|
|
National News |
|
|
         
|
Welcome to National News & Commentary
Just click on INDEX to take you to a complete listing of all articles appearing on this page Change Our Military Can’t Believe In (March 8, 2010) By Jeff Lukens Many gays and lesbians serve honorably in today's military. That is no secret. It is also no secret that open homosexuality within the ranks could hinder unit cohesion, reduce war-fighting capability, and place our troops at greater risk. No wishful thinking, edict, or State of the Union speech can alter this reality. Closeted gays do not cause a disruption in the military precisely because they are closeted. There is no constitutional right to serve in the Armed Forces. For readiness reasons, the military is selective about who serves based on age, weight, education, family status, physical fitness, and drug usage. Extensive training, good order, and discipline are required. War us a risky business. Compromise any of these elements and our casualties on the battlefield will be higher, and our chances for success will be reduced. 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (DADT) works, and overturning it is not a change the public is desperately seeking. It is not a change servicemen and women are clamoring for either. A recent survey by the Army Times found that 51% of solders oppose gays serving openly, with only 30% in favor. As Congress noted in 1993 when the policy was adopted, active gays would pose "an unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." Enter Barack Obama and the splintering coalition that got him elected in 2008. In his State of the Union speech, Obama offered his moderate supporters a partial spending freeze and promises of nuclear power, clean coal, and offshore drilling. Progressives, however, are his base and are disillusioned with his failure to pass a health care plan or Cap and Trade. No president can be reelected without his base. Obama is therefore compelled to appeal to progressives by the elimination of DADT, and for open homosexuality within the military. Politically, he has little to lose. Everyone knows he has no allegiance to the military. All should understand that this issue is a political calculation for him, and nothing more. Obama's only explanation for his proposal is that, "It's the right thing to do." Military effectiveness is not his utmost priority. When Bill Clinton raised this issue in 1993, a firestorm erupted. The DADT policy forged at that time, however, has worked well over the years with readiness maintained with fewer gays involuntarily discharged than before. Nobody says that gays cannot fight. There are many examples through history where they have done so effectively. The real question is what impact openly homosexual soldiers will have on other soldiers. As it is today, peers of a gay soldier who "minds his own business" often know about his status and choose to ignore it, unless the gay soldier gets pushy or gets someone angry with him. Straight soldiers knowing, but not caring, about a gay soldier, if he does his job, suggest this issue is less about being gay and more about the individual and the way he handles himself. A gay soldier could also be subject to blackmail or coercion by individuals who either find out about his status, or who knew all along but for some reason suddenly change their mind about tolerating him. Current DADT policy allows room for interpretation by commanders at all levels, which could lead to inconsistencies. Perhaps a review board could be established for such cases and thereby reduce the number of separations rather than leaving the decision up to a commanding officer, as is current policy. There is a big difference, however, between fine-tuning existing DADT policy to see that fewer gay discharges occur, and declaring that open homosexuality acceptable within the ranks. Military life, especially on deployment or in a combat environment, is marked by a forced intimacy that is not found in civilian life. No one goes home at night to his private life. This 24/7 'Band of Brothers' type intimacy does not always function perfectly even in the best of circumstances. Allowing openly gay soldiers into this environment is tenuous at best. Such exclusionary attitudes may seem old-fashioned, but no amount of political correctness will change them when the bullets start to fly. When a soldier's life is on the line, little else matters to him but success and survival. It is tight unit cohesion that saves lives and carries the day on the field of battle. Lessen it in any way, and we invite calamity. Once gays are allowed to serve openly, we can soon expect dependent benefits and military housing for a domestic partner, and to bring that partner to unit family functions. This is all very normal in the civilian world, but it would still be a bit shocking in today's military culture. And once the legal precedent of DADT is removed, we can't be surprised when an operative from the gay and lesbian movement to enlist in the military with the deliberate motive to force the gay agenda on the military, and have a platoon of ACLU lawyers at the ready when someone objects. The military could lose control to the courts with commanders becoming afraid to risk their careers for something as intangible as unit cohesion. In the end, it would be America who loses by way of a degraded military. If allowing gays to serve outside 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' lessens the ability of the military to perform its function -- to fight and win wars -- then it is wrong. While some further accommodation with gays may be possible, military policy should not increase the inherent risk facing those who do the fighting. Jeff Lukens is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets. He can be contacted at www.jefflukens.com Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century (March 1, 2010) We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government. These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere. Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The self-evident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant. Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception? The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue. The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic. A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world. A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda. · It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal. · It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life. · It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions. · It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end. · It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith. If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose. We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles. February 17, 2010 All Americans should embrace the principles in this statement and should use this as a guide to supporting or opposing political candidates in all elections, whether local, state, or national. These were the principles on which our nation was founded. We ignore them at our peril. ObamaCare Resuscitated (March 1, 2010) Just one month after President Obama said in his State of the Union address that job creation would be his top priority and the health care issue would be taking a back seat, the President has switched gears. This week, Obama released a health care proposal that - among other things - would create new federal insurance price controls, a new 2.9 percent "Medicare tax" on investment income (that will immediately get raided from the Medicare fund to pay for new health care subsidies), a delay in the Cadillac health care plan tax until 2018, and will expand the Nebraska Medicaid deal to every state. Obama's plan also costs $75 billion MORE than the Senate bill. That's right - it has a $1 trillion plus price tag. What part of "NO!" don't these liberals understand? Despite an overwhelming opposition from the American public, President Obama continues to talk his way into your doctor's office by pushing a trillion dollar health care plan through Congress. Such arrogance cannot be tolerated from a government that is given its power by the people it represents. The Democrats plan to "Rahm" the bill through with 51 votes in the Senate (using reconciliation), but we're not sure how the vote will go in the House of Representatives. That's why it's of utmost importance for us to come together and put the pressure on Congress to kick this bill to the curb. Here's what YOU can do to help put the brakes on this bad bill: Call, email and fax your Congressional and Senate members. Article by Peggy Venable of Americans for Prosperity – Texas Chapter. Muslims a Threat to the Military? (March 1, 2010) Following in the footsteps of the Muslim Major who killed 13 and wounded several others at Ft. Hood, Texas November of last year, five Muslim soldiers were arrested for allegedly trying to poison the food supply at Fort Jackson in South Carolina, according to CBN News. The news, as reported on World Net Daily (www.wnd.com), went on to explain the men, arrested just before Christmas, were part of the Arabic Translation program at the base, the Christian network said. A source with intimate knowledge of the ongoing investigation told CBN News that investigators suspect the "Fort Jackson Five" may have been in contact with the five Northern Virginia Muslims who traveled to Pakistan to wage jihad on U.S. troops. CBN News reporter Erick Stakelbeck said it's unclear whether the Fort Jackson soldiers are still in custody. The ongoing probe
