our troops in harms way, indecision is allowing the enemy to refit their forces and costing American lives, has sent a message of American political weakness and surrender to the Islamic butchers, while giving scant attention that our warriors are giving their lives and blood while indecision reigns.

If Afghanistan is a "war of necessity" as the Commander In Chief says, how can any level of leadership allow our men and women to be without the resources to win??

Nothing is more despicable than sending men and women into war and then betraying them while in battle...it would be entirely appropriate for the military chain of command to withdraw all troops to safe areas, expect a victory position within 72 hours from the Commander in Chief with credible proof of resources to win, otherwise, the military chain of command resigns.

Not one more drop of American blood spilled while Washington D.C. leadership cowers in surrender.

Harry Riley, COL, USA, Ret

Start Spreading the News!

2009-10-01T17:59:00.001-07:00

A Long, Long Time Ago...

2009-09-30T16:43:00.000-07:00

Open Message from the Huntress RE: Neda Soltan

2009-09-28T13:46:00.000-07:00

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 Sultan:

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.

Ramifications of Cap and Tax

2009-09-23T16:50:00.000-07:00

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.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Forced Vaccinations in Massachusetts?

2009-09-22T20:31:00.000-07:00

Obamacare Assault on the US Constitution

2009-09-22T08:37:00.000-07:00

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
mrobertc@hotmail.com

Romanian Ode to America

2009-09-20T14:46:00.000-07:00

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.

Cornel Nistorescu

Opposing Obama is Not a Hate Crime

2009-09-20T14:40:00.000-07:00

Thursday, September 17, 2009

by The Sultan

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.

An Open Letter to Marty from the Huntress

2009-09-14T17:20:00.000-07:00

Marty:

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:

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/20081012YB

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.

- Diana

Gateway Pundit: CLEAN Conservatives vs FILTHY Liberals-- A Photographic Essay

2009-09-14T08:47:00.000-07:00

Gateway Pundit: CLEAN Conservatives vs FILTHY Liberals-- A Photographic Essay

A Few Questions for Liberals

2009-09-14T06:07:00.000-07:00

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”?

Unionizing Healthcare

2009-09-13T13:55:00.001-07:00

Read the Union Health-Care Label

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.

You Scare Me

2009-09-10T13:27:00.000-07:00

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.

Lou Pritchett

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.

Obamacare and Medicare Drug Coverage Premiums

2009-09-08T07:31:00.000-07:00

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)

Don't Cry for Me Argentina

2009-09-04T21:05:00.000-07:00

Without a Country

2009-09-04T18:37:00.000-07:00

The President without a country

By Pat Boone

"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.

Meet The Truth about GUN CONTROL

2009-08-31T07:58:00.001-07:00

Meet The Truth about GUN CONTROL
Uploaded by MeetTheTruth. - Have a look at more lifestyle videos.

This Will Never Be A Euro-Socialist Country

2009-08-29T16:17:00.001-07:00

This Will Never Be A Euro-Socialist Country

Shared via AddThis

This Ain't America No More

2009-08-29T09:31:00.000-07:00

Obamacare and Me

2009-08-28T07:07:00.000-07:00

August 06, 2009 ObamaCare and me. By Zane F Pollard, MD

I have been sitting quietly on the sidelines watching all of this national debate on healthcare. It is time for me to bring some clarity to the table by explaining many of the problems from the perspective of a doctor.

First off, the government has involved very few of us physicians in the healthcare debate. While the American Medical Association has come out in favor of the plan, it is vital to remember that the AMA only represents 17% of the American physician workforce.

I have taken care of Medicaid patients for 35 years while representing the only pediatric ophthalmology group left in Atlanta, Georgia that accepts Medicaid. For example, in the past 6 months I have cared for three young children on Medicaid who had corneal ulcers. This is a potentially blinding situation because if the cornea perforates from the infection, almost surely blindness will occur. In all three cases the antibiotic needed for the eradication of the infection was not on the approved Medicaid list.

Each time I was told to fax Medicaid for the approval forms, which I did. Within 48 hours the form came back to me which was sent in immediately via fax, and I was told that I would have my answer in 10 days. Of course by then each child would have been blind in the eye.

Each time the request came back denied. All three times I personally provided the antibiotic for each patient which was not on the Medicaid approved list. Get the point -- rationing of care.

Over the past 35 years I have cared for over 1000 children born with congenital cataracts. In older children and in adults the vision is rehabilitated with an intraocular lens. In newborns we use contact lenses which are very expensive. It takes Medicaid over one year to approve a contact lens post cataract surgery. By that time a successful anatomical operation is wasted as the child will be close to blind from a lack of focusing for so long a period of time.

Again, extreme rationing. Solution: I have a foundation here in Atlanta supported 100 % by private funds which supplies all of these contact lenses for my Medicaid and illegal immigrants children for free. Again, waiting for the government would be disastrous.

Last week I had a lady bring her child to me. They are Americans but live in Sweden, as the father has a job with a big corporation. The child had the onset of double vision 3 months ago and has been unable to function normally because of this. They are people of means but are waiting 8 months to see the ophthalmologist in Sweden. Then if the child needed surgery they would be put on a 6 month waiting list. She called me and I saw her that day. It turned out that the child had accommodative esotropia (crossing of the eyes treated with glasses that correct for farsightedness) and responded to glasses within 4 days, so no surgery was needed. Again, rationing of care.

Last month I operated on a 70 year old lady with double vision present for 3 years. She responded quite nicely to her surgery and now is symptom free. I also operated on a 69 year old judge with vertical double vision. His surgery went very well and now he is happy as a lark. I have been told -- but of course there is no healthcare bill that has been passed yet -- that these 2 people because of their age would have been denied surgery and just told to wear a patch over one eye to alleviate the symptoms of double vision. Obviously cheaper than surgery.

I spent two year in the US Navy during the Viet Nam war and was well treated by the military. There was tremendous rationing of care and we were told specifically what things the military personnel and their dependents could have and which things they could not have. While I was in Viet Nam, my wife Nancy got sick and got essentially no care at the Naval Hospital in Oakland, California. She went home and went to her family's private internist in Beverly Hills. While it was expensive, she received an immediate work up. Again rationing of care.

For those of you who are over 65, this bill in its present form might be lethal for you. People in England over 59 cannot receive stents for their coronary arteries. The government wants to mimic the British plan. For those of you younger, it will still mean restriction of the care that you and your children receive.< /b>

While 99% of physicians went into medicine because of the love of medicine and the challenge of helping our fellow man, economics are still important. My rent goes up 2% each year and the salaries of my employees go up 2% each year. Twenty years ago, ophthalmologists were paid $1800 for a cataract surgery and today $500. This is a 73% decrease in our fees. I do not know of many jobs in America that have seen this sort of lowering of fees.

But there is more to the story than just the lower fees. When I came to Atlanta, there was a well known ophthalmologist that charged $2500 for a cataract surgery as he felt the was the best. He had a terrific reputation and in fact I had my mother's bilateral cataracts operated on by him with a wonderful result. She is now 94 and has 20/20 vision in both eyes. People would pay his $2500 fee.

However, then the government came in and said that any doctor that does Medicare work cannot accept more than the going rate ( now $5 00) or he or she would be severely fined. This put an end to his charging $2500. The government said it was illegal to accept more than the government-allowed rate. What I am driving at is that those of you well off will not be able to go to the head of the line under this new healthcare plan, just because you have money, as no physician will be willing to go against the law to treat you.

I am a pediatric ophthalmologist and trained for 10 years post-college to become a pediatric ophthalmologist (add two years of my service in the Navy and that comes to 12 years).A neurosurgeon spends 14 years post -college, and if he or she has to do the military that would be 16 years. I am not entitled to make what a neurosurgeon makes, but the new plan calls for all physicians to make the same amount of payment. I assure you that medical students will not go into neurosurgery and we will have a tremendous shortage of neurosurgeons. Already, the top neurosurgeon at my hospital who is in good health and only 52 years old has just quit because he can't stand working with the government anymore. Forty-nine percent of children under the age of 16 in the state of Georgia are on Medicaid, so he felt he just could not stand working with the bureaucracy anymore .

We are being lied to about the uninsured. They are getting care. I operate at least 2 illegal immigrants each month who pay me nothing, and the children's hospital at which I operate charges them nothing also.This is true not only on Atlanta, but of every community in America.

The bottom line is that I urge all of you to contact your congresswomen and congressmen and senators to defeat this bill. I promise you that you will not like rationing of your own health.

Furthermore, how can you trust a physician that works under these conditions knowing that he is controlled by the state. I certainly could not trust any doctor that would work under these draconian conditions.

One last thing: with this new healthcare plan there will be a tremendous shortage of physicians. It has been estimated that approximately 5% of the current physician work force will quit unde r this new system. Also it is estimated that another 5% shortage will occur because of the decreased number of men and women wanting to go into medicine. At the present time the US government has mandated gender equity in admissions to medical schools .That means that for the past 15 years that somewhere between 49 and 51% of each entering class are females. This is true of private schools also, because all private schools receive federal funding.

The average career of a woman in medicine now is only 8-10 years and the average work week for a female in medicine is only 3-4 days. I have now trained 35 fellows in pediatric ophthalmology. Hands down the best was a female that I trained 4 years ago -- she was head and heels above all others I have trained. She now practices only 3 days a week.

Background: Dr. Zane F. Pollard

I did my undergraduate work at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. I graduated Tulane University medical School Alpha Omega Alpha ( medical school's top 10% of graduating class). Internship at the Univ. of Southern California in Los Angeles, one year of General surgery residency at the U. of California in San Francisco. Two years in the US Navy. Residency in Ophthalmology at the U.of S . California in Los Angeles, fellowship in pediatric Ophthalmology at the Wills Eye Hospital in Philadelphia. In practice with Eye Consultants of Atlanta for the past 35 years. Published 90 papers in peer reviewed Scientific Ophthalmology Journals. Member of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, American Academy of Ophthalmology and the American Ophthalmological Society. Board certified in Ophthalmology.

Wake Up, Wake Up, America Please Wake Up

2009-08-27T08:43:00.000-07:00

Allocating Medical Care

2009-08-27T07:09:00.000-07:00

Brant S. Mittler: Oregon ‘allocates’ medical care

01:00 AM EDT on Thursday, August 27, 2009
BRANT S. MITTLER

SAN ANTONIO

WHILE NO ONE wants to pull the plug on Grandma, there are a lot of well-educated folks around the country looking for ways to use “scientific evidence” to do just that. One such place is Oregon, where the state’s Medicaid program has featured a Prioritized List of diagnoses and treatments for the past 20 years. “Prioritized List” is another way to say rationing. So is “allocation of scarce medical resources.”

You may have seen the headlines last summer, when Barbara Wagner, a 64-year-old Oregon great-grandmother with advanced lung cancer, got an unsigned letter saying that the Oregon Health Plan (OHP) would not pay for a $4,000-a-month chemotherapy drug, but would pay the $50 cost of physician-assisted suicide.

That’s because in 1989 Oregon decided to make a comprehensive list of all treatments and diagnoses and rank them by importance to society in preventing disease and doing the most good.

Oregon appoints a panel of 11 experts, called the Health Services Commission, “to rank medical services from most to least important to the low-income population.” Five commissioners must be licensed physicians. Other members include a public-health nurse, a social worker and four medical consumers to construct the Prioritized List.

They use evidence from specialty groups and scientific clinical trials — the kind the Obama administration and Congress want to use — to rank these diseases and treatments from 1 to 679. Then the legislature decides how much care poor people get by drawing a line every two years — lately between treatments 502 (cysts of the vaginal area ) and 503 (a skin condition called lichen planus) based on how much money they have to spend. Everything above the line is covered; everything below the line is not paid for.

In case you’re wondering, the American Academy of Dermatology says, “There is no known cure for Lichen Planus but treatment is often effective in relieving itching and in improving the appearance of the rash until it goes away.” That treatment often requires prescription-strength steroids.

For its 2010-2011 budget, Oregon ranks Pregnancy/Maternity Care at No. 1; Abuse or Dependence of psychoactive substance is No. 5; Type I Diabetes is No. 10; Type II Diabetes is No. 33; and acute heart attack ranks No. 75; Heart Failure is No. 108, only slightly behind Undescended Testicle No. 103.

There are other rules. For example, they don’t pay to treat cancer patients who only have a 5-percent or less chance of living for five years. That’s why Mrs. Wagner didn’t get the chemotherapy — until the drug company that made it sent it to her for free. But she died five months later — as the evidence predicted. But 53-year-old Randy Stroup, of Dexter, Ore., a grandfather of five, managed to live over a year after the OHP denied him chemotherapy for advanced prostate cancer.

Oregon’s treatment of Wagner squares with another approach to rationing advocated by White House medical adviser Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a cancer specialist and medical ethicist. Emanuel and co-authors wrote in the Jan. 31 issue of the Lancet that the rationing of scarce medical resources would best use a “completed lives” system that favored those resources — such as hard-to-get donated kidneys and hearts — for those who had the most life to live. That means the very young and the very old are at the end of the line.

How successful has Oregon been with its allocation scheme? Has it been able to care for more poor people than other states? Has it been able to free itself of budget worries?

The answers are mixed. When it first took effect in 1994, Oregon had about 18 percent uninsured. That number dropped to 10 percent but then climbed back up to 17 percent as budget woes in 2004 caused the Oregon legislature to cut back on services and close new enrollment. The latest cuts are in vision care and dental care.

University of North Carolina health-policy Prof. Jonathan Oberlander described the “unraveling” of the OHP over time, brought on by high unemployment and taxpayers’ refusal to fund the program adequately. The Priority List and the managed-care plans that have administered it have been no cure for increasing numbers of uninsured and medical inflation. Oberlander concluded that “rationing is no substitute for revenues, and without that financial commitment, large-scale public insurance expansions cannot succeed, in Oregon or elsewhere.”

Oregon’s OHP is but one of the many state experiments in health reform – along with Massachusetts and Maine — that offer some insight into what’s in store with national health reform. Rationing for the poor may become rationing for everyone if the OHP’s model is adopted nationally.

Brant S Mittler, M.D., is a cardiologist and a lawyer with an interest in health-care reform. He may be reached by e-mail at bsmitt@satx.rr.com.

Join the Oathkeepers

2009-08-25T09:13:00.001-07:00

Yuri Bezmenov

2009-08-24T19:42:00.001-07:00

From 1985...

Yuri Bezmenov
Uploaded by onmyway02.

Natural Truth of the Day

2009-08-19T07:42:00.000-07:00

From the Michael Graham Show:

Natural Truth of the Day
³I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover's FBI hunt for reporters like
me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of
Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House
administration.²

--Liberal columnist (and Boston native) Nat Hentoff.

Scary times we are in folks. If you can't see it, taste it, hear it, smell it, and feel it, you are missing a sense.

Love from ACORN: Free Healthcare AND Free Lunch!

2009-08-18T16:59:00.000-07:00

We're having a town hall meeting at Congressman Langevin's office in RI tomorrow and it looks like the ACORN crowd is fully mobilized. One of our infiltrators received this email from them:

Subject: Langevin Town Hall Meeting
Date: 8/7/2009 10:42:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Members.acorn.org
Reply To: Your name@members.acorn.org
To: All members

Dear Members.

As you are aware in our prior email, we need your presence at Congressman James Langevin's Town Hall Meeting at the Warwick police Station 99 Veterans Memorial Drive Warwick, Rhode Island. We are planning on arriving early at 1:30PM to fill the hall before the radical right protestors arrive. A box lunch will be provided for those on the bus. We will meet at headquarters for those wishing to join us on the bus.

Thank you!

The Acorn Team

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conservatives Outnumber Liberals in Every State

2009-08-17T13:06:00.000-07:00

Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States, Says Gallup Poll
Monday, August 17, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

(CNSNews.com) - Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.

At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.

In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.

Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”

Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.

During Republican President George W. Bush’s second term, the number of self-identified conservatives as measured by Gallup dropped, riding at a low of 37% as recently as last year.

According to new data released by Gallup on Friday, conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states--including President Obama’s home state of Illinois--even though Democrats have a significant advantage over Republicans in party identification in 30 states.

“In fact, while all 50 states are, to some degree, more conservative than liberal (with the conservative advantage ranging from 1 to 34 points), Gallup's 2009 party ID results indicate that Democrats have significant party ID advantages in 30 states and Republicans in only 4,” said an analysis of the survey results published by Gallup.

“Despite the Democratic Party's political strength-- seen in its majority representation in Congress and in state houses across the country--more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal,” said Gallup’s analysis.

“While Gallup polling has found this to be true at the national level over many years, and spanning recent Republican as well as Democratic presidential administrations, the present analysis confirms that the pattern also largely holds at the state level,” said Gallup. “Conservatives outnumber liberals by statistically significant margins in 47 of the 50 states, with the two groups statistically tied in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.”

Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii are the most liberal states, even though conservatives marginally outrank liberals even there. In Massachusetts, according to Gallup, 30% say they are conservative and 29% say they are liberal, a difference that falls within the margin of error for the state. In Vermont, 29% say they are conservative and 28% say they are liberal, which also falls within the survey’s margin of error for the state. In Hawaii, 29% say they are conservative and 24% say they are liberal, which falls within the margin of error for that state.

In one non-state jurisdiction covered by the survey, liberals did outnumber conservatives. That was Washington, D.C., where 37% said they were liberal, 35% said they were moderate and 23% said they were conservative.

Even in New York and New Jersey, conservatives outnumber liberals by 6 percentage points, according to Gallup. In those states, 32% say they are conservative and 26% say they are liberal. In Connecticut, conservatives outnumber liberals by 7 points, 31% to 24%.

Alabama is the state that comes closest to a conservative majority. In that state, according to Gallup, 49% say they are conservative and 15% say they are liberal.

In President Obama’s home state of Illinois, conservatives outnumber liberals, 35% to 23%.

Gallup's results were derived from interviewing 160,236 American adults between Jan. 2, 2009 and June 30, 2009.

Even though conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states, in 21 of these states self-identified moderates outnumber conservatives, and in 4 states the percentage saying they are conservative and the percentage saying they are moderate is exactly the same.

The two states with the highest percentage of self-identified moderates are Hawaii and Rhode Island, where 43% say they are moderate.

For a ranking of all 50 states by the advantage that self-identified conservatives have over self-identified liberals see the Gallup analysis here.

Do Not Underestimate the Will of the American People

2009-08-12T19:46:00.000-07:00

Daily healthcare protests at Senator's and Congressmen's offices. August 22nd Recess Rally. 9/12 March on Washington DC. We have just begun.

What's In Your Wallet?

2009-08-06T14:31:00.001-07:00

Hilarious

Fishy

2009-08-05T21:15:00.000-07:00

The Obama administration is encouraging US citizens to report "fishy" emails and communications from fellow Americans to a dedicated Whitehouse email address. Something stinks.

Let Them Eat Cake

2009-08-05T09:58:00.000-07:00

The Obama Resistance Grows

2009-08-05T07:18:00.001-07:00

The Obama Resistance Grows

Shared via AddThis

Common Sense Approach To Healthcare Reform

2009-08-04T09:49:00.000-07:00

Most Americans feel that the healthcare system in our country needs to be reformed in some manner. At the same time, most Americans LIKE their own current coverage. My question to those who want to revamp the entire healthcare system into a government run nightmare is, "Why throw out the baby with the bathwater?"

There are many opportunities to streamline cost and increase quality of care in a way which is comfortable and acceptable to most Americans. Below is a list of smart reform ideas from Physicians for Reform which would significantly effect American healthcare in a positive way. Is there a reason why our elected leaders won't address these very plain and simple measures? Does it have something to do with the fact that 84% of trial lawyers' campaign contributions in 2008 went to the Democratic party?

Brief Overview

Insurance Reform:
Health Savings Accounts combined with higher deductable policies reduce healthcare spending by placing patients in control of their own healthcare dollars. This strategy can decrease healthcare sending by 13% without compromising access to care. If America reduces even one fourth of its healthcare spending by even 10%, this will save $50 billion every year.

Tax Reform:
Physicians for Reform advocates making health insurance and Health Savings Accounts tax deductable for Americans with higher incomes. We also advocate funding individual policies and Health Savings Account with tax credits for Americans with lower incomes. This plan not only makes healthcare affordable for every American, it keeps patients in control of their own healthcare dollars. This program would cost approximately $80 billion every year.

Tort Reform:
Physicians spend approximately $124 billion every year in defensive medicine. Much of this is driven by the unpredictable results of our medical legal system. Federal level tort reform would decrease healthcare spending by an estimated $70 billion yearly.

Combined, Insurance Reform and Tort Reform would save Americans approximately $120 billion every year. Tax credits for Americans without healthcare would cost $80 billion. The net result? Not only does every American have access to healthcare, we save approximately $40 billion every year.

In this time of economic crisis, this plan not only reduces federal spending, it lowers the cost of healthcare of both small and large businesses. This in turn will create jobs as businesses have more money to hire people.

Guess When

2009-07-30T09:37:00.000-07:00

Political cartoon published in Chicago Tribune.

...in 1934!

An Interesting Strategy

2009-07-30T09:36:00.001-07:00

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Carroll woman's answer to highly visible Obama: Selling her televisions

By DOUGLAS BURNS
Staff Writer

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

A 78-year-old Carroll woman says she's so tired of seeing President Barack Obama on the airwaves that she's selling her television sets - two of them.

Deloris Nissen, a retired nurses' aide and former Kmart employee who was raised on a farm near Audubon, placed a classified advertisement with The Daily Times Herald for Friday's paper.

In the $5.50 ad, Nissen tells readers she has two television sets for sale.

The reason: "Obama on every channel and station."

In an interview Nissen said she is serious about selling two TVs - and genuine about her disgust with what she believes to be an overexposed president.

"I just got tired of watching him on every channel," Nissen said. "I thought, my gosh, does he ever stay at the White House?"

Nissen, who voted for U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the 2008 presidential election, said she could live with seeing Obama come on television to make serious announcements. But he seems to be on all the time, Nissen said.

When the president does appear on a channel she happens to be watching, Nissen said, she quickly turns.

"I have the remote real handy," Nissen said. "I have the batteries. I'm ready for him."

Nissen's annoyance with the president as a frequent presence on her television doesn't mean she'll abandon the medium altogether.

She's keeping a bigger flat-screen television and selling an older 20-inch Sony and possibly a 13-inch set.

"It's too heavy," Nissen said of the 20-inch TV. "I can't handle it anymore."

That said, she doesn't plan on selling it for less than $100 - even if Obama was just on Tuesday pitching his health-care-reform plans.

Obama's own advisers and political observers across the ideological spectrum have for months debated whether the now popular president is overexposed.

For her part, Nissen said she expects to take some flack for the advertisement in her local paper. After all, Obama did win Iowa and Carroll County in the 2008 election.

But she's not worried about any criticism.

"I'm an old lady, and I don't care," Nissen said.

The Obama Doctrine: Redistribute Wealth, Redistribute Health

2009-07-21T14:45:00.000-07:00

Show Us the Budget NOW!!!!

2009-07-20T10:09:00.000-07:00

White House Refuses to Release Budget

Washington (AP): The White House is being forced to acknowledge the wide gap between its once-upbeat predictions about the economy and today's bleak landscape.
The administration's annual midsummer budget update is sure to show higher deficits and unemployment and slower growth than projected in President Barack Obama's budget in February and update in May, and that could complicate his efforts to get his signature health care and global-warming proposals through Congress.

The release of the update—usually scheduled for mid-July—has been put off until the middle of next month, giving rise to speculation the White House is delaying the bad news at least until Congress leaves town Aug. 7 on its summer recess.

The administration is pressing for votes before then on its $1 trillion health care initiative, which lawmakers are arguing over how to finance.

The White House budget director, Peter Orszag, said on Sunday that the administration believes the "chances are high" of getting a health care bill by then. But new analyses showing runaway costs are jeopardizing Senate passage.

"Instead of a dream, this routine report could be a nightmare," Tony Fratto, a former Treasury Department official and White House spokesman under President George W. Bush, said of the delayed budget update. "There are some things that can't be escaped."

The administration earlier this year predicted that unemployment would peak at about 9 percent without a big stimulus package and 8 percent with one. Congress did pass a $787 billion two-year stimulus measure, yet unemployment soared to 9.5 percent in June and appears headed for double digits.

Obama's current forecast anticipates 3.2 percent growth next year, then 4 percent or higher growth from 2011 to 2013. Private forecasts are less optimistic, especially for next year.

Any downward revision in growth or revenue projections would mean that budget deficits would be far higher than the administration is now suggesting.

Setting the stage for bleaker projections, Vice President Joe Biden recently conceded, "We misread how bad the economy was" in January. Obama modified that by suggesting the White House had "incomplete" information.

The new budget update comes as the public and members of Congress are becoming increasingly anxious over Obama's economic policies.

A Washington Post-ABC News survey released Monday shows approval of Obama's handling of health-care reform slipping below 50 percent for the first time. The poll also found support eroding on how Obama is dealing with other issues that are important to Americans right now—the economy, unemployment and the swelling budget deficit.

The Democratic-controlled Congress is reeling from last week's testimony by the head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, that the main health care proposals Congress is considering would not reduce costs—as Obama has insisted—but "significantly expand" the federal financial responsibility for health care.

That gave ammunition to Republican critics of the bill.

Citing the CBO testimony, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, on Monday accused Democrats of "burying this budget update until after Congress leaves town next month." He called the budget-update postponment "an attempt to hide a record-breaking deficit as Democratic leaders break arms to rush through a government takeover of health care."

White House budget office spokesman Tom Gavin disagreed, noting the delay was "really not something out of the norm" and is typical for a president's first year. Gavin noted that President George W. Bush's budget office did not release the mid-session review in his first year until August 22; in President Bill Clinton's first year, it did not come out until Sept. 1.

Obama also didn't release his full budget until early May—instead of the first week in February, when he put out just an outline

Late last week, Obama vowed anew that "health insurance reform cannot add to our deficit over the next decade and I mean it."

The nation's debt—the total of accumulated annual budget deficits—now stands at $11.6 trillion. In the scheme of things, that's more important than talking about the "deficit," which only looks at a one-year slice of bookkeeping and totally ignores previous indebtedness that is still outstanding.

Even so, the administration has projected that the annual deficit for the current budget year will hit $1.84 trillion, four times the size of last year's deficit of $455 billion. Private forecasters suggest that shortfall may actually top $2 trillion.

Budget updates in previous administrations have given rise to charges that the White House was manipulating its figures to offer too rosy an outlook. Critics will be watching closely when the White House's Office of Management and Budget releases the new numbers.

Still, the update mainly involves plugging in changes in economic indicators, not revising program-by-program details. And indicators such as unemployment and gross domestic product changes have been public knowledge for some time.

Standard & Poor's chief economist David Wyss said part of the problem with the administration's earlier numbers is that "they were just stale," essentially put together by budget number-crunchers at the end of last year, before the sharp drop in the economy.

Wyss, like many other economists, says he expects the recession to last at least until September or October. "We're looking for basically a zero second half (of 2009). And then sluggish recovery," he said.

Even as it prepares to put larger deficit and smaller growth figures into its official forecast, the administration is looking for signs of improvement.

"If we were at the brink of catastrophe at the beginning of the year, we have walked some substantial distance back from the abyss," said Lawrence Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser.

Your Current Plan Is NOT An Option

2009-07-18T20:27:00.000-07:00

It's Not An Option
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage.

The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."

What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.

The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.

With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of the welfare state will be removed.

The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.

Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.

It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.

Why Public Option for Healthcare will Result in Hostile Takeover of ALL Healthcare

2009-07-18T12:32:00.000-07:00

House Democrats Health Plan a Pain in the Neck

2009-07-15T09:53:00.000-07:00

Do you like rules and regulations and the government making choices for you? If so, you are going to love the Democrat's new universal healthcare plan and all of it's mind-numbing bureacracy.

R.I. Tea Party dumped from Bristol Fourth of July parade | Rhode Island news | projo.com | The Providence Journal

2009-07-13T12:22:00.001-07:00

R.I. Tea Party dumped from Bristol Fourth of July parade | Rhode Island news | projo.com | The Providence Journal

Shared via AddThis

Remember the Harmless Uighers?