began two months ago, Chris Grey, a spokesman for the Army’s Criminal
Investigation Division, told Fox News. The young men from Northern Virginia, arrested Dec. 8 in Pakistan, had contacted terrorist groups, including two with links to al-Qaida. They proudly declared to their Pakistani interrogators, "We are here for jihad," according to local police chief Usman Anwar. The men, described as devout Muslims, reportedly went overseas without telling their families, who expressed shock upon learning of the arrests. "Their parents are saying, we had no idea. The youth director is saying, we had no idea. The mosque is saying, we had no idea," Ashraf Nubani, an attorney for mosque where the men met, told the Washington Post at the time. One Down, Three to Go (or less if we get lucky) (February 22, 2010) While it’s true that President Obama can be removed from office because he is found to be constitutionally ineligible to serve as president or he could be impeached or he could always resign, the reality is that we’re stuck with three more years of the same. Here’s a quick review of what irritates the heck out of me about Obama during his first year in office: He needs a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, even when speaking to a bunch of first graders. It’s just more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men (or women) behind the scenes. He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Michelle Obama to a play in New York City. He reduced retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM. He mistakenly said "my Muslim faith" in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, and refused to brush it off as a minor slip. He made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics. He gave Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift. The guy’s got no class. He gave the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches. You can’t get any more narcissistic and tacky as that. He bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia and other heads of state. The man’s a bowing fool. He visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language." So he’s also a moron. He filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes but Lord help us if we are in arrears on our tax payments. He was so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again. See moron comment above. He misspelled the word "advice" but the main stream media failed to hammer him like Dan Quayle and “potatoe” as proof of what a dunce he is. He said he was going to campaign in "all 57 states." Incidentally, there are 57 Islamic states. He burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day. So he’s a hypocrite. His administration Okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic. He appears to be absolutely clueless as to what happened on 9-11. He failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans yet sends $100 million to Haiti. What’s he got against American citizens or is it just white people he hates? It speaks of racism and incompetence. He created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America. The man has lost all respect for the Constitution which he’s sworn to uphold. He ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so. See remarks about respecting the Constitution immediately above He doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year. He proposed to double the debt again within 10 years. The man is out to bankrupt the country. That’s only a sampling of why I don’t believe Obama is as brilliant or impressive as the main stream media or liberals in general make him out to be. And he’s done all this in 12 months! God help us all. And remember Klee’s Law: “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can” (Samuel Adams) ©2010 Harvey H. Klee How Many More Millions Of Immigrants Can America Handle?By Frosty WooldridgeThe greatest question facing Americans today in the arena of legal and illegal immigration is: how many is too many? When is enough enough? How many more of the world’s poor can we handle? How are we going to handle a line of immigrants that never ends? As they stream into our country by the millions annually, what about our culture, language and quality of life? What about our sustainability? The United States absorbs, or another term may be more appropriate--chokes on 1.2 to 1.5 million legal immigrants annually. America imports more immigrants than all other countries combined. For the past forty years, this country injected itself with an enormous immigrant load that added an additional 100 million people to America. Whether we like to admit it or not, this colossal human overload created virtually every detrimental sociological, educational, environmental and resource dilemma we face today. One look at Detroit, Michigan with a 76 percent high school dropout rate and 50 percent illiteracy causes exasperation to what has happened to the American Dream. Notice the most tragic aspect of every third world country: illiteracy! It means more Americans that educate themselves will be paying more for those that chose illiteracy. Ironically, their numbers increase much faster than educated Americans. Therefore, all of us will be paying more for ‘their’ educational folly and fecundity. As their educational levels drop, our standard of living and quality of life drop with them. Take a look at California! Anyone think it will survive its demographic situation by adding another 20 million immigrants within 30 years? California suffers $26 billion in debts, but grows by 1,700 people daily. (Source: www.capsweb.org) How about the latest figures in the Denver Post that show 43 American states cannot pay their bills and suffer billions in debts? CULTURE OF ILLITERACY AND POVERTY GROWING IN THE USA Within this growing and entrenched poverty and illiteracy paradigm, the numbers explode beyond recapture. In my last column, I urged a cap of 100,000 immigrants a year. Dozens of emails urged me to promote a 10 year moratorium. In my book, America on the Brink: The Next Added 100 Million Americans, I DID advocate a 10 year moratorium. If we don’t stop the massive immigrant in-bleeding, we cannot hope to save our educational systems or repair our illiteracy rates-- That leads up to the distressing fact that 1 in 7 Americans remains functionally illiterate: Illiteracy Statistics * 42 million American adults can't read at all; 50 million are unable to read at a higher level that is expected of a fourth grader. * The number of adults that are classified as functionally illiterate increases by about 2.25 million each year. * 20 percent of high school seniors can be classified as being functionally illiterate at the time they graduate. Source: National Right to Read Foundation Where Illiteracy Leads (2.3 million Americans in prison) * 70 percent of prisoners in state and federal systems can be classified as illiterate. * 85 percent of all juvenile offenders rate as functionally or marginally illiterate. * 43 percent of those whose literacy skills are lowest live in poverty. Source: National Institute for Literacy Yet, not one U.S. Senator, U.S. House rep, state governor, mayor, President Obama or environmental organization whispers a peep about the immigration factor! In fact, my two U.S. Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet propose to double legal immigration in the approaching amnesty bill. As it is today, legal and illegal immigrants pour into America at an astounding rate of 200,000 every 30 days, month in and month out, year in and year out. WHEN ENOUGH IS MORE THAN TOO MUCH In a brilliant interview with one of America’s foremost leaders on the immigration equation, Dr. John Tanton www.thesocialcontract.com , you may visit one of 23 five minute interviews by George Colburn as he speaks to Dr. Tanton: http://www.johntanton.org/video/jt_video_2006_7.html Dr. Tanton asks: * 1. How many people should we admit? * 2. Who gets the 70 different visas to enter the United States? * 3. Who enforces their exit from the USA? Having watched all 23 of these highly educational video tapes, I felt a greater understanding of our dilemma. Obviously, we average Americans ignore our accelerating predicament as long as water falls from the tap and our cars enjoy ample gas and our heaters come on in the winter to keep our homes warm. But, our ‘land of plenty’ will not persist with relentless immigration. Dr. Tanton notes, “We cannot continue to solve carrying capacity issues by moving people and resources around the globe - we need to recognize the finiteness of resources and adapt our lifestyle to one that can be sustained over the millennia. “In summary, fellow citizens need to "buck up" and take up the discussion about mass immigration. It is time to give up the name-calling, try to find the facts as they are, try to be concerned about future generations, and try to make legitimate projections. We must acknowledge that most people are going to have to bloom where they are planted - there is simply not the carrying capacity to move tens and hundreds of millions of people around the globe and still have any sort of survivable lifestyle.” In a recent interview with Michael Cutler, former ICE agent, he said, “Democracy is not a spectator sport.” I concur. If any of us, no matter what our race, creed or color might be, refuse to engage our U.S. Congress as we have not for 30 years as to the immigration equation—our children will find themselves living in a terribly degraded America where the American Dream will be described by the history books as a ‘fleeting fantasy’ from the era of 1950 to 2010. Essential American Truths! (February 22, 2010)By John W. LillpopAfter watching millions of illegal aliens and advocates protest in the streets of America in recent years, it is clear that many newcomers, including those here legally, need to understand the following essential American truths: *In 1848, The Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo was ratified by both the U.S. and Mexican Congresses. That Treaty ended any and all claims Mexico had to land now a part of the United States. * Native American Indians were the original owners of the American southwest. Were there were any valid property rights claims concerning that land, such rights would belong to Native American Indians, not Mexicans. *America is a sovereign nation, totally independent of Mexico. It has been that way for over 200 years. We intend to keep it that way. *Brown may be beautiful in Mexico. But in America, we are partial to colors that symbolize freedom under the rule of law. That would be Red, White and Blue. *In America, Mexico is considered a FOREIGN nation and Spanish is a FOREIGN language. *America operates according to the rule of law which applies to everyone. This is true whether one is brown, black, yellow, lily-white, red, or an exotic hybrid of lavender and green. *Being hard-working and good hearted is commendable. But those qualities do NOT entitle anyone to enter America illegally. *Bilingualism is cool---provided one of the languages is English. Literacy in only Mexican and Spanish is not cool in America. *Celebrating ones cultural heritage is perfectly fine--as long as it does not interfere with complete and prompt assimilation into American culture. * Driving while loaded or drunk may be "macho" in Mexico. But in America, driving under the influence is considered stupid and criminal and is not tolerated, regardless of one's country of origin or cultural heritage. * People here illegally are common criminals, and as such, are most unwelcome. American citizens will fight to have such miscreants deported, regardless of whether or not families are involved. Illegal is illegal, Family or not. * Demanding that our borders be secured and that the law be enforced is the right of all American citizens; doing so does not make any one a racist or bigot. *U.S. immigration laws exist to protect American citizens & others here legally, not to facilitate a foreigner’s pursuit of a better life, and *Those who come to America must adjust to our culture and traditions. We have no obligation or desire to change in deference to foreign newcomers. Illegal aliens: Take this list with you when you are deported back to Mexico, and share it with other Mexicans considering invading. Your experience may cause them to reconsider, and that would be a good thing! Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians (February 16, 2010) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2009 list of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians." The list, in alphabetical order, includes: 1. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 "Ten Most Corrupt" list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still dogs him. In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut Democrat. In 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Senate ethics complaint against Dodd for undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms. Judicial Watch's complaint forced Dodd to amend the forms. However, press reports suggest the property to this day remains undervalued. Judicial Watch also alleges in the complaint that Dodd obtained a sweetheart deal for the property in exchange for his assistance in obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and business associate. The false financial disclosure forms were part of the cover-up. Dodd remains the head the Senate Banking Committee. 2. Senator John Ensign (R-NV): A number of scandals popped up in 2009 involving public officials who conducted illicit affairs, and then attempted to cover them up with hush payments and favors, an obvious abuse of power. The year's worst offender might just be Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign. Ensign admitted in June to an extramarital affair with the wife of one of his staff members, who then allegedly obtained special favors from the Nevada Republican in exchange for his silence. According to The New York Times: "The Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee are expected to conduct preliminary inquiries into whether Senator John Ensign violated federal law or ethics rules as part of an effort to conceal an affair with the wife of an aide…" The former staffer, Douglas Hampton, began to lobby Mr. Ensign's office immediately upon leaving his congressional job, despite the fact that he was subject to a one-year lobbying ban. Ensign seems to have ignored the law and allowed Hampton lobbying access to his office as a payment for his silence about the affair. (These are potentially criminal offenses.) It looks as if Ensign misused his public office (and taxpayer resources) to cover up his sexual shenanigans. 3. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): Judicial Watch is investigating a $12 million TARP cash injection provided to the Boston-based OneUnited Bank at the urging of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank. As reported in the January 22, 2009, edition of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated it would only provide funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending. Not only was OneUnited Bank in massive financial turmoil, but it was also "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use." Rep. Frank admitted he spoke to a "federal regulator," and Treasury granted the funds. (The bank continues to flounder despite Frank's intervention for federal dollars.) Moreover, Judicial Watch uncovered documents in 2009 that showed that members of Congress for years were aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were playing fast and loose with accounting issues, risk assessment issues and executive compensation issues, even as liberals led by Rep. Frank continued to block attempts to rein in the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). For example, during a hearing on September 10, 2003, before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Frank stated: "I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury." Frank received $42,350 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 1989 and 2008. Frank also engaged in a relationship with a Fannie Mae Executive while serving on the House Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 4. Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner: In 2009, Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admitted that he failed to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes from 2001-2004 on his lucrative salary at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an organization with 185 member countries that oversees the global financial system. (Did we mention Geithner now runs the IRS?) It wasn't until President Obama tapped Geithner to head the Treasury Department that he paid back most of the money, although the IRS kindly waived the hefty penalties. In March 2009, Geithner also came under fire for his handling of the AIG bonus scandal, where the company used $165 million of its bailout funds to pay out executive bonuses, resulting in a massive public backlash. Of course as head of the New York Federal Reserve, Geithner helped craft the AIG deal in September 2008. However, when the AIG scandal broke, Geithner claimed he knew nothing of the bonuses until March 10, 2009. The timing is important. According to CNN: "Although Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on Tuesday that he learned of AIG's impending $160 million bonus payments to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10, sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28. That is ten days before Treasury staffers say they first learned 'full details' of the bonus plan, and three days before the [Obama] Administration launched a new $30 billion infusion of cash for AIG." Throw in another embarrassing disclosure in 2009 that Geithner employed "household help" ineligible to work in the United States, and it becomes clear why the Treasury Secretary has earned a spot on the "Ten Most Corrupt Politicians in Washington" list. 5. Attorney General Eric Holder: Tim Geithner can be sure he won't be hounded about his tax-dodging by his colleague Eric Holder, US Attorney General. Judicial Watch strongly opposed Holder because of his terrible ethics record, which includes: obstructing an FBI investigation of the theft of nuclear secrets from Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory; rejecting multiple requests for an independent counsel to investigate alleged fundraising abuses by then-Vice President Al Gore in the Clinton White House; undermining the criminal investigation of President Clinton by Kenneth Starr in the midst of the Lewinsky investigation; and planning the violent raid to seize then-six-year-old Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint in order to return him to Castro's Cuba. Moreover, there is his soft record on terrorism. Holder bypassed Justice Department procedures to push through Bill Clinton's scandalous presidential pardons and commutations, including for 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group that orchestrated approximately 120 bombings in the United States, killing at least six people and permanently maiming dozens of others, including law enforcement officers. His record in the current administration is no better. As he did during the Clinton administration, Holder continues to ignore serious incidents of corruption that could impact his political bosses at the White House. For example, Holder has refused to investigate charges that the Obama political machine traded VIP access to the White House in exchange for campaign contributions – a scheme eerily similar to one hatched by Holder's former boss, Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The Holder Justice Department also came under fire for dropping a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. On Election Day 2008, Black Panthers dressed in paramilitary garb threatened voters as they approached polling stations. Holder has also failed to initiate a comprehensive Justice investigation of the notorious organization ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), which is closely tied to President Obama. There were allegedly more than 400,000 fraudulent ACORN voter registrations in the 2008 campaign. And then there were the journalist videos catching ACORN Housing workers advising undercover reporters on how to evade tax, immigration, and child prostitution laws. Holder's controversial decisions on new rights for terrorists and his attacks on previous efforts to combat terrorism remind many of the fact that his former law firm has provided and continues to provide pro bono representation to terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Holder's politicization of the Justice Department makes one long for the days of Alberto Gonzales. 6. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)/ Senator Roland Burris (D-IL): One of the most serious scandals of 2009 involved a scheme by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to sell President Obama's then-vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. Two men caught smack dab in the middle of the scandal: Senator Roland Burris, who ultimately got the job, and Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, emissaries for Jesse Jackson Jr., named "Senate Candidate A" in the Blagojevich indictment, reportedly offered $1.5 million to Blagojevich during a fundraiser if he named Jackson Jr. to Obama's seat. Three days later federal authorities arrested Blagojevich. Burris, for his part, apparently lied about his contacts with Blagojevich, who was arrested in December 2008 for trying to sell Obama's Senate seat. According to Reuters: "Roland Burris came under fresh scrutiny…after disclosing he tried to raise money for the disgraced former Illinois governor who named him to the U.S. Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama…In the latest of those admissions, Burris said he looked into mounting a fundraiser for Rod Blagojevich -- later charged with trying to sell Obama's Senate seat -- at the same time he was expressing interest to the then-governor's aides about his desire to be appointed." Burris changed his story five times regarding his contacts with Blagojevich prior to the Illinois governor appointing him to the U.S. Senate. Three of those changing explanations came under oath. 7. President Barack Obama: During his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House. Consider just a few Obama administration "lowlights" from year one: Even before President Obama was sworn into office, he was interviewed by the FBI for a criminal investigation of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's scheme to sell the President's former Senate seat to the highest bidder. (Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and slumlord Valerie Jarrett, both from Chicago, are also tangled up in the Blagojevich scandal.) Moreover, the Obama administration made the startling claim that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House. The Obama White House believes it can violate the privacy rights of American citizens without any legal consequences or accountability. President Obama boldly proclaimed that "transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," but his administration is addicted to secrecy, stonewalling far too many of Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act requests and is refusing to make public White House visitor logs as federal law requires. The Obama administration turned the National Endowment of the Arts (as well as the agency that runs the AmeriCorps program) into propaganda machines, using tax dollars to persuade "artists" to promote the Obama agenda. According to documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the idea emerged as a direct result of the Obama campaign and enjoyed White House approval and participation. President Obama has installed a record number of "czars" in positions of power. Too many of these individuals are leftist radicals who answer to no one but the president. And too many of the czars are not subject to Senate confirmation (which raises serious constitutional questions). Under the President's bailout schemes, the federal government continues to appropriate or control -- through fiat and threats -- large sectors of the private economy, prompting conservative columnist George Will to write: "The administration's central activity -- the political allocation of wealth and opportunity -- is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption." Government-run healthcare and car companies, White House coercion, uninvestigated ACORN corruption, debasing his office to help Chicago cronies, attacks on conservative media and the private sector, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for terrorists, perks for campaign donors – this is Obama's "ethics" record -- and we haven't even gotten through the first year of his presidency. 8. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): At the heart of the corruption problem in Washington is a sense of entitlement. Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2008 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline. These documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, include internal Pentagon email correspondence detailing attempts by Pentagon staff to accommodate Pelosi's numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker's 11th hour cancellations and changes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also came under fire in April 2009, when she claimed she was never briefed about the CIA's use of the waterboarding technique during terrorism investigations. The CIA produced a report documenting a briefing with Pelosi on September 4, 2002, that suggests otherwise. Judicial Watch also obtained documents, including a CIA Inspector General report, which further confirmed that Congress was fully briefed on the enhanced interrogation techniques. Aside from her own personal transgressions, Nancy Pelosi has ignored serious incidents of corruption within her own party, including many of the individuals on this list. (See Rangel, Murtha, Jesse Jackson, Jr., etc.) 9. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and the rest of the PMA Seven: Rep. John Murtha made headlines in 2009 for all the wrong reasons. The Pennsylvania congressman is under federal investigation for his corrupt relationship with the now-defunct defense lobbyist PMA Group. PMA, founded by a former Murtha associate, has been the congressman's largest campaign contributor. Since 2002, Murtha has raised $1.7 million from PMA and its clients. And what did PMA and its clients receive from Murtha in return for their generosity? Earmarks -- tens of millions of dollars in earmarks. In fact, even with all of the attention surrounding his alleged influence peddling, Murtha kept at it. Following an FBI raid of PMA's offices earlier in 2009, Murtha continued to seek congressional earmarks for PMA clients, while also hitting them up for campaign contributions. According to The Hill, in April, "Murtha reported receiving contributions from three former PMA clients for whom he requested earmarks in the pending appropriations bills." When it comes to the PMA scandal, Murtha is not alone. As many as six other Members of Congress are currently under scrutiny according to The Washington Post. They include: Peter J. Visclosky (D-IN.), James P. Moran Jr. (D-VA), Norm Dicks (D-WA.), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), C.W. Bill Young (R-FL.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-KS.). Of course rather than investigate this serious scandal, according to Roll Call House Democrats circled the wagons, "cobbling together a defense to offer political cover to their rank and file." The Washington Post also reported in 2009 that Murtha's nephew received $4 million in Defense Department no-bid contracts: "Newly obtained documents…show Robert Murtha mentioning his influential family connection as leverage in his business dealings and holding unusual power with the military." 10. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): Rangel, the man in charge of writing tax policy for the entire country, has yet to adequately explain how he could possibly "forget" to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income he earned from his off-shore rental property. He also faces allegations that he improperly used his influence to maintain ownership of highly coveted rent-controlled apartments in Harlem, and misused his congressional office to fundraise for his private Rangel Center by preserving a tax loophole for an oil drilling company in exchange for funding. On top of all that, Rangel recently amended his financial disclosure reports, which doubled his reported wealth. (He somehow "forgot" about $1 million in assets.) And what did he do when the House Ethics Committee started looking into all of this? He apparently resorted to making "campaign contributions" to dig his way out of trouble. According to WCBS TV, a New York CBS affiliate: "The reigning member of Congress' top tax committee is apparently 'wrangling' other politicos to get him out of his own financial and tax troubles...Since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him." Charlie Rangel should not be allowed to remain in Congress, let alone serve as Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, and he knows it. That's why he felt the need to disburse campaign contributions to Ethics Committee members and other congressional colleagues. Federal Hate Crimes Act Challenged! (February 16, 2010)The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor Michigan, recently filed a federal lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., challenging the constitutionality of the recently-enacted federal Hate Crimes Act. The Act criminalizes so-called “bias” crimes motivated by a person’s “actual or perceived” “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” and thus elevates those engaged in certain deviant sexual behaviors to a special, protected class of persons under federal law. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf of Pastor Levon Yuille, Pastor
Rene Ouellette, Pastor James Combs, and Gary Glenn, the president of the
American Family Association of Michigan (AFA-Michigan). [Read
Complaint]. “Christians are taught to love the sinner, but hate the
sin. In fact, the greatest threat of violence to ‘homosexuals’ comes not
from Christians but from other ‘homosexuals,’ according to statistics
compiled by their own advocacy groups,” said Thompson. Pastor Ouellette is the Pastor of First Baptist Church
of Bridgeport, Michigan, which has approximately 7,000 members. He is the
author of five books as well as many pamphlets and Bible tracts. Pastor
Ouellette travels across the country preaching God’s Word, which includes
the Biblical teaching on homosexuality. The lawsuit expresses concern that the Hate Crimes Act
“provides law enforcement with authorization and justification to conduct
federal investigative and other federal law enforcement actions against
Plaintiffs and others deemed to be opponents of homosexual activism, the
homosexual lifestyle, and the homosexual agenda,” thereby expanding “the
jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other federal
law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies.” Robert Muise, Senior Trial Counsel for TMLC who is
handling the case, observed, “This new federal law promotes two Orwellian
concepts. It creates a special class of persons who are ‘more equal than
others’ based on nothing more than deviant, sexual behavior. And it creates
‘thought crimes’ by criminalizing certain ideas, beliefs, and opinions, and
the involvement of such ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a crime will make it
deserving of federal prosecution. Consequently, government officials are
claiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal under federal law
and which are not.” It is a favored tactic of homosexual activists to
accuse pastors and other Christians of responsibility for violent acts on
account of their public opposition to homosexual behavior. The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org. Colombo Has Just One More Question (February 8, 2010) Ah, sorry to bother you Mr. Obama, Sir. . ...