2009-07-07T09:38:00.000-07:00

Comment by a friend from Texas:

Watch as Chinese Dragon shows the world how IT deals with Muslim terrorism and rabble rousing. It will crush them. It will not be swayed by threats attacks from any of the other Islamo-fascist brotherhood. It will not be cowed by threats of vengence from the Taliban or Al Qaeda like the pansies leaders in Europe and some of our cowardly elected U.S. officiials are. In fact, I'd be surprised if the Islamo-fascists are stupid enough to even TRY to threaten China because they respect strength and power, and they that China isn't afraid to unleash brutal force and wouldn't hesitate to do so. No, I don't expect Muslims rioting in the streets of Peking like they did in Paris and Copenhagen because they know the Dragon will crush them. So the Islamo-fascists won't view these Muslims in quite the same "brotherly" fashion as they do with other Muslims elsewhere in the world - like those in the West. So, no they probably won't try to extract revenge on China. They'll keep their mouths shut and will be more than willing to quietly let their Islamic brothers in China die without being avenged.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/05/china-uighur-riots-xianjing

ObamaCare and the Elderly: Beware

2009-07-02T09:31:00.000-07:00

Healthcare Reform: Will Obama Let You Into His Lifeboat?

By Victor Morawski

The term “lifeboat ethics” is used to describe ethical issues that arise in situations involving the allocation of limited resources. It originally came out of a landmark 1974 article by philosopher Garrett Harden in connection with ethical questions surrounding the issue of providing food aid to underdeveloped nations.

He pictured wealthier nations as being like so many lifeboats---all with limited capacity, of course---afloat in a sea surrounded by many swimmers who need saving: the residents of poorer nations. His discussion there concerned the ethical guidelines that ought to govern who, if anyone, should be picked up and saved by those in the lifeboats.

The picture of the lifeboat is, quite obviously, an analogy. And from a logician’s perspective, an analogy is a tool used in a particular type of argument. If I am using an analogy to convince you of something, then I am arguing that two things, A and B, are alike in certain important respects, hence they should be seen as being alike in at least one more relevant respect: that which represents the conclusion of my argument. As a logical tool, an analogy works where it works. Its applicability is not necessarily tied down to only one situation or ethical position.

The lifeboat analogy has surfaced in several ways in the Health Care community and is relevant to the current debate over Health Care Reform. Here we are also dealing with the allocation of limited resources.

Perhaps the most legitimate use of this analogy in health care situations concerns triage decisions in disasters, both natural and man-made [what used to be called “Terrorist Incidents”]: “During overwhelming disasters, health systems must be considered lifeboats with insufficient capacity to minister to all, and thus decisions regarding who is best served by the lifeboat must be made.”

These “high-consequence event” situations have something in common with the original analogy that is so obvious it may easily be overlooked. The lifeboats and the individual swimmers are in the water because a disaster has just occurred; a ship has slipped beneath the waves. Sometimes I think that using lifeboat ethics type cases as if they should furnish us with generally applicable moral guidelines is a little like bringing up the experience of the Donner Party to introduce a discussion about whether cannibalism should be seen to be more acceptable morally than is generally recognized.

Lifeboat ethics cases do not provide us with examples for general moral guidance but instead present situations that are so extreme that they force us to raise questions about whether, in them, some generally accepted moral guidelines and ordinary standards of professional ethics may justifiably be suspended. Indeed, the Homeland Security study mentioned above recognizes this:

“The threshold for what constitutes life-sustaining care could also be lowered if staff degradation and or physical plant damage prevent the delivery of advanced acute and critical care therapies. Depending on the scope, magnitude, and duration of the disaster, sufficiency of care could mean little more than providing intravenous fluids or ventilator-assisted breathing.”

The translation of the above is that under the extreme circumstances it finds itself in, the staff will just have to do the best it can with what resources it has and cannot morally or reasonable be expected to do much more.

But not everyone agrees with my view that Lifeboat Ethics cases are best used to discuss exceptions to general moral guidelines rather than to set the guidelines themselves. And since Obama has insisted on many occasions in the past, especially when running in the primaries against Hillary Clinton, that it is his health care plan we are considering when we discuss the plan soon to be presented to Congress, it is I think reasonable to now ask relative to some important situations, whether Obama would let you into his lifeboat.

Situation One: Are you over 70 years old? If so, then you have real reason to worry about whether he will let you in. Developers of his plan understand that the bulk of the nation’s health care resources are used by senior citizens and they are looking for ways to ration care to the elderly.

In our last article we looked at an argument they favor which would ration care to the elderly and terminally ill based on a Cost-Benefit Analysis. Another plan now being seriously considered here and in Great Britain is to set an arbitrary age cap on receiving health benefits. This hearkens back to an idea originally espoused as far back as 1987 by Daniel Callahan, that humans have an average expected life span (figures of 70 yrs. to 85 yrs. have been mentioned in discussions of this point) and persons who have lived up to this age have no right to expect that we extend them medical care beyond it.

In other words, we are not here talking about a situation where, for example, if two patients, a 75 year old and a 25 year old were competing for the same donated liver, then the relative age of the patients would be one factor health care workers could take into account when making the decision as to who gets the organ. This proposed policy would instead use age alone as the sole criterion for denial of care. And it would not be health care workers but government who would exclude the 75 year old by setting a standard which would deny him/her from receiving health benefits on the basis of age alone!

A point made in these discussions is that such a person has put in enough innings in the game of life and its time to pull them out of the game and put another younger person in, whether they want to come out or not. They will thus not be brought on board the lifeboat of health care.

Situation Two: Are you ill as the result of a lifestyle choice? For example, have you been a heavy smoker or drinker and now things have caught up with you? You should have serious worries about whether Obama will let you into his lifeboat, even if you are not now at an advanced age. Hershel Elliot, an ardent supporter of Harden’s work, succinctly summarized its relevance to healthcare rationing by lifestyle in a 2003 article when he said, “You are unlikely to learn to take care of your health, if you are free to abuse your body by overeating, lack of exercise, and dangerous behavior while society must pay the costs of restoring your health. When individuals are free to damage their own health and society has to pay the costs of curing them, medical costs can spiral out of control.”

Of course, his conclusion is that since these individuals’ health situations came about as a result of their own behavior arising from their lifestyle choices, then society has no moral responsibility to bring them aboard the lifeboat of healthcare and is justified in leaving them alone in the water to suffer the consequences of their choices. Not only will care be rationed on the basis of lifestyle choices in the proposed Obama plan, but government bureaucrats will use the threat of denial of care as the basis for meddlesome intervention into people’s private lifestyle choices. If the government is picking up the bill, either in whole or in part, then these choices are not private anymore!

Curiously, the one application of Garrett Harden’s Lifeboat analogy that his followers judiciously choose to leave out when they apply his views to healthcare, but which might be the most relevant, is the one he himself made in his original article in connection with our moral obligation to supply food aid to poor nations. And that point, which is just as applicable to healthcare, is that Marxist-inspired, redistributionist ethics won’t work. If we apply the Marxist principle of “to each according to his needs” and bring 100 additional needy swimmers out of the water into a nearly full lifeboat that only holds 60, then the lifeboat sinks and everyone loses out.

And sadly, this could be the impact of the Obama, socialist-inspired, universal healthcare plan: it will either sink the US healthcare system lifeboat or drain the economy that keeps it afloat.

Victor Morawski teaches philosophy at Coppin State University. His column, "The Philosopher's Stone," is distributed nationally free of charge by the Liberty Features Syndicate. Should you wish to subscribe, contact Alex Rosenwald at alex@libertyfeatures.com.

56 Freedom Fighters

2009-07-01T19:59:00.000-07:00

DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE (The Republic)

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

*Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.

*Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army;
another had two sons captured.

*Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.

*They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, Nine were farmers and large
plantation owners; men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence
knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

*Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the
British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

*Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost
constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding.
His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of *Dillery, *Hall, *Clymer, *Walton, *Gwinnett,
*Heyward, *Ruttledge, and *Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, *Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had
taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington
to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

*Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died
within a few months.

*John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives.
His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves,
returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.

So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots.
It's not much to ask for the price they paid.

Remember: freedom is never free!

Restore Our Constitution and Prosecute the Oath Violators!

http://www.resistnet.com

http://www.resistnet.com/group/wethepeoplemarchonwashington

http://www.americangrandjury.org

How to Catch a Wild Pig

2009-07-01T06:15:00.001-07:00

There was a Chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Prof noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country’s government and install a new communist government. In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question.

He asked, ‘ Do you know how to catch wild pigs?’ The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. ‘You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how To forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. while we continually lose our freedoms- just a little at a time.

One should always remember ‘There is no such thing as a free Lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

I just don’t know how some people don’t get this..

Dear England....

2009-06-30T15:54:00.000-07:00

Universal UnHealthy Care

2009-06-29T10:35:00.000-07:00

Dissecting the Kennedy Health Bill
No, you won't be able to keep your insurance if you like it.

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
Wall Street Journal

Last September Sen. Barack Obama promised that under his health-care proposal "you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves." On Monday, President Obama repeated that promise in a speech to the American Medical Association. It's not true.

The president is barnstorming the nation, urging swift approval of legislation that is taking shape in Congress. This legislation -- the Affordable Health Choices Act that's being drafted by Sen. Edward Kennedy's staff and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee -- will push Americans into stingy insurance plans with tight, HMO-style controls. It specifically exempts members of Congress (along with federal employees; the exemptions are in section 3116).

Members of Congress "enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country," according to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. They "can choose from among consumer-driven and high deductible plans that offer catastrophic risk protection with higher deductibles, health saving/reimbursable accounts and lower premiums, or fee-for-service (FFS) plans, and their preferred provider organizations (PPO), or health maintenance organizations (HMO)." These choices would be nice for all of us, but they're not in the offing. Instead, if you don't enroll in a "qualified" health plan and submit proof of enrollment to the federal government, you'll be tracked down and fined (sections 3101 and 6055).

For a health plan to count as "qualified," it has to meet all the restrictions listed in the legislation and whatever criteria the Secretary of Health and Human Services imposes after the bill becomes law. You may think you're in a "qualified" plan, but the language suggests that only plans with managed-care controls such as the "medical home" will meet the definition (sections 3101 and 2707).

"Medical home" is this decade's version of HMO-style insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office, with a primary-care provider to manage your access to costly services such as visits to specialists and diagnostic tests. Medical home providers in "qualified" plans, states the Kennedy bill, will have a "payment structure" based on "incentives" rather than payments for each doctor visit or procedure (section 3101).

These requirements are reminiscent of the unpopular controls HMOs imposed two decades ago that caused public outrage and led to state laws reining in abuses. In December 2008, a Congressional Budget Office report evaluating early drafts of major federal health insurance proposals noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the HMO gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control is a priority.

That report specifically referred to a payment incentive called the "withhold." When HMOs became dominant in the early 1990s, they would withhold 10% or more of physicians' fees until the end of the year and give it back only to the physicians who met targets for limiting how many referrals to specialists or diagnostic tests their patients used.

The targets were so stringent that, if they were exceeded, what a doctor prescribed for you came out of your doctor's own pocket at the end of the year. This set up a conflict of interest between you and your doctor.

Mr. Obama tried to put a positive spin on such cost controls in his June 13 weekly radio address. He said "if doctors have incentives to provide the best care, instead of more care, we can help Americans avoid unnecessary hospital stays, treatments and tests that drive up costs." Fair enough -- if you want your doctor paid to police your care and to be financially penalized for that extra test or referral you get.

It is reasonable to require that people who accept a government subsidy for health insurance tolerate cost controls to protect taxpayers. But according to the terms of the Kennedy bill, you must enroll in a "qualified" plan or face a fine, even if you and your employer are paying the entire cost of the plan you already have (section 161).

The president has promised that if you like your plan you can keep it. Mr. Kennedy's bill says that too. It's doubletalk, as the consequences of nonenrollment make clear. How big a fine will you face? The bill doesn't specify or set a limit. It says the fine will be enough to "accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage" (section 161).

If legislation similar to the Kennedy bill lands on Mr. Obama's desk, he has an obligation to keep his promises to the American people and veto it. And whatever health-insurance law is passed should apply to members of Congress. If it isn't good enough for them, it shouldn't be imposed on the rest of us.

Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York state.

Census Could Send People to Camps

2009-06-28T07:19:00.000-07:00

Please pass on this very frightening article.

Friday, June 26, 2009 8:36 PM

By: Rick Pedraza

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., says Americans should refuse to comply with the Obama administration’s 2010 census because the data could be used for nefarious purposes, including the imprisonment of Americans in internment camps.

Appearing on Fox News, Bachmann said it was the census that allowed the internment of the Japanese during World War II. She also boasted about breaking the law in refusing to complete the census form she received.

“If we look at American history -- between 1942 and 1947 -- the data that was collected by the Census Bureau was handed over to the FBI and other organizations at the request of President Roosevelt,” Bachmann said.

“That’s how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps. I’m not saying that’s what the administration is planning to do. But I am saying that private, personal information that was given to the Census Bureau in the 1940s was used against Americans to round them up.”

Bachmann said she was shocked that the census would ask for people’s telephone numbers. Although not required by law, the numbers are used only to contact recipients who have incomplete forms.

Bachmann also doesn’t like the fact the census asks about one’s age, race, and the type of home one lives in. According to the Census Bureau, questions on race have been asked since 1790; home language since 1890; rent since 1880; and income since 1940. The Census Bureau has asked what kind of heating fuel heats Americans’ homes since 1940.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Charles Krauthammer Speech

2009-06-26T13:24:00.000-07:00

Subject: KRAUTHAMMER SPEECH SUMMARY

Last Monday was a profound evening hearing Dr. Charles Krauthammer speak to the Center for the American Experiment. He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright & careful in his analysis; news resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments & views. He is a fiscal conservative & has a Pulitzer prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News & writes weekly for the Washington Post. The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have shared this w/many of you & several have asked me to summarize his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally. Even two Dems at my table agreed w/everything he said!

A summary of his comments:

1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a 'cool customer' who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's 'behind the mask'. Taking down the Clinton dynasty by a political neophyte was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.

2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan & Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing w/ your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attn. to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!

3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can't be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, & wants to 'level the playing field' w/income redistribution & punishment of the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada.

4. His 3 main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, & NAT'L HEALTHCARE by the Fed. govt. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap & trade will add costs to everything & stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is healthcare program, because if you make it FREE& add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go thru the roof. The only way to control costs is w/ massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada. God forbid.

5. He's surrounded himself w/mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever run even a candy store. But they're going to try to run the auto, financial, banking & other industries. This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama's not a socialist; rather a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.

6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the USA, more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries & their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany & England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the 1st President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!

7. He's now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (& pain) will not 'come due' until after he's reelected in 2012. He'd like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, & hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego; Mr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.

8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. We're 'pining' for another Reagan, but there'll never be another like him. He believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in Feb.) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere & intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts & info if she's to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes smaller govt., personal responsibility, strong Nat'l defense, & states' rights.

9. The current level of spending is irresponsible & outrageous. We're spending trillions that we don't have. This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid & Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due & people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the stimulus pkg. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions & the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.

10. The election was over in mid-Sept. when Lehman brothers failed. Fear & panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, demonized by the media, & the war was grinding on indefinitely w/o a clear outcome. The people are in pain & the mantra of 'change' caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.

11. In 2010 and 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it'll be a dogfight. It'll all be about the economy.

I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington & Congress. There's a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer & he encourages us to keep the faith & join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we're right on most issues & can reclaim our country, before it's far too late. Rick

The One

2009-06-21T20:11:00.000-07:00

Written by a Pastor's Wife

And it came to pass in the Age of Insanity that the people ofthe land called America, having lost their morals, their initiative,and their will to defend their liberties, chose as their Supreme Leader that person known as "The One".

He emerged from the vapors with a message that had no meaning; but He hypnotized the people; telling them, "I am sent to save you.
My lack of experience, my questionable ethics, my monstrous ego,and my association with evil doers are of no consequence. For I shall save you with Hope and Change.

Go, therefore, and proclaim throughout the land that he who preceded me is evil, that he has defiled the nation, and that all he has built must be destroyed." And the people rejoiced, for even though they knew not what "The One" would do, he had promised that it was good; and they believed.

And "The One" said "We live in the greatest country in the world. Help me
change everything about it!"

And the people said, "Hallelujah! Change is good!"

Then He said, "We are going to tax the rich fat-cats." And the people said "Sock it to them!""And redistribute their wealth."

And the people said, "Show us the money!" And then He said, "Redistribution of wealth is good for everybody"

And Joe the plumber asked, "Are you kidding me? You're going to steal my money and give it to the deadbeats??" And "The One" ridiculed and taunted him, and Joe's
personal records were hacked and publicized.

One lone reporter asked, "Isn't that Marxist policy?" And she was banished from the kingdom!

Then a citizen asked, "With no foreign relations experience and having zero military experience or knowledge, how will you deal with radical terrorists?" And "The One" said, "Simple. I shall sit with them and talk with them and show them how nice we really are; and they will forget that they ever wanted to kill us all!" And the people said, "Hallelujah!! We are safe at last, and we can beat our weapons into free cars for the people!"

Then "The One" said, "I shall give 95% of you lower taxes." And one, lone voice said, "But 40% of us don't pay ANY taxes." So "The One" said, "Then I shall give you some of the taxes the fat-cats pay!" And the people said, "Hallelujah!! Show us the money!"

Then"The One" said, "I shall tax your Capital Gains when you sell your homes!" And the people yawned and the slumping housing market collapsed. And He said, "I shall mandate employer-funded health care for EVERY worker and raise the minimum wage. And I shall give every person unlimited healthcare and medicine and transportation to the clinics." And the people said, "Give me some of that!"

Then he said, "I shall penalize employers who ship jobsoverseas." And the people said, "Where's my rebate check?"

Then "The One" said, "I shall bankrupt the coal industry and electricity rates will skyrocket!" And the people said, "Coal is dirty, coal is evil, no more coal! But we don't care for that part about higher electric rates." So "The One" said, "Not to worry. If your rebate isn't enough to cover your expenses, we shall bail you
out. Just sign up with ACORN and your troubles are over!"

Then He said,"Illegal immigrants feel scorned and slighted. Let's grant them amnesty, Social Security, free education, free lunches, free medical care, bi-lingual signs and guaranteed housing..." And the people said, "Hallelujah!!" And they made him King!

And so it came to pass that employers, facing spiraling costs and ever-higher taxes, raised their prices and laid off workers. Others simply gave up and went out of business and the economy sank like unto a rock dropped from a cliff.

The banking industry was destroyed. Manufacturing slowed to a crawl. And more of the people were without a means of support.

Then "The One" said, "I am the "The One" - The Messiah - and I'm here to save you! We shall just print more money so everyone will have enough!" But our foreign trading partners said unto Him, "Waita minute. Your dollar is not worth a pile of camel dung! You will have to pay more..." And the people said, "Wait a minute. That is unfair!!" And the world said, "Neither are these other idiotic
programs you have embraced. Lo, you have become a Socialist state and a second-rate power. Now you shall play by our rules!"

And the people cried out, "Alas, alas!! What have we done?" But yea verily, it was too late. The people set upon "The One" and spat upon him and stoned him, and his name was dung. And the once mighty nation was no more; and the once proud people were without sustenance or shelter or hope.

And the Change "The One" had given them was as like unto a poison that had destroyed them and like a whirlwind that consumed all that they had built. And the people beat their chests in despair and cried out in anguish, "Give us back our nation and our pride and our hope!!" But it was too late, and their homeland was no more.

You may think this is a fairy tale, but it's not.

It's happening RIGHT NOW!!!

Looking for a Leader

2009-06-17T11:42:00.000-07:00

Letter from an American

June 17, 2009

I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now.

You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill. I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars. I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why -- what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band-Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try -- please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now. Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work, pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when he will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

When Should Americans Take Action?

2009-06-16T17:51:00.000-07:00

Contributed by A Patriot

"Today, a ghostly question of the past hangs over America as a reminder of the penalty for complacency. That question is, "What should the German people have done, and when should they have done it?". Historically, Americans try to rectify domestic wrongs in courts, or at the ballot box. If the administration continues to tilt the courts away from justice, and stuffs the ballot box with the votes of 13 million newly created Hispanic "citizens" from illegal aliens, what then is the recourse? Do the words, "In the course of human events...." begin to take on a more current meaning? Will there be a 'forced' call to arms? Where is the line in the sand?

Just what is the "requirement" for the Internal Security Force in this country? Why would such a force be necessary? Is it in anticipation of the response of patriots pushed too far into a corner? Perhaps we shall see. If the balance of power cannot be restored in the federal government, if the Constitution becomes a meaningless document due to bureaucratic shredding, the answer to these questions may not be pleasant for those accustomed to peace in the streets of America. It will be a sad day for Lady Liberty, if freedom cannot be managed through the open discourse of informed citizens. And, if the mainstream media continues to delude citizens, they will carry the stigma of traitors for the rest of history.

It has been said that people get the type of government they deserve. If that be true, will we remain free, or will we become slaves to an all powerful socialist government? In the end, we will get the kind of government we deserve based on our action, or inaction, in response to a clear and present danger to our freedom. Is that not the same predicament faced by the founders of the Republic? Have we lost our moral and ethical bearing, our principles, our values, and our courage to the extent that we will actually relinquish our freedom and dignity without so much as a whimper? We are rapidly approaching a deadline for
answering that question one way or another."

Beware Obamacare

2009-06-14T05:58:00.000-07:00

A New Public Health Plan: How Congressional Details Will Impact Doctors and Patients
by Greg D'Angelo

President Obama and congressional leaders are proposing the creation of a new public health insurance plan to compete with private insurance plans. The President first proposed a public insurance option during the 2008
presidential campaign, but now the details and design of this new option--like most other aspects of the health reform legislation currently under development--have been left almost entirely to Congress.

Many in Congress are looking to Medicare as a model for a new public health plan, yet they fail to realize the consequences for patients and providers alike, as millions of Americans would lose the private coverage that they have today.

Crucial Details

According to the Lewin Group, a nationally prominent econometrics firm, the two most crucial design details of this new option are the size of employers eligible to buy into the new plan and the provider payment levels used for reimbursement under the plan.

These key issues are bound to be contentious in the upcoming debate over health care reform. The Obama campaign proposal would have made individuals without employer coverage, the self-employed, and small employers (defined as fewer than 25 employees) eligible for the public plan. But the President never specified provider payment levels or the method for
determining reimbursement rates for doctors, hospitals, and other medical professionals for the thousands of medical services that would be delivered.

Members of Congress and their staffs will thus have to hammer out these crucial details in legislation if a public plan is to be introduced.

Unlevel Playing Field

If Congress creates a public plan modeled on Medicare--as some have previously proposed--the result, of course, would be to undercut any pretense of a promised "level playing field" for competition with private health insurance.[4] Public plan premiums would be 25-40 percent lower than private insurance premiums as the public plan would reimburse providers less
than private payers would--and often less than the cost of care delivered.

Payment rates for doctors and hospitals under public programs are set administratively, not by the market. They are, on average, lower than private payment rates for similar care.[5] Medicare provider payments for hospital care are only 71 percent of private rates, while Medicare provider payments for physician care are only 81 percent of private rates.[6] In
other words, Medicare payment levels are roughly 19-29 percent lower than private levels.

Congress's ability to impose low provider payments and artificially reduce the cost of the public option compared to private insurance will increase enrollment in the public plan while crowding out, or displacing, existing private coverage.

Loss of Private Coverage

When considering a public plan modeled after Medicare, Lewin finds that the estimated reduction in the number of uninsured does not vary greatly (observing a change of only 800,000 individuals) as eligibility for the plan
is extended beyond small employers to employers of all sizes.[7] Instead, there is a substantial increase in enrollment in the public plan and in the loss of private coverage.

If the public plan were opened to only small employers, enrollment in the public plan would reach 42.9 million, and 32 million Americans would lose their private coverage.[8] However, if the public plan is opened to all employers, enrollment in the public plan increases dramatically to 131.2 million, and 119.1 million Americans would lose their private coverage. In this particular case, of the 171.6 million people who currently have private coverage, about 70 percent of them would lose the coverage that they have today.

More specifically, of the estimated 157.4 million Americans who have private employer coverage, up to 107.6 million people could lose their private employer coverage, even if they like it and would prefer to keep it.[11]

Imposing Higher Costs on Individuals and Families

Increased enrollment in a new public plan would likely result in higher premiums for those with private insurance.

Historically, public programs--specifically Medicare and Medicaid--have reimbursed providers at levels below the costs of their services. For example, in 2003, on average, Medicare paid hospitals only 95 percent of the cost of providing services, while Medicaid paid hospitals only 89 percent of the cost of providing services.[12] These below-cost payments in public
programs are at least in part offset by above-cost reimbursements to providers by private payers--as evidenced by hospital reimbursements to the tune of 122 percent of costs in 2003.[13] This cost-shift, in turn, inflates private health insurance premiums for individuals and families.[14]

The cost-shift dynamic plays a prominent role in the health care sector. A study by the actuarial firm Milliman calculated that public programs currently shift $88.8 billion in costs onto private payers per year, increasing the typical American family's annual private health insurance premium by $1,512, or 10.6 percent.[15] Moreover, Lewin speculates that a new public plan could increase the annual cost-shift per privately insured by as much as $526, which will only serve to further perpetuate the
crowd-out of private insurance.[16]

Lower Incomes for Physician and Hospitals

A new public plan could also significantly reduce provider incomes. As more people gain insurance, physicians and hospitals would benefit from decreased levels of uncompensated care. However, the increase in public coverage along with new demands to provide services to the newly insured could outweigh any increased revenues from reductions in uncompensated care.

If all employers become eligible for the public plan, the annual net income of hospitals could fall by $36 billion while the annual net income of physicians could drop by $33.1 billion. Increasing demands on health care providers coupled with decreasing provider incomes could compromise patients' access to high-quality care. Faced with low reimbursement, doctors
are already reportedly opting out of Medicare--a problem that is likely to be exacerbated with the creation of a new public plan.

Consider the Consequences

Discussions surrounding the creation of a new public plan, based on Medicare and intended to compete with private health plans, have not adequately considered the potential consequences for patients and providers. Creating a new public health plan option is likely in direct conflict with the many promises Congress and the Obama Administration have made regarding health reform.

While many claim that a public plan would merely represent an alternative choice to private health plans operating on "a level playing field," the reality is that Congress will use the government's power to artificially deflate the cost of the public plan by lowering provider reimbursement rates.

It has been suggested repeatedly that if Americans like their health plan they can keep it and that nothing would change except that they would pay less. But the creation of a new public plan modeled on Medicare could result in the loss of the private coverage that millions have today by undermining the current system of employer-sponsored insurance. Those who are actually able to keeping their private insurance will likely be forced to pay more--not less--to cross-subsidize the public plan.

While patients have been ensured their choice of doctor and care without government interference, great uncertainties remain regarding what the future holds for the doctor-patient relationship as millions of Americans are pushed into a new public plan.

The Devil Is in the Details

It is unlikely that Congress and the President will be able enact a major overhaul of the health care system that both includes a new public health insurance option and meets their many oft-stated promises.

When it comes to health care policy, what politicians promise is less important than the details of their policy prescriptions. Watch carefully.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2482.cfm

Obama's Arabian Dreams

2009-06-07T07:51:00.001-07:00

Jun 5, 2009 20:31 | Updated Jun 7, 2009 5:14
Column One: Obama's Arabian dreams
By CAROLINE GLICK

US President Barack Obama claims to be a big fan of telling the truth. In media interviews ahead of his trip to Saudi Arabia and Egypt and during his big speech in Cairo on Thursday, he claimed that the centerpiece of his Middle East policy is his willingness to tell people hard truths.

Indeed, Obama made three references to the need to tell the truth in his so-called address to the Muslim world.

Unfortunately, for a speech billed as an exercise in truth telling, Obama's address fell short. Far from reflecting hard truths, Obama's speech reflected political convenience.

Obama's so-called hard truths for the Islamic world included statements about the need to fight so-called extremists; give equal rights to women; provide freedom of religion; and foster democracy. Unfortunately, all of his statements on these issues were nothing more than abstract, theoretical declarations devoid of policy prescriptions.

He spoke of the need to fight Islamic terrorists without mentioning that their intellectual, political and monetary foundations and support come from the very mosques, politicians and regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt that Obama extols as moderate and responsible.