See, I have these missing pieces that are holding me up, and I was wondering, Sir, if you could take time out of your busy schedule and help me out. You know no big deal, just some loose ends and things. Hey, you have a nice place here! The wife sees houses like this on TV all the time and says, boy, she wishes she had digs like this, you know? Is that painting real? Really? Wow! I saw something like that in a museum once. Oh, sorry Sir. I didn't mean to get off the track. So if you could just help me out a minute and give me some details, I will get right out of your way. I want to close this case and maybe take the wife to Coney Island or something. Ever been to Coney Island Sir? No? I didn't think so.... Well, listen, anyway, I can't seem to get some information I need to wrap this up. These things seem to either be “Not released" or "Not available." I'm sure it's just an oversight or glitch or something, so if you could you tell me where these things are I have them written down here somewhere -- oh wait. I'll just read it to you. Could you please help me find these things, Sir? 1. Occidental College records -- Not released 2. Columbia College records -- Not released 3. Columbia Thesis paper -- "Not available" 4. Harvard College records -- Not released 5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released 6. Medical records -- Not released 7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- Not available 8. Your Illinois State Senate records -- Not available 9. Law practice client list -- Not released 10. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released 11. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released 12. Record of your baptism -- Not available 13. Why your wife, Michelle, can no longer practice law as an attorney? (Insurance fraud?) 14. Why your wife has 22 assistants, when other First Ladies had one? 15. Why were you getting "foreign student aid" as a college student? 16. Which countries "passport" did you have when you visited Pakistan in 1981? Oh and one more thing Mr. President, I can't seem to find any articles you published as editor of the Harvard Law Review, or as a Professor at the University of Chicago. Can you explain that to me, Sir? Oh, but hey -- listen! I know you're busy! If this is too much for you right now -- I mean -- tell you what. I'll come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you're busy. I'll just let myself out. I'll be back tomorrow. And the day after… What's that Mr. President? Who wants to know these things? We the People of the United States of America! You know, the ones that vote. Author: Anon Reality Check – Your Government at Work (February 8, 2010) Let me see if I got this right. If you cross the North Korean border illegally you get 12 years hard labor. If you cross the Iranian border illegally you are detained indefinitely. If you cross the Afghan border illegally, you get shot. If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally you will be jailed. If you cross the Chinese border illegally you may never be heard from again. If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally you will be branded a spy and your fate will be sealed. If you cross the Cuban border illegally you will be thrown into political prison to rot. However, If you cross the U.S. border illegally you get A job, A driver’s license, Social security card, Welfare, Food stamps, Credit cards, Subsidized rent or a loan to buy a house, Free education, Free health care, A lobbyist in Washington Billions of dollars worth of public documents printed in your language The right to carry your country’s flag while you protest that you don’t get enough respect And, in many instances, you can vote. I just wanted to make sure I had a firm grasp on the situation… Analysis of President Obama’s State of the Union Address (February 1, 2010) (Alexandria, VA) -- Even as he encouraged positive reforms like a freeze on a small portion of the federal budget and a more robust disclosure process for Congressional earmarks, President Obama still called for at least $70.46 billion in new federal spending burdens on taxpayers, according to a line-by-line analysis of his first State of the Union speech by the non-partisan National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF). "Presidents often give laundry lists of proposals designed to please political constituencies in their State of the Union Addresses, and President Obama's speech was no exception," said NTUF Senior Policy Analyst Demian Brady, who conducted the study. "But regardless of what's in the laundry bag, the people left holding the bill for it all are the nation's taxpayers. While the President should be commended for his newfound support of a spending freeze on one-eighth of the federal budget, Americans won't be happy to learn that his other proposals would far outweigh any savings the freeze might provide." Among the findings of NTUF's analysis: President Obama outlined items whose enactment would increase federal spending by a net of $70.46 billion per year. Since 1999, when NTUF began tracking Presidential addresses, the lowest recorded total was President Bush's address in 2006, coming in under $1 billion in new spending; the highest was President Clinton's 1999 speech, which proposed $305 billion in new outlays. Obama's speech last night amounted to $36 billion less than the $106 billion that George W. Bush offered in his first State of the Union speech in 2002. Obama outlined 21 proposals with a fiscal impact last night, eight of which would boost spending, three of which would cut them, and 10 of which had costs or savings that could not be pinpointed. The single largest item Obama mentioned was a call to pass cap-and-trade national energy tax legislation, with an outlay cost of $51.5 billion (not including revenue increases or price hikes in energy bills). Other large initiatives included immigration reform ($9.8 billion) and subsidies for retirement savings among low-income Americans. Major undertakings with unquantifiable costs included a student loan forgiveness program and a new round of mortgage refinancing subsidies. President Obama was not able to address all of his planned spending increases in his speech yesterday. Among them were: a $44 billion increase in Defense spending, the largest single-year request for federal funding in education ever (which will include up to $4 billion to reform No Child Left Behind), an increase in NASA spending, and between $7-17 billion in new costs for the Department of Transportation (which does not include an additional $5 billion planned to continue a High Speed Rail project). "This analysis doesn't include huge potential burdens from big-government health care legislation, a new 'stimulus' plan, or greater obligations to bailed out entities like auto companies and banks. While it's clear we face enormous deficits as far as the eye can see, taxpayers seeking specifics on the President's future direction of federal expenditures likely won't find a compass in last night's speech," Brady continued. "Next week's budget blueprint from the White House may fill in some of those blanks, and Congress's own actions will do the same. Still, many Americans are no doubt hoping that the words