He spoke of the need to grant equality to women without making mention of common Islamic practices like so-called honor killings, and female genital mutilation. He ignored the fact that throughout the lands of Islam women are denied basic legal and human rights. And then he qualified his statement by mendaciously claiming that women in the US similarly suffer from an equality deficit. In so discussing this issue, Obama sent the message that he couldn't care less about the plight of women in the Islamic world.

So, too, Obama spoke about the need for religious freedom but ignored Saudi Arabian religious apartheid. He talked about the blessings of democracy but ignored the problems of tyranny.

In short, Obama's "straight talk" to the Arab world, which began with his disingenuous claim that like America, Islam is committed to "justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings," was consciously and fundamentally fraudulent. And this fraud was advanced to facilitate his goal of placing the Islamic world on equal moral footing with the free world.

In a like manner, Obama's tough "truths" about Israel were marked by factual and moral dishonesty in the service of political ends.

On the surface, Obama seemed to scold the Muslim world for its all-pervasive Holocaust denial and craven Jew hatred. By asserting that Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism are wrong, he seemed to be upholding his earlier claim that America's ties to Israel are "unbreakable."

Unfortunately, a careful study of his statements shows that Obama was actually accepting the Arab view that Israel is a foreign - and therefore unjustifiable - intruder in the Arab world. Indeed, far from attacking their rejection of Israel, Obama legitimized it.

The basic Arab argument against Israel is that the only reason Israel was established was to soothe the guilty consciences of Europeans who were embarrassed about the Holocaust. By their telling, the Jews have no legal, historic or moral rights to the Land of Israel.

This argument is completely false. The international community recognized the legal, historic and moral rights of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel long before anyone had ever heard of Adolf Hitler. In 1922, the League of Nations mandated the "reconstitution" - not the creation - of the Jewish commonwealth in the Land of Israel in its historic borders on both sides of the Jordan River.

But in his self-described exercise in truth telling, Obama ignored this basic truth in favor of the Arab lie. He gave credence to this lie by stating wrongly that "the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history."

He then explicitly tied Israel's establishment to the Holocaust by moving to a self-serving history lesson about the genocide of European Jewry.

Even worse than his willful blindness to the historic, legal and moral justifications for Israel's rebirth, was Obama's characterization of Israel itself. Obama blithely, falsely and obnoxiously compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians to white American slave owners' treatment of their black slaves. He similarly cast Palestinian terrorists in the same morally pure category as slaves. Perhaps most repulsively, Obama elevated Palestinian terrorism to the moral heights of slave rebellions and the US civil rights movement by referring to it by its Arab euphemism, "resistance."

BUT AS disappointing and frankly obscene as Obama's rhetoric was, the policies he outlined were much worse. While prattling about how Islam and America are two sides of the same coin, Obama managed to spell out two clear policies. First, he announced that he will compel Israel to completely end all building for Jews in Judea, Samaria, and eastern, northern and southern Jerusalem. Second, he said that he will strive to convince Iran to substitute its nuclear weapons program with a nuclear energy program.

Obama argued that the first policy will facilitate peace and the second policy will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Upon reflection, however, it is clear that neither of his policies can possibly achieve his stated aims. Indeed, their inability to accomplish the ends he claims he has adopted them to advance is so obvious, that it is worth considering what his actual rationale for adopting them may be.

The administration's policy toward Jewish building in Israel's heartland and capital city expose a massive level of hostility toward Israel. Not only does it fly in the face of explicit US commitments to Israel undertaken by the Bush administration, it contradicts a longstanding agreement between successive Israeli and American governments not to embarrass each other.

Moreover, the fact that the administration cannot stop attacking Israel about Jewish construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, but has nothing to say about Hizbullah's projected democratic takeover of Lebanon next week, Hamas's genocidal political platform, Fatah's involvement in terrorism, or North Korean ties to Iran and Syria, has egregious consequences for the prospects for peace in the region.

Full Article Here

Eligibility Issue Heating Up

2009-06-03T07:33:00.000-07:00

BORN IN THE USA?
White House 'dialogue' site scrubbed of eligibility posts
Many Obama birth certificate queries yanked from 'transparency' debate
Posted: June 02, 2009
8:43 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

One 'top-rated' listing features more than 550 'looks promising' votes on the Obama eligibility issue
With more than 200 individual threads and thousands of comments on the eligibility issue alone, moderators of the White House website on "open government dialogue" have been working tirelessly to edit the dialogue about Barack Obama's elusive "long-form" birth certificate.

Many of the top-rated threads are from citizens calling on Obama to release his birth certificate. The postings in the "top rated" category have received the most "looks promising" votes from users. New threads on the topic of Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president are appearing by the minute.

WND observed the "Making Data More Accessible" section for several hours as more suggestions appeared and at least 60 were subsequently deleted on the first page alone – all requests for the president to submit proof of citizenship.

One deleted post echoed many others in asking President Obama to "Prove that you are a U.S. citizen and valid president."

The post asks why Obama doesn't simply release his "real birth certificate and end all of this controversy."

"Are you a fraud?" it asks. "Is your election to the highest office in the land the largest scam ever pulled on the American people? Are you really not eligible for office? End the speculation and prove who you are."

Let Obama and everyone else know you care about the Constitution. Take part in the WND's "Where's the Birth Certificate?" billboard campaign!

Another removed thread titled, "Where is the Obama legal documentation to prove who he actually is?" asked the president to provide the following documents: original, vault copy birth certificate, records of attorney fees, marriage and divorce records for Obama's parents, passport, adoption records, school records and various other documents.

One displeased user who had his post deleted wrote, "I posted a comment about the lack of transparency in President Obama's administration and history, and down it came in minutes. So much for a open dialogue or, for that matter, freedom of speech."

Another man suggested U.S. citizens consider a class-action lawsuit against President Obama until he surrenders his documents. His post stated, in part:

Dear President, If only you would show us your long form birth certificate that shows location (hospital) of birth as well as attending physician info.
Be it duly noted that We the People of this constitutional republic do hereby note many of the abuses of power that you and your administration's representatives are currently engaged in.

We the People do hereby certify that we are considering all legal options available to restrict your audacity to run roughshod over the Constitution, abuse of power and office, as well as spending too much friggin' money when we are, as a nation, broke. …

His post was subsequently deleted.

"Who would have thought that even contemplating such action would be required against a sitting president and administration? A class-action approach may be the only viable way to force reporting in the mainstream press," he told WND.

Meanwhile, a thread titled "Contact the media to get it out in the open that the 'birthers' are a racist terrorist organization practicing electronic espionage" remained in place for much of the day while messages from the so-called "birthers" were removed. It has now been flagged. A link for providing news tips to CNN accompanied the message.

However, at least 200 threads urging Obama to prove his eligibility still remain.

The website dialogue is hosted by the National Academy of Public Administration. Its website says it operates a moderation policy "to ensure that your comments are appropriate and not harmful to others." Comments on the Open Government website may be deleted if they include the following:

Threats or incitements to violence
Obscenity
Duplicate posts
Posts revealing your own or others' sensitive/personal information (e.g., Social Security numbers)
Information posted in violation of law, including libel, condoning or encouraging illegal activity, revealing classified information, or comments which might affect the outcome of ongoing legal proceedings
"Moreover, while we invite open participation and diverse viewpoints to be shared, the main goal of this dialogue is to answer the overarching question: How can we strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative?" the National Academy of Public Administration website states. "Moderators therefore reserve the right to remove posts which are not 'on topic' or do not address some aspect of that question. Our desire is to remove as few posts as possible while ensuring that a focused, constructive discussion takes place."

The "brainstorming" phase of public engagement in policymaking is coming to a close at midnight tonight as the suggestions are compiled for a "discussion" phase.

But despite the resounding popularity of the subject of Obama's eligibility, it is still undetermined whether the topic will be included in the next phase.

"Our goal is to use the ideas from this first phase of the process as well as other input to inform deeper discussion on the Open Government blog in the Discussion phase," a message posted on the White House website states. "While the voting on the brainstorming submissions will be instructive, it will not determine which topics are discussed in the second phase. Rather, the Discussion is designed to dig in on harder topics that require greater exploration or refinement."

The website will keep the "brainstorming" portion active and open to public participation through June 19, but new posts may not feed into further discussion.

As WND reported, on Sunday night only 30 percent of respondents in one of the 200 forums demanded the president release the document. But that number exploded to nearly 80 percent the following day after WND alerted the public to the White House resource.

The entire transparency portion of the website has been overrun with citizens demanding presentation of the long-form birth certificate. Every one of more than 200 threads features dozens – and even hundreds – of people in agreement that Obama should release the document.

Meanwhile, the visibility of the Obama birth certificate issue has also been raised by a new national billboard campaign initiated by Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND. Launched just over a week ago, the campaign has raised about $65,000 and begun erecting billboards that ask the question, "Where's the birth certificate?"

That campaign followed one launched months earlier to collect names on an electronic petition demanding accountability and transparency on the issue. So far, that petition has gathered nearly 400,000 names.

In his questioning of White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, WND White House correspondent Les Kinsolving specifically made reference to the WND petition.

"Are you looking for the president's birth certificate?" he asked incredulously. "Lester, this question in many ways continues to astound me. The state of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the president's birth. I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people – (laughter) – that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the state of Hawaii of the president's birth there, but it's on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download. I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we'll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy."

It was the first time any member of the press corps has publicly asked a member of the administration a question directly related to Obama's constitutional eligibility for office as a "natural born citizen."

Farah announced the billboard campaign to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard, "long-form" birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.

The "Certification of Live Birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information like the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," but no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Both the petition and the billboard campaign are part of what Farah calls an independent "truth and transparency campaign."

The first sign to be posted under the week-old campaign, a digital, electronic one, is up and online on Highway 165 in Ball, La. – the result of a donation by the owner. In addition, based on the heavy volume of financial donations in the first two days of the campaign, WND was able to commit to leasing two more standard billboards – one in Los Angeles and the other in Pennsylvania. It will take several weeks to get those billboards up because of the vinyl printing and shipping involved. Yesterday, WND agreed to lease another electronic billboard in Orange County, Calif.

While the campaign is off to a robust start, many viewers have asked why Obama's name is not included in the billboard. Farah said the matter was carefully considered.

"There are several reasons we chose the message: 'Where's the birth certificate?'" he explained. "There is only one birth certificate controversy in this country today – despite the near-total absence of this issue from coverage in the non-WND media. This is a grass-roots issue that resonates around the country, as our own online petition with nearly 400,000 signers suggests. In addition, I like the simplicity of the message. I like the fact that the message will cause some people to ask themselves or others about the meaning of the message. It will stir curiosity. It will create a buzz. I'm assuming when these billboards are springing up all over the country, it might even make some in the news media curious. And there's one more factor that persuaded me this was the way to go.

Birth certificate question being raised in Ball, La.

"Come 2012, campaign laws will pose restrictions on political advertising mentioning the names of presidential candidates. This one clearly doesn't. I would like to see the federal government make the case that this is somehow a political ad," he said.

Farah said the campaign was born of frustration with timid elected officials in Washington, corrupt judges around the country and a news media that show a stunning lack of curiosity about the most basic facts of Obama's background – especially how it relates to constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land.

"As Obama transforms this country from self-governing constitutional republic to one governed by a central ruling elite, the simple fact remains that no controlling legal authority has established that he is indeed a 'natural born citizen' as the Constitution requires," Farah said. "Obama's promises of transparency have become a bad joke as he continues to hide simple, innocuous documents like his birth certificate and his student records."

The idea behind the billboard campaign is to make sure Obama cannot avoid this question any longer. He must be asked to produce it at every turn, Farah says. Billboard space is currently being hunted in Houston, Dallas, Sacramento, San Francisco, Seattle and other metro areas.

"Is it unusual for a news agency to launch such a campaign?" asks Farah. "Yes it is. But we live in very unusual times. The founding fathers built special protections into the First Amendment for the free press. The reason they did that is because they understood a vibrant 'Fourth Estate' was necessary as an independent watchdog on government. It is in that tradition that WND assumes this role – since nobody else in the press will do it."

WND previously launched a petition campaign that has collected more than 375,000 names demanding Obama's eligibility be verified and demonstrated publicly. That campaign continues. That list has been shared with members of the Electoral College and the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

"I wish such a campaign were not absolutely necessary," said Farah. "I wish there were checks and balances in our political and electoral systems to ensure that constitutional eligibility of presidential candidates was established before politicians could assume the highest office in the land. I wish my colleagues in the news media believed the Constitution really means what it says and pressed this issue as hard as we have pressed it at WND. I wish radio talk-show hosts were bold enough to ask this question. But wishing is not enough. It's time to raise the visibility of this issue vital to the rule of law in America. I ask everyone to pitch in and help WND make a simple yet profound statement: The Constitution still matters."

Your donation – from as little as $5 to as much as $1,000 – can be made online at the WND SuperStore. (Donations are not tax-deductible. Donations of amounts greater than $1,000 can be arranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or 1-800-4WND.COM. If you would prefer to mail in your contributions, they should be directed to WND, P.O. Box 1627, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Be sure to specify the purpose of the donation by writing "billboard" on the check. In addition, donations of billboard space will be accepted, as will significant contributions specifically targeted for geographic locations.)

If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

2009-06-02T14:06:00.001-07:00

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 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, and 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 that 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 responsible 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.
Lou Pritchett

Obama: Iran Can Go Nuclear

2009-06-02T06:58:00.000-07:00

Is he nuts?

Obama says Iran's energy concerns legitimate
By NANCY ZUCKERBROD
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 2, 2009 9:24 AM

LONDON -- President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.

In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.

Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.

"What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race.

The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington.

"Although I don't want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we've actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious," Obama said.

Obama's interview offered a preview of a speech he is to deliver in Egypt this week, saying he hoped the address would warm relations between Americans and Muslims abroad.

"What we want to do is open a dialogue," Obama told the BBC. "You know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."

Obama leaves in the evening on a trip to Egypt and Saudi Arabia aimed at reaching out to the world's 1.5 billion Muslims. He is due to make his speech in Cairo on Thursday.

Obama sounded an optimistic note about making progress toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although he offered no new ideas for how he might try to secure a freeze on new building of Israeli settlements. The United States has called for a freeze, but Israeli leaders have rejected that.

Asked what he would say during his visit about human rights abuses, including the detention of political prisoners in Egypt, Obama indicated no stern lecture would be forthcoming.

He said he hoped to deliver the message that democratic values are principles that "they can embrace and affirm."

Obama added that there is a danger "when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture."

Where Have You Gone, Ronald Reagan?

2009-06-01T14:18:00.000-07:00

Reagan’s Unfinished Agenda
A potent brew for the Tea Parties?

By Steven F. Hayward

Two questions currently preoccupy intramural conversations on the right. This first is, What’s up with the Tea Parties? Is this wave of spontaneous protests against President Obama’s program of sharply higher taxes and spending a movement of genuine depth, or just a spasm of discontent over losing an election? Once the teabags have been thrown figuratively into Boston Harbor again, is there a program, or just a caffeine jolt?

The second question is, Are the principles and example of Ronald Reagan still relevant for conservatives? Reagan ran at a different time; his famous axiom that “government is not the solution to our problems—government is the problem” is said to be inapplicable to the current economic crisis, which requires substantial government intervention to avoid total calamity. Some Republican leaders and even some conservatives say it is time to “get beyond Reagan,” and look for something or someone new and different.

There will never be another Ronald Reagan, but before discarding his principles and example the Right might wish to ask itself a serious question about why what was called “the Reagan Revolution” 25 years ago is being apparently swept away with such ease by President Obama. Why didn’t the Reagan Revolution succeed in erecting any lasting barriers to the governmental gigantism we are seeing today? What might Reagan say about this if he were surveying the scene now? Answering these questions might provide a program around which the Tea Party phenomenon can coalesce into a consequential movement.

The answer is contained in what I call “Mansfield’s Razor,” after Harvey Mansfield of Harvard University. Right after Reagan’s election in 1980, Mansfield wrote, “Reagan would be well advised to find his conservatism in the Constitution rather than to adopt a conservative populism. If he does the latter, he is likely to discover that the radical means of populism will overcome and outlast the conservative ends.” The paradox of American constitutionalism is that it rests our government on a popular basis, but also deliberately constrains government precisely to safeguard against populist excess, such as we are seeing at present.

Conservatives are dismayed and baffled at the sight of Obama’s Latin American-style personality cult and at poll results showing astonishing erosion in public support for free markets and limited government. “This is a center-right nation,” conservatives continue to insist. To be sure, Reagan and the conservative movement stoked the populist flames from the 1970s through the 1990s, with considerable success. But conservatives became too comfortable with the thought that populism would remain a reliable conservative force in American politics, and largely lost or disdained the art of constitutional argument.

Madison and Tocqueville knew better (as Mansfield has warned us repeatedly over the last two decades), and would not have been surprised by the present crisis. The other person who would not have been surprised is Ronald Reagan. This sunny optimist also warned repeatedly that “freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation.” Reagan’s greatest frustration as president was his inability to control spending. In contrast to Pres. George W. Bush, Reagan vetoed several “budget-busting” bills in the course of his presidency, only to see many Republican members of Congress join Democrats in overriding his vetoes. This led Reagan, late in his second term, to recognize the wisdom of Mansfield’s Razor and to embrace a bold constitutional strategy that no one much remembers today.

Throughout his presidency Reagan argued repeatedly for a balanced-budget amendment, and also for an amendment granting the president a line-item veto. But, starting in 1987, Reagan offered a more comprehensive package he called the “Economic Bill of Rights.” In addition to the balanced-budget and line-item veto amendments, Reagan proposed three additional amendments that would impose a federal spending limit, require a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate for any tax increases, and prohibit wage and price controls.

These amendments never had a chance of passage during Reagan’s presidency (the only one that ever came close was the balanced-budget amendment, which passed the Senate but failed in the House), and might not necessarily be good ideas to write into our fundamental charter — there are good arguments on both sides of each proposal. But, as a thought experiment, one can imagine how a constitutional spending limit, a supermajority requirement for tax increases, or a ban on wage and price controls would constrain Obama’s agenda today. (With wage controls currently contemplated for the financial sector, and price controls for the health-care sector, how long before a burst of inflation inspires the Obamanauts to extend the idea across the whole economy again?)

One of the notable aspects of Obama’s governmental gigantism is that there has been not the slightest peep about the constitutionality of his dictatorial manner of taking over the auto and banking industries, and hence little prospect of any serious constitutional argument over the coming conquest of the health-care sector. In this, Obama is simply following the advice of Woodrow Wilson that an increased role for the federal government could be accomplished “only by wresting the Constitution to strange and as yet unimagined uses.” In other words, liberals have been effectively able to amend the Constitution simply by reinterpreting it (or essentially ignoring it). Conservatives do not have this luxury. Now that the implicit constitutional barriers to unlimited government have been deliberately eroded, turning back unlimited liberalism may require reviving what might be called the unfinished agenda of the Reagan Revolution — it may require formal constitutional amendments.

Constitutional amendments are deliberately difficult to pass, but one notable aspect of constitutional amendments in American history is that they tend to come in bursts, and usually at the behest of populist reform movements rather than as a matter of partisan calculation. Several of the Progressive Era amendments — especially women’s suffrage and Prohibition — came as a result of pressure from populist agitation; likewise, a couple of the amendments of the 1960s and ’70s came as a result of pressure from the civil-rights movement. Similarly, the failed attempt to enact the Equal Rights Amendment was a product of the feminist movement.

Here’s where the Tea Parties come in. If the Tea Party movement wishes to stand for something concrete, and sensibly avoid being co-opted by the Republican party, it might consider embracing Reagan’s Economic Bill of Rights (perhaps with the addition of term limits and an anti-earmark provision just to make sure the politicians stay away). It is not necessary that agitation for constitutional amendments actually succeed in getting the amendments adopted in order to have a significant political effect. There is no chance that the current Congress would even bring any of these amendments to a vote, though the Tea Parties could agitate for resolutions from state legislatures. The progress of feminism showed the Equal Rights Amendment to have been unnecessary for its larger social goals. Advocating amendments to secure new limits to government would have the salutary effect of putting liberals on the defensive, just as the balanced-budget movement and tax revolt of the 1970s assisted the rise of Reagan and conservatives in general in the 1980s. It is the kind of populism that would gain Tocqueville’s approval and Madison’s acquiescence. Above all, picking this fight would reintroduce constitutional ideas to America’s political conversation. And not a moment too soon.

—Steven F. Hayward is F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counter-Revolution, 1980–1989, forthcoming in August from CrownForum.

Your State Preamble

2009-06-01T06:20:00.000-07:00

President Barack Obama said in Turkey : "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

Do you know the Preamble for your state? . .

Be sure to read the message at the bottom!

Alabama 1901, Preamble
We the people of the State of Alabama , invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution..
Alaska 1956, Preamble We, the people of Alaska , grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.
Arizona 1911, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
Arkansas 1874, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arkansas , grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...
California 1879, Preamble We, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...
Colorado 1876, Preamble We, the people of Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe..
Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.
Delaware 1897, Preamble Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences...
Florida 1885, Preamble We, the people of the State of Florida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...
Georgia 1777, Preamble We, the people of Georgia , relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...&nb sp;
Hawaii 1959, Preamble We , the people of Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance ... Establish this Constitution.
Idaho 1889, Preamble We, the people of the State of Idaho , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.
Illinois 1870, Preamble We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
Indiana 1851, Preamble We, the People of the State of Indiana , grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.
Iowa 1857, Preamble We, the People of the St ate of Iowa , grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.
Kansas 1859, Preamble We, the people of Kansas , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
Kentucky 1891, Preamble.. We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties..
Louisiana 1921, Preamble We, the people of the State of Louisiana , grateful to Almighty Go d for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
Maine 1820, Preamble We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity .. And imploring His aid and direction.
Maryland 1776, Preamble We, the people of the state of Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction
Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the Stat e of Michigan , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, establish this Constitution.
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:
Mississippi 1890, Preamble We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
Missouri 1845, Preamble We, the people of Missouri , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution...
Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution .
Nebraska 1875, Preamble We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Establish this Constitution.
Nevada 1864, Preamble We the people of the State of Nevada , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution...
New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
New Jersey 1844, Preamble We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
New Mexico 1911, Preamble We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty..
New York 1846, Preamble We, the people of the State of New York , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.
North Carolina 1868, Preamble We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign R uler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those...
North Dakota 1889, Preamble We , the people of North Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...
Ohio 1852, Preamble We the people of the state of Ohio , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common.
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance....
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing...
South Carolina , 1778, Preamble We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
South Dakota 1889, Preamble We, the people of South Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ...
Tennessee 1796, Art. XI..III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...
Texas 1845, Preamble We the People of the Republic of Texas , acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
Utah 1896, Preamble Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.
Vermont 1777, Preamble Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ..
Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other
Washington 1889, Preamble We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution
West Virginia 1872, Preamble Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ...&nb sp;
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility...
Wyoming 1890, Preamble We, the people of the State of Wyoming , grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution...

After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts are wrong! If you found this to be 'Food for thought' send to as many as you think will be enlightened as I hope you were.

(Please note that at no time is anyone told that they MUST worship God.)

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Obama, Resign Now!

2009-05-31T08:48:00.000-07:00

Even the left is getting agitated.

An Early Call for Obama's Resignation
With Democrats Like Him, Who Needs Dictators?

by Ted Rall
We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama's inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through.

From healthcare to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. When a president doesn't have the 'nads to annoy the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning?

Obama is useless. Worse than that, he's dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now--before he drags us further into the abyss.

I refer here to Obama's plan for "preventive detentions." If a cop or other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, you could be held in "prolonged detention." Reports in U.S. state-controlled media imply that Obama's shocking new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, wannabe Islamic terrorists, and also kinda-sorta-maybe-thinking-about-terrorism dudes). As if that made it OK.

In practice, Obama wants to let government goons snatch you, me and anyone else they deem annoying off the street.
Preventive detention is the classic defining characteristic of a military dictatorship. Because dictatorial regimes rely on fear rather than consensus, their priority is self-preservation rather than improving their people's lives. They worry obsessively over the one thing they can't control, what Orwell called "thoughtcrime"--contempt for rulers that might someday translate to direct action.

Locking up people who haven't done anything wrong is worse than un-American and a violent attack on the most basic principles of Western jurisprudence. It is contrary to the most essential notion of human decency. That anyone has ever been subjected to "preventive detention" is an outrage. That the President of the United States, a man who won an election because he promised to elevate our moral and political discourse, would even entertain such a revolting idea offends the idea of civilization itself.

Obama is cute. He is charming. But there is something rotten inside him. Unlike the Republicans who backed Bush, I won't follow a terrible leader just because I voted for him. Obama has revealed himself. He is a monster, and he should remove himself from power.

"Prolonged detention," reported The New York Times, would be inflicted upon "terrorism suspects who cannot be tried."

"Cannot be tried." Interesting choice of words.

Any "terrorism suspect" (can you be a suspect if you haven't been charged with a crime?) can be tried. Anyone can be tried for anything. At this writing, a Somali child is sitting in a prison in New York, charged with piracy in the Indian Ocean, where the U.S. has no jurisdiction. Anyone can be tried. Why is it, exactly, that some prisoners "cannot be tried"?

The Old Grey Lady explains why Obama wants this "entirely new chapter in American law" in a boring little sentence buried a couple past the jump and a couple of hundred words down page A16: "Yet another question is what to do with the most problematic group of Guantánamo detainees: those who pose a national security threat but cannot be prosecuted, either for lack of evidence or because evidence is tainted."

In democracies with functioning legal systems, it is assumed that people against whom there is a "lack of evidence" are innocent. They walk free. In countries where the rule of law prevails, in places blessedly free of fearful leaders whose only concern is staying in power, "tainted evidence" is no evidence at all. If you can't prove that a defendant committed a crime--an actual crime, not a thoughtcrime--in a fair trial, you release him and apologize to the judge and jury for wasting their time.

It is amazing and incredible, after eight years of Bush's lawless behavior, to have to still have to explain these things. For that reason alone, Obama should resign.

© 2009 Ted Rall
Ted Rall is the author of the new book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.

Lessons From Jakarta

2009-05-26T20:30:00.000-07:00

Things I Never Knew

Anyone can be President, even someone who is not eligible.

Most of the people can be fooled most of the time, if you have help from the media and a teleprompter.

You can blame just about anything on George Bush, if you keep a straight face when you say it.

Americans believe they can borrow their way out of debt.

The evening call to prayer is the most wonderful sound in the world.

He campaigned in all 57 States.

George Bush never challenged his Muslim faith.

We are not at war with the Islamic world.

Israel will do just fine without US help.

Nine hundred million dollars will really help the poor Hamas in Gaza recover from their trauma.

Hugo Chavez, is a nice guy and a decent author.

Barry did not bow to the King of Saudi Arabia, he curtsied.

It only takes a million dollars to hide all your records.

He went to Trinity United Church of Christ for twenty years, but never inhaled.

Khalid Al- Monsour can get anyone into Harvard.

George Soros can buy anyone he wants to buy, along with ACORN and the Media.

You really are not judged by the company you keep.

It really does not matter if you say one thing and do the opposite, as long as people look the other way.

The United States really needed to apologize to the world for her past sins.

Big Government's job is to take care of everyone's problems, no matter what the cost in taxes might be.

The White House should own banks, auto companies, mortgage companies, and should run health care.

We really need more Mexican citizens, and minorities need to own more radio stations.

Veterans and Catholics are potential radical terrorists.

And last, but not least, Americans have no idea what Socialism means.

Remember Me

2009-05-25T06:46:00.000-07:00

I am reposting this beautiful tribute to the men and women of our armed forces. My deepest thanks to all of you who keep us safe from harm.

An Open Letter to Our Fathers and Grandfathers

2009-05-24T16:09:00.000-07:00

An Open Letter to Our Fathers and Grandfathers
You Won the Battle But Lost the War
By Aaron Zelman
Executive Director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Fleet Marine Force Medic, Third Marine Air Wing, Vietnam Veteran

To our fathers and grandfathers who fought in World War II:

America owes everything to you. You sacrificed your youth, you saw your buddies die before your eyes, you gave up life and family and love as you fought in Europe or the Pacific -- all to save the world from fascism.