of encouragement they've heard on addressing excessive government spending will soon transform into deeds," Brady concluded. Since 1991, NTUF has tracked the fiscal impact of proposed legislation through BillTally, an accounting database that reports the "net annual agenda cost" for each Member of Congress based on sponsorships and cosponsorships of pending legislation. For this analysis, NTUF matched Obama's proposals with those in the BillTally system and in White House documents. NTUF is the research affiliate of the 362,000-member National Taxpayers Union, a non-profit taxpayer advocacy group founded in 1969. Note: For a spreadsheet of cost estimates for Obama's State of the Union proposals, along with analyses of past Presidential speeches, visit www.ntu.org. Social Security and How It Got That Way (February 1, 2010) Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), a Democrat, introduced Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised: · That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary, · That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program, · That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year, · That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and · That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following: If I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year that Congress, not President Eisenhower, voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend. It was a Democratic controlled Congress. From what I understand, Congress' logic at that time was that there was so much money in the Social Security Fund that it would never run out or be used up for the purpose it was intended or set aside for. Question: Which political party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it? Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Term of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969) and the Democratic controlled House and Senate. Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? Answer: The Democratic Party. Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) (Vice President Term of Office: January 10, 1993 to January 20, 2001) casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US. Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants? Answer: That's right! James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) (Democrat, Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981) and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive social security payments. The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! And remember Klee’s Law: “All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.” (James Madison) Being Charitable with Other People’s Money is Not Charitable (January 25, 2010) Obama and the Democrats love to be magnanimous with other people’s money i.e. taxpayers. Take Haiti, for example. Obama is willing to literally give away millions of taxpayer dollars to help Haiti recover from its current ordeal but not willing to cut back one red cent on spending programs in this country to pay for it. Just cutting back on waste alone would pay for the aid being sent to Haiti. Haiti, as one might recall, is the same country that attacked our naval vessels during the Clinton regime when he tried to restore peace and order to that country during a civil upheaval there some time back – but that’s another story. Let’s not confuse a corrupt government with the sufferings of its people – I’m talking about Haiti, not the United States. Walter Williams, in a recent column, put it succinctly, “The Haitian political and economic climate that make Haitians helpless in the face of natural disasters are ‘especially cruel and incomprehensible.’… Haiti's disaster demands immediate Western assistance, but it's only the Haitian people who can relieve themselves of the deeper tragedy of self-inflicted poverty." However, if Obama and the Democrats were truly sincere in wanting to help the people of Haiti they would eliminate spending in certain areas in this country to free up the funds needed to help them out. They could start by eliminating all the Czar positions created by the Obama administration at an estimated savings of over $1 million, and cutting back on Michelle Obama’s operating budget that even exceeds that amount. Relatively speaking, that’s small potatoes. For the real bucks, eliminating about 75 percent of all cabinet departments and the bureaucracies that accompany them would result in mega-billions in savings. Resigning membership in the United Nations and a reexamination of what we’re spending on foreign aid and to whom would be steps in the right direction A friend of mine sent me a copy of an article published in the St Petersburg Florida Times sent in by one of its readers as to how to fix our own economy. It goes something like this: Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan. You can call it the "Patriotic Retirement Plan": There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations: 1) They MUST retire. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed. 2) They MUST buy a new American CAR. Forty million cars ordered – Auto Industry fixed. 3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage – Housing Crisis fixed. It can't get any easier than that!! P.S. If more money is needed, have all members in Congress pay their taxes... Mr. President, while you're at it, make Congress retire on Social Security and Medicare. I'll bet both programs would be fixed pronto.” I would add: require the administration and Congress to be covered under the same health care program as the rest of the country. The guy has a great idea. For $40 million we could create 40 million job openings, salvage the American auto industry, solve the housing crisis and make the administration and Congress more reality-centered. It’s a bargain! But as the situation is now, Obama and the Democrats continue to steal more money from the taxpayers and bankrupt the country while perpetuating their own spending free fall. Let’s help Haiti all we can by insisting that the government send aid to Haiti, the cost of which to be paid for by taking the money out of existing spending programs like those I’ve mentioned. That way all taxpayers can participate in a collective charitable outreach to those Haitians stricken by this horrible misfortune. And remember Klee’s Law: “If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop diggin'...” (Old Farmer’s Advice) ©2010 Harvey H. Klee Cash for Clunkers Economics (January 25, 2010) Think of it this way: · A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year. · A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year. · So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year. · They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year. · That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. · Now 5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption. · More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars. · So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million. · We spent $8.57 for every dollar saved. Thus in about 8-1/2 years it will break even. Not counting taxes and interest. I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with health care though...