We can't even measure how much we owe you -- you, and the staunch women who stood with you -- the WACs, the Waves, the nurses who treated the wounded under unthinkable conditions, and the Rosie-the-Riveters who kept the country going back home. Yet, in the decades since the end of the war, your victory has been stolen. From you, from your children, your grandchildren, and from all of us.

You won a long, hard, painful battle. But when you came home, you lost the war. You lost the Bill of Rights and freedom. And so we all lost.

America is becoming a lot like the countries you fought against.

The country you fought for was a land of self-reliant people, people proud to stand on their own two feet. It was a country of decency, of neighbors and neighborhoods, where people took care of each other, their families and themselves. It was a country where citizens had a say in what their government did, a country where the government respected private property, family life, the right to worship, the right to express opinions without fear, the right to own firearms, and the whole way of life those freedoms stood for.

It wasn't perfect, but it was America.

The countries you fought against were rule-ridden bureaucracies where citizens did what they were told -- or else. They were countries where people were supposed to hate whomever the government wanted them to hate, and to love and trust the government more than they loved and trusted themselves. In these countries, children belonged more to the rulers than to their mothers and fathers, and private property was subject to control by bureaucrats. In these countries people didn't dare do or say anything the politicians didn't approve of.

Today in the United States there are people who spit on the memory of your sacrifices -- people like Sen. Charles Schumer, who successfully pushes "gun control" laws that trash the Second Amendment, and Sen. John McCain, whose infamous "campaign finance" law made free speech a federal crime for independent advocacy groups. We shrink before officials who decree that unpopular opinions are "hate speech." We endure leaders who tell us that it's wrong to hate certain groups of people, but perfectly okay for those groups to hate and malign others. Today much of America is controlled by people who'll fine us or even put us in prison for doing perfectly harmless things to our own land and homes.

Free speech. The right to keep and bear arms. Property rights. The right to live your daily life free of interference from people who want to push you around. Weren't these rights the very things you were fighting for?

The steady downhill slide

This process of destruction isn't new. You no sooner came home than the government you fought for started handing over power to the governments you defeated -- and even worse governments. They did it by handing authority to the United Nations, an organization dominated by unfree countries who don't share, or even have minimal respect for, the values that gave us the Bill of Rights. All they want is to take what they can get from us.

The U.N. quickly dragged us into another war in Korea - where many of you also suffered and died. Since then its powers have expanded so much that the U.N. has gained control over some U.S. lands (in the name of "biosphere sites," "world heritage protection," and "anti-desertification" treaties). Now they've even got a world court -- run from our own New York City, even though the impotent U.S. voted against it. This court can try American citizens and soldiers without giving them any of the constitutional protections you fought so hard for.

And next they're talking about imposing global taxes. On you. On what Tom Brokaw rightly called The Greatest Generation. And on us, your sometimes-less courageous successors.

The downhill slide has been steady: inflationary spending, debasement of the currency, punitive taxes, propagandizing of schoolchildren so they can't think for themselves, restrictions on property rights. Politicians have maneuvered to prop up the dangerously broken Social Security system, which Ronald Reagan rightly called an "intergenerational Ponzi scheme." They've created giveaway programs that let everyone from drug addicts to billionaire businessmen live off the sweat of ordinary working people. The regulations of this Nanny State have us so wrapped in bureaucratic red tape we can hardly move. And often we dare not express our honest opinions for fear of being labeled -- sometimes even punished -- for being a "hater," a "gun nut," or an "extremist" (which sometimes means nothing more than being an independent thinker).

Your federal government even passed a "gun-control" law (the Gun Control Act of 1968) based directly on the Nazi law that Sen. Thomas Dodd had the Library of Congress translate for him. This Nazi law was then signed by "Mr. Great Society," President Lyndon Johnson1

Did you risk your life fighting Hitler so that American politicians - some of whom you voted for and contributed money to -- could impose Hitler's very own laws on you? But that's exactly what happened -- and that was only the camel's nose under the tent when it came to "gun control."

Who's to blame?

Good Americans were once spirited, individualistic, independent, and skeptical of government power. Now, good Americans are a lot like the stereotypical "good Germans" of Hitler's day, compliant, docile, and worshipful of government.

This is largely our fault -- we of the Baby Boom and Generation X. We let you down. We, who in many cases knew nothing but comfort and security, weren't willing to sacrifice for freedom, as you did. Fat, happy, and lazy, we believed our government when it said it would take care of us, so we could remain children forever. We believed the slickly smiling politicians when they told us that if we just handed them enough power and money, they would eliminate every danger and make us as eternally content as sleeping babies in a nursery.

We chose to ignore the fact that this is the path to an all-powerful police state. We chose not to remember the historic truth that Ronald Reagan and many others have expressed: A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away. Already we see the government rationing heath care -- rationing care to the very people it falsely and grandly promised to protect! How long before the old, the chronically ill, the "unfit" are decreed to be, as the Nazis put it, "useless eaters"?

Maybe you won't live to see the all-powerful state at its most cold and brutal. Will your children or your grandchildren be the ones to suffer?

It's a crime and a shame. It's un-American in the truest sense.

But when you cry, "Why are they doing this to my country?" at least part of the answer also has to be, "Well, where have you been all this time?"

Look in the mirror.

Your early life was tough, scarred by the hunger, insecurity, and national self-doubt of the Depression. You did your duty in a war that was longer and more brutal than anybody bargained for. When you came home, you were tired and just wanted -- perhaps for the first time since your childhood -- to live normally. And you deserved your peace.

But as Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

The dirty little secret is that freedom wasn't stolen from us entirely by other people. We lost freedom ourselves because we weren't vigilant. We didn't exercise our rights or responsibilities as citizens -- we of the Baby Boom and Gen X, but also you, our fathers and grandfathers of World War II..

We went on voting for politicians who lied to us. We obeyed -- or maybe even enforced -- unconstitutional regulations. We had our hands out when politicians bought our freedom in exchange for subsidies, grants, and "entitlements." We tolerated, sometimes even cheered, violations of the Bill of Rights, as long as they were committed against people or groups we didn't like, not realizing the Bill protected our rights, too.

When every president since Richard Nixon told us we had to fight another war, a War on Drugs, we paid our taxes and cheered as millions of our fellow Americans went to prison, as no-knock midnight raids became an American institution, and as police forces were corrupted by the lure of illegal drugs and black-market money, just as they had earlier been corrupted during Prohibition. None of this has saved our children from drugs or made American streets safe. On the contrary, it's been one of the biggest destroyers of the Bill of Rights, and one of the biggest factors in increasing violence and police-state power in the U.S.

Even those of us who called ourselves conservative or libertarian often demanded that "there ought to be a law" against every activity we disliked. We forgot the very essence of freedom: The essence of freedom is leaving our fellow citizens, and the citizens of other countries, alone as long as they're not using force or fraud against others.

It's a fact -- though sometimes not a simple one to live with: If you want freedom you have to accept that, every day, millions of people might be doing things you don't personally approve of. You have to recognize that it isn't your right to stop them. That was what people came to America for. We hate it when others try to keep us from living our lives as we wish. But how often have we demanded laws to keep others from going about their own peaceable business?

Look in the mirror. We have met the enemy. And as Pogo said, "He is us."

It's time now for True Americans to act.

You World War II veterans, you World War II nurses, and you Korean War veterans ... you all have one last job to do in the fight for freedom. My fellow Vietnam veterans, this goes for you, too -- and for the young soldiers who fought in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, the Balkans, and Somalia. It goes for you, also, Rosie the Riveter.

You must teach the coming generations about what freedom really means. You must teach them it's not just having a lot of consumer goodies and fancy electronic toys. You must remind them that those pleasures are the product, not the heart, of free individual choices - and that those choices are protected by the Bill of Rights. You must remind them of the real meaning of the things you fought for -- the freedom of peaceful individuals to speak, believe, and live as they wish, unfettered by government dictates and punishments -- and to respect the right of others to do the same.

In fact, each and every one of us must do this if we want to restore and maintain freedom.

We must all live our personal lives like free men and women while we fight to restore the values of freedom to our country and our culture.

We must fight ALL enemies, foreign and domestic -- as you pledged to do when you signed on to serve your country. We must recognize that some of our most ruthless, implacable enemies ARE domestic -- men and women who look like us and talk like us but whose values are as foreign to America as those of any Hitler, Mussolini, or Hirohito. We must not allow ourselves also to become domestic enemies of freedom by supporting their policies.

America today seems a fallen land -- politically and economically powerful, but empty inside. A land that has lost its heart, its passion for freedom.

But freedom doesn't have to be gone forever. Many times in the past enemies made the mistake of thinking that America was lazy and complacent, too well-fed and self-satisfied to put up a good fight. The Japanese believed it before World War II. The terrorists believed it before September 11.

Our enemies have always been wrong.

You can never underestimate the fighting spirit of the American people, once they know that a fight is necessary to preserve their own future and their children's. An awakened America is a powerful thing, and dangerous to all opponents. We put aside our petty political differences, our daily pleasures, and our selfishness and we fight like wildcats.

There's hope for freedom -- if we can unite behind the Bill of Rights, unite behind freedom and individual rights. We must remember what the Bill of Rights is. It is a list of things an honest government -- a government that is truly of, by, and for the people -- is forever forbidden to do. And we must never ask our government to do these forbidden things, or stand by silently when it tries to.

To unite behind the Bill of Rights is to unite against crushing, bloated, grasping government power. This time our fight may not have to be with guns and cartridges. This time our weapons can be ideas and ideals. This time our job is to fight against the apathy and ignorance of our own culture. This time our aim is to arouse other Americans so they'll neither want nor tolerate an un-American government whose false promises of security are used to enslave them

Let us make forever sure that our American dead have not died in vain, that they have truly died for freedom. Let us live -- and cherish -- that freedom every day of our lives.

Hey America, Do You Remember?

2009-05-22T10:20:00.000-07:00

Written by Thomas Segel

Harlingen, Texas, May 20, 2009: Hey America, do you remember when a single political party took over complete control of the government? It happened because of bitterness about the war and unhappiness among the citizens.

Do you remember when people started believing that the only way to solve what they perceived as problems was to ignore the Constitution? The lack of citizen concern for the way the country should be governed led to multiple constitutional violations.

Do you remember when massive financial support provided the funding for the election campaign? This was particularly evident when wealthy businessmen offered their backing.

Do you remember when the opposition party, religious groups and other interests were blamed for the countrys ills? Things were made to sound so bad that only one party and one man were identified as being able to save the nation.

Do you remember when everybody was promised everything? There were so many changes being promised to so many people that support came from everyone who felt personal need for government assistance.

Do you remember the attacks on people of different political beliefs and on opponents? Even the media and the courts closed their eyes to the lies and distortions offered up by the campaign.

Do you remember when the media became a tool of the new government? There was an infiltration of personnel supporting the promises of change into every element of the media and the people seldom heard the complete political message or truth of the times.

Do you remember he came to power during an economic collapse? The number of unemployed grew. There was major crisis in the country and people needed something or someone to blame for their problems.

Do you remember he was a brilliant speaker, his presence had a power over people, he was a good organizer and a smooth politician? Do you remember he was a driven man, who believed he had the destiny to become the leader of his country? Do you remember that his strong ego and self-belief persuaded other people to believe in him?

Well, most of you are really not old enough to remember. It happened 77 years ago in a country called Germany.

Obama's Credit Card Fraud

2009-05-22T10:03:00.000-07:00

Under the credit card reform proposed by the Obama administration, customers who pay their bills on time will now be subjected to higher fees to compensate for the restrictions that these companies face regarding what fees they can charge their delinquent customers. But wait! Looks like they get to screw the delinquent customers as well, through unrestrained interest rates, which will be far more debilitating over the long term to those who do not pay their bills on time. Credit Card Companies to ALL consumers: Checkmate.

OBAMA'S CREDIT CARD REFORM IS A FRAUD

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on DickMorris.com on May 22, 2009

The widely heralded credit card reform legislation making its way through Congress is a sellout to the credit card companies. Obama has proposed and Congress has passed a series of minor reforms that deal with the fringes of the problem - late billings, retroactive interest rate hikes, misapplication of payments and such - but fail to reform the most basic offense of the companies: their usury.

Congress explicitly rejected any limitation on the interest rate credit card companies can charge. It remains perfectly legal for them to charge rates that would make a loan shark blush.

In our book Fleeced, we explain how, until 1979, credit card interest was subject to usury limits of the various states. But the Supreme Court emasculated these limits by ruling that the state of the lender, not of the borrower, had the sole power to legislate interest rate limits. South Dakota swiftly jumped into the void the Court created, eliminating any usury limits. All the credit card companies moved there and took advantage of the regulatory vacuum to hike up their rates to unconscionable levels.

Competition can do nothing to force down rates since 90% of the credit cards are issued by a handful of companies. And states are paralyzed when it comes to regulating rates.

It is up to Congress to act. Yet the credit card companies' massive campaign donations succeeded in buying off enough Democrats and virtually all the Republicans to kill any limits on interest rates. So companies can continue to charge basic rates of 18 percent and then up to 30 percent as punishment for minor offenses like being a few days late in making payments.

But Obama and his Democratic allies are loudly proclaiming their success in fighting for the consumer despite their failure to use their majorities to afford any real protection form usurious interest rates.

Congress should have legislated a ceiling on regular interest rates limiting them to five points above prime and on punitive rates requiring them to be no more than ten points above prime. But Obama and the Democrats (and, of course, the Republicans) caved into the special interests and left out any interest rate controls.

The high rates charged by credit card companies obviously do a great deal to impede consumer spending and drive families into bankruptcy. The average credit card balance for those who have such debt is over $13,000. A 30 percent interest rate means more than $300 per month in interest payments alone!

It is cruel to see Obama offering the illusion of hope for credit card victims while denying them real relief.

Don't Underestimate the Will of the American People

2009-05-21T13:57:00.000-07:00

Top Ten Myths of American Healthcare

2009-05-19T15:49:00.000-07:00

Excellent post at The Old Jarhead about the myths surrounding healthcare in the US (and what Obama does not want you to know!).

http://tartanmarine.blogspot.com/2009/05/top-ten-myths-of-american-health-care.html

A Case Study in ObamaCare

2009-05-19T07:36:00.000-07:00

From the Wall Street Journal:

How Washington Rations
ObamaCare omen: a case study in 'cost-control.'

Try to follow this logic: Last week the Medicare trustees reported that the program has an "unfunded liability" of nearly $38 trillion -- which is the amount of benefits promised but not covered by taxes over the next 75 years. So Democrats have decided that the way to close this gap is to create a new "universal" health insurance entitlement for the middle class.

Such thinking may be a non sequitur, but it will have drastic effects on the health care of all Americans -- and as it happens, this future is playing out in miniature in Medicare right now. Desperate to prevent medical costs from engulfing the federal budget, the program's central planners decided last week to deny payment for a new version of one of life's most unpleasant routine procedures, the colonoscopy. This is a preview of how health care will be rationed when Democrats get their way.

At issue are "virtual colonoscopies," or CT scans of the abdomen. Colon cancer is the second leading cause of U.S. cancer death but one of the most preventable. Found early, the cure rate is 93%, but only 8% at later stages. Virtual colonoscopies are likely to boost screenings because they are quicker, more comfortable and significantly cheaper than the standard "optical" procedure, which involves anesthesia and threading an endoscope through the lower intestine.

Virtual colonoscopies are endorsed by the American Cancer Society and covered by a growing number of private insurers including Cigna and UnitedHealthcare. The problem for Medicare is that if cancerous lesions are found using a scan, then patients must follow up with a traditional colonoscopy anyway. Costs would be lower if everyone simply took the invasive route, where doctors can remove polyps on the spot. As Medicare noted in its ruling, "If there is a relatively high referral rate [for traditional colonoscopy], the utility of an intermediate test such as CT colonography is limited." In other words, duplication would be too pricey.

This is precisely the sort of complexity that the Democrats would prefer to ignore as they try to restructure health care. Led by budget chief Peter Orszag, the White House believes that comparative effectiveness research, which examines clinical evidence to determine what "works best," will let them cut wasteful or ineffective treatments and thus contain health spending.

The problem is that what "works best" isn't the same for everyone. While not painless or risk free, virtual colonoscopy might be better for some patients -- especially among seniors who are infirm or because the presence of other diseases puts them at risk for complications. Ideally doctors would decide with their patients. But Medicare instead made the hard-and-fast choice that it was cheaper to cut it off for all beneficiaries. If some patients are worse off, well, too bad.

Medicare is already the country's largest purchaser of health care. Private carriers generally adopt its rates and policies, and the virtual colonoscopy decision may run this technology out of the marketplace. Now multiply that by the new "public option" that Democrats favor, which would transfer millions of patients to a new insurance program managed by the federal government. Washington's utilitarian judgments about costs would reshape the practice of medicine.

Initially, the open-ended style of American care will barely be touched, if only for political self-preservation. Health planners will adjust at the margins, as with virtual colonoscopy. But scarcity forces choices. As the Medicare trustees note in their report, the tax increases necessary to fund merely the current benefit schedule for the elderly would cripple the economy. The far more expensive public option will not turn into a pumpkin when cost savings do not materialize. At that point, government will clamp down with price controls in the form of lines and rock-bottom reimbursement rates.

Mr. Orszag says that a federal health board will make these Solomonic decisions, which is only true until the lobbies get to Congress and the White House. With virtual colonoscopy, radiologists and gastroenterologists are feuding over which group should get paid for colon cancer screening. Companies like General Electric and Seimens that make CT technology are pressuring Medicare administrators too. More than 50 Congressmen are demanding that the decision be overturned.

All this is merely a preview of the life-and-death decisions that will be determined by politics once government finances substantially more health care than the 46% it already does. Anyone who buys Democratic claims about "choice" and "affordability" will be in for a very rude awakening.

Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich

2009-05-18T05:45:00.001-07:00

Great article from the WSJ about the consequences of high state taxes on job growth and tax revenues. The ability of people to move to states whose values are more in line with their own is a hallmark of the Founders' thought processes in creating a system of governance in which the power of the Federal government is limited in scope.

By ARTHUR LAFFER and STEPHEN MOORE

With states facing nearly $100 billion in combined budget deficits this year, we're seeing more governors than ever proposing the Barack Obama solution to balancing the budget: Soak the rich. Lawmakers in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Oregon want to raise income tax rates on the top 1% or 2% or 5% of their citizens. New Illinois Gov. Patrick Quinn wants a 50% increase in the income tax rate on the wealthy because this is the "fair" way to close his state's gaping deficit.

Chad Crowe
Mr. Quinn and other tax-raising governors have been emboldened by recent studies by left-wing groups like the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities that suggest that "tax increases, particularly tax increases on higher-income families, may be the best available option." A recent letter to New York Gov. David Paterson signed by 100 economists advises the Empire State to "raise tax rates for high income families right away."

Here's the problem for states that want to pry more money out of the wallets of rich people. It never works because people, investment capital and businesses are mobile: They can leave tax-unfriendly states and move to tax-friendly states.

And the evidence that we discovered in our new study for the American Legislative Exchange Council, "Rich States, Poor States," published in March, shows that Americans are more sensitive to high taxes than ever before. The tax differential between low-tax and high-tax states is widening, meaning that a relocation from high-tax California or Ohio, to no-income tax Texas or Tennessee, is all the more financially profitable both in terms of lower tax bills and more job opportunities.

Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

Did the greater prosperity in low-tax states happen by chance? Is it coincidence that the two highest tax-rate states in the nation, California and New York, have the biggest fiscal holes to repair? No. Dozens of academic studies -- old and new -- have found clear and irrefutable statistical evidence that high state and local taxes repel jobs and businesses.

Martin Feldstein, Harvard economist and former president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, co-authored a famous study in 1998 called "Can State Taxes Redistribute Income?" This should be required reading for today's state legislators. It concludes: "Since individuals can avoid unfavorable taxes by migrating to jurisdictions that offer more favorable tax conditions, a relatively unfavorable tax will cause gross wages to adjust. . . . A more progressive tax thus induces firms to hire fewer high skilled employees and to hire more low skilled employees."

More recently, Barry W. Poulson of the University of Colorado last year examined many factors that explain why some states grew richer than others from 1964 to 2004 and found "a significant negative impact of higher marginal tax rates on state economic growth." In other words, soaking the rich doesn't work. To the contrary, middle-class workers end up taking the hit.

Finally, there is the issue of whether high-income people move away from states that have high income-tax rates. Examining IRS tax return data by state, E.J. McMahon, a fiscal expert at the Manhattan Institute, measured the impact of large income-tax rate increases on the rich ($200,000 income or more) in Connecticut, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 5% from 4.5%; in New Jersey, which raised its rate in 2004 to 8.97% from 6.35%; and in New York, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 7.7% from 6.85%. Over the period 2002-2005, in each of these states the "soak the rich" tax hike was followed by a significant reduction in the number of rich people paying taxes in these states relative to the national average. Amazingly, these three states ranked 46th, 49th and 50th among all states in the percentage increase in wealthy tax filers in the years after they tried to soak the rich.

This result was all the more remarkable given that these were years when the stock market boomed and Wall Street gains were in the trillions of dollars. Examining data from a 2008 Princeton study on the New Jersey tax hike on the wealthy, we found that there were 4,000 missing half-millionaires in New Jersey after that tax took effect. New Jersey now has one of the largest budget deficits in the nation.

We believe there are three unintended consequences from states raising tax rates on the rich. First, some rich residents sell their homes and leave the state; second, those who stay in the state report less taxable income on their tax returns; and third, some rich people choose not to locate in a high-tax state. Since many rich people also tend to be successful business owners, jobs leave with them or they never arrive in the first place. This is why high income-tax states have such a tough time creating net new jobs for low-income residents and college graduates.

Those who disapprove of tax competition complain that lower state taxes only create a zero-sum competition where states "race to the bottom" and cut services to the poor as taxes fall to zero. They say that tax cutting inevitably means lower quality schools and police protection as lower tax rates mean starvation of public services.

They're wrong, and New Hampshire is our favorite illustration. The Live Free or Die State has no income or sales tax, yet it has high-quality schools and excellent public services. Students in New Hampshire public schools achieve the fourth-highest test scores in the nation -- even though the state spends about $1,000 a year less per resident on state and local government than the average state and, incredibly, $5,000 less per person than New York. And on the other side of the ledger, California in 2007 had the highest-paid classroom teachers in the nation, and yet the Golden State had the second-lowest test scores.

Or consider the fiasco of New Jersey. In the early 1960s, the state had no state income tax and no state sales tax. It was a rapidly growing state attracting people from everywhere and running budget surpluses. Today its income and sales taxes are among the highest in the nation yet it suffers from perpetual deficits and its schools rank among the worst in the nation -- much worse than those in New Hampshire. Most of the massive infusion of tax dollars over the past 40 years has simply enriched the public-employee unions in the Garden State. People are fleeing the state in droves.

One last point: States aren't simply competing with each other. As Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently told us, "Our state is competing with Germany, France, Japan and China for business. We'd better have a pro-growth tax system or those American jobs will be out-sourced." Gov. Perry and Texas have the jobs and prosperity model exactly right. Texas created more new jobs in 2008 than all other 49 states combined. And Texas is the only state other than Georgia and North Dakota that is cutting taxes this year.

The Texas economic model makes a whole lot more sense than the New Jersey model, and we hope the politicians in California, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota and New York realize this before it's too late.

Mr. Laffer is president of Laffer Associates. Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal. They are co-authors of "Rich States, Poor States" (American Legislative Exchange Council, 2009).

Lessons from 1940

2009-05-17T06:27:00.000-07:00

A great post from the Heritage Foundation website, The Foundry.

Herbert Hoover was no laissez-faire president like Calvin Coolidge, however he did respect the constitution, and he never was willing to go as far as Franklin Roosevelt. He made a speech just before Roosevelt’s election to a third term, in which he made some salient points—ones we would still be wise to consider today.
With Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin in power, and with a myriad of other dictators and authoritarian powers sprinkled across Europe, it was critical that the free citizens of America see the danger of handing over the reigns of industry to government—that economic power is so much more than just economic. As Hayek said a few years later, “Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends.”
Hoover explained this concentration of power that had preceded the tyrannies of every stripe popping up in Europe, and warned that the same could happen in America. The danger lies in the belief that government can solve all economic problems, if only it has enough power. Quoting from The Roosevelt Myth:
In every single case before the rise of totalitarian governments there had been a period dominated by economic planners. Each of these nations had an era under starry-eyed men who believed that they could plan and force the economic life of the people. They believed that was the way to correct abuse or to meet emergencies in systems of free enterprise. They exalted the state as the solver of all economic problems.
These men thought they were liberals. But they also thought they could have economic dictatorship by bureaucracy and at the same time preserve free speech, orderly justice, and free government.
These men are not Communists or Fascists. But they mixed these ideas into free systems. It is true that Communists and Fascists were round about. They formed popular fronts and gave the applause. These men shifted the relation of government to free enterprise from that of umpire to controller.
Hoover then goes on to name the ways in which the government is taking on the role of controller—and they are precisely the same controls government is taking on today:
Directly or indirectly they politically controlled credit, prices, production or industry, farmer and laborer. They devalued, pump-primed and deflated. They controlled private business by government competition, by regulation and by taxes. They met every failure with demands for more and more power and control … When it was too late they discovered that every time they stretched the arm of government into private enterprise, except to correct abuse, then somehow, somewhere, men’s minds became confused. At once men became fearful and hesitant. Initiative slackened, industry slowed down production.
Obama jokes about his exalted state. At the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner he said, “During the second 100 days, we will design, build and open a library dedicated to my first 100 days.” And joked, “My next 100 days will be so successful, I will complete them in 72 days. And on the 73rd day, I will rest.” But we should know by now that this is not funny: we have a dangerous belief in the power of the executive. The situation we face to day is in some ways less dangerous than when Hoover delivered this warning, as there are fewer external totalitarian powers to fight. However, at home we face the same challenge: will we cede our freedoms to government, in exchange for some promised, temporary economic security?

Dead People Get Stimulus Checks

2009-05-15T05:42:00.000-07:00

If dead people who were never on Social Security are getting Stimulus checks, then how do we know that living persons who are not entitled to these check are not getting them as well?

Dead People Get Stimulus
Checks
Updated: Thursday, 14 May 2009, 10:30 PM EDT
Published : Thursday, 14 May 2009, 5:28 PM EDT

MYFOXNY.COM - This week, thousands of people are getting stimulus checks in the mail. The problem is that a lot of them are dead. A Long Island woman was shocked when she checked the mail and received a letter from the U.S. Treasury -- but it wasn't for her.

Antoniette Santopadre of Valley Stream was expecting a $250 stimulus check. But when her son finally opened it, they saw that the check was made out to her father, Romolo Romonini, who died in Italy 34 years ago. He'd been a U.S. citizen when he left for Italy in 1933, but only returned to the United Stated for a seven-month visit in 1969.

The Santopadres are not alone. The Social Security Administration, which sent out 52 million checks, says that some of those checks mistakenly went to dead people because the agency had no record of their death. That amounts to between 8,000 and 10,000 checks for millions of dollars.

The feds blame a rushed schedule, because all the checks have to be cut by June. The strange this is, some of the checks were made out to people -- like Romonini -- who were never even part of the Social Security system.

545 People

2009-05-14T05:35:00.000-07:00

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits? Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred Senators, 435 Congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices, 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913 Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts [Lucie's note: AND, FOR MANY OF THEM, A LONG HISTORY] -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ. If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. The 545, and they alone, have the [authority]*. The 545, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years with the Orlando Sentinel.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

*The original word was "power'; I substituted "authority." Ultimately it is WE who have the power. They tell us convincingly that they have the power. No. WE give them the authority to act on our behalf, in the best interest of this country, based on the rule of law as outlined in the Constitution. They are acting with reckless disregard of their oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am
about to enter: So help me God."

Can you name ONE of the 435 members of Congress who acts as this oath prescribes? (OK, I can name one - Ron Paul).

So what do you do when the criminals and traitors are also the overseers? One answer: we get inquiries into steroid use in professional baseball, and investigations into NFL teams taping each other!

"It's not your Party; it's your performance: YOU'RE FIRED."

The 2012 Pelosi GTxi SS/RT Sport Edition

2009-05-13T14:25:00.000-07:00

Coming soon to every dealer near you!

What Makes It Work

2009-05-09T13:45:00.000-07:00

Enlightening article on the necessity of virtue in a free society.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/896