Stimulus Funds Went to Nonexistent Zip Code Areas (January 18, 2010) Jim Scarantino of the New Mexico Watchdog Rog posted the following article on January 3, 2010. First it was phantom Congressional districts. Now it is phantom zip codes. Last month, we reported on federal stimulus money credited with creating jobs in nonexistent New Mexico Congressional districts. Further examination of the most recent report on the recipients and uses of New Mexico’s share of the $787 billion stimulus shows jobs created and money going to zip codes that do not exist. New Mexico Watchdog broke what became a national news story, and fodder for Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert. The website launched by the Obama Administration to track the destinations of billions of dollars of stimulus funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act showed billions going to nonexistent Congressional districts. The website, recovery.gov, reported $26.5 million going to ten New Mexico Congressional districts that do not exist. Those millions were credited with creating 61.5 jobs. Spadework by our Watchdog counterparts in other states showed a total of $6.4 billion reported as being allocated to 440 nonexistent, or “phantom,” Congressional districts. The agency charged with tracking the stimulus funds, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, attempted to eliminate this embarrassment by lumping all the billions reported going to nonexistent Congressional districts into a new category called the “unassigned” Congressional district. Closer examination of the latest recovery.gov report for New Mexico shows hundreds of thousands of dollars sent to and credited with creating jobs in zip codes that do not exist in New Mexico or anywhere else. Moreover, funds reported as being spent in New Mexico were given zip codes corresponding to areas in Washington and Oregon. The recovery.gov site reports that $373,874 was spent in zip code 97052. Unfortunately, this expenditure created zip jobs. But $36,218 was credited with creating 5 jobs in zip code 87258. A cool hundred grand went into zip code 86705, but didn’t result in even one person finding work. None of these zip codes exist in New Mexico, or anywhere else, for that matter. The recovery.gov report also credits New Mexico with $131,139, though the zip codes receiving these funds (but creating no jobs) are in fact located in DuPont, Washington, Richland, Washington, and Gales Creek, Oregon. These errors were found by checking the zip codes reported at recovery.gov against the United States Postal Service’s on-line zip code locator. Coming on top of our discovery of millions of dollars reportedly going to ten phantom New Mexico Congressional Districts, this latest discovery confirms that the data released by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, at least for New Mexico, contains serious errors. All told, we have found over $27 million dollars that has been reported as going to either nonexistent Congressional districts or nonexistent zip codes. As in the case of the phantom Congressional districts, the dollar magnitude of the errors we found in little New Mexico was eclipsed by the repetition of these glaring reporting errors across the nation. If we can find nonexistent zip codes, we have no doubt that our counterparts in other states, which have received much more money, will again be able to repeat and expand upon our results for the Land of Enchantment. The next quarterly report tracking stimulus funds, and reporting jobs created or saved by expenditure of those funds, is scheduled to be posted by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board on January 30, 2010. The reports are docketed for quarterly releases. The discovery of errors, raising questions about the integrity and accuracy of the data, have occurred with the release of every report. Hutchison Responds to President Obama’s Remarks on Terror Attacks (January 18, 2010) WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), the Ranking Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, which will be holding hearings on January 20, 2010 regarding the terrorist incident on Delta Airlines flight #253 that occurred on Christmas Day, released the following statement in response to President Obama’s remarks today regarding Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attack and the rise of Al Qaeda in Yemen:
“I disagree, however, with President Obama’s continued drive to close the Guantanamo Bay facility in the face of continued threats. Closing Guantanamo and transferring terrorists to our shores and other countries will make our nation less safe, will provide enemy combatants and terrorists Constitutional protections reserved for American citizens, and could ultimately risk sending these terrorists back into the battlefield where they can continue to do harm to our soldiers and our country. I will continue to oppose the President’s decision to close Guantanamo and will do all I can in the Senate to deny funding for any scheme that would transfer prisoners to the United States.”
The January 20, 2010 hearing will focus on emerging threats in aviation security and the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) ability to adapt and address these evolving security issues.
There He Goes Again… (January 11, 2010) Hardly a day goes by that “Barry” Hussein Obama aka B.O., doesn’t come up with something new to destroy the country and further restrict individual liberties. December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order "Amending Executive Order 12425." It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and selected other "International Organizations" as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945. By removing language from President Reagan's 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. If the president of the United States has an aboveboard reason for making a foreign law enforcement agency exempt from American laws on American soil, it wasn’t shared by the White House. The main stream media, as expected, is playing down this piece of information aka news, but you can read the Executive Order and commentary at http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/wither-sovereignty/ Thank God and the Internet – otherwise you’d never know about what how Obama’s destroying our country.
Who Will Be Responsible for the American Dead? (January 11, 2010) by David Horowitz Two Guantanamo terrorists released in November were behind the Christmas Day attack in Detroit. Our security agencies ignored their own security measures and their own intelligence — including warnings from the terrorist’s father that his son was involved with terrorists. The chief of our Department of Homeland Security is preoccupied with covering her ass, and conferring citizenship rights on enemy combatants. Instead of throwing the enemy in the darkest possible dungeon and extracting information on the next terrorist attack, both she and her president are referring to him as an “alleged” bomber and helping him to lawyer up because after all he’s only a criminal who deserves the presumption of innocence and every other right accorded to citizens of this country who might be interested in protecting it. The answer to the question posed above is that liberals will be responsible when the next bomber actually succeeds in killing Americans. Liberals have fought the very idea that we are at war (and should use security measures appropriate in wartime) although our enemies have declared war on us. Liberals have fought to close the Guantanamo Bay holding center and to release its terrorists back onto the battlefield. Liberals have fought to deny us the basic security techniques — harsh interrogation measures, military tribunals, terrorist profiling (which would focus scarce security resources on Muslims and not on the hundreds of millions of ordinary citizens who are traveling to do business and visit families, including for example, elderly Christians confined to wheelchairs whose prophet preached love rather than war.) Liberals have advocated and pursued a diplomacy of apology and appeasement whose effect is to encourage our adversaries to have contempt for us and to deny support to the brave dissenters in the Muslim world who are struggling for their freedom. And liberals have conducted a relentless propaganda campaign designed to portray their own country as an unprincipled aggressor whose immediate consequence is to weaken its efforts to defend itself. We expect this from the anti-American left. But we are getting it from the liberal “center” from the likes of Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, the late Senator Kennedy, institutions like the New York Times, and pundits ranging from Chris Matthews and Andrew Sullivan who should know better to Joshua Micah Marshall and Joe Klein who have lent cover and support to the neo-Communist America haters of the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights. Our country is about to pay a terrible price for the orgy of liberal derangement that made the Bush administration rather than Saddam Hussein the culprit in the Iraq war and whose collective effort over the last seven years has been to dig the graves of the innocent American victims of the next terrorist attacks. More Obama Looney Appointments (January 4, 2010) The mainstream media continue to ignore President Obama’s appointment of bizarre personnel to run the government. Personnel is policy. That being the case the American people need to know about these appointments. This week I look at another couple of Obama appointees. These are not isolated incidents or an occasional bad apple. These folks are representative of the appointments he is making with little or no push back from the Senate during the confirmation process. Mari Del Carmen Aponte, Nominated to be ambassador to El Salvador
Mark Lloyd, Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer, Federal Communications Commission
David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Occupational Safety and Health
Kevin Jennings, President Obama's appointee as Safe School Czar.
Cass Sustein, President Obama's appointee as Regulatory Czar.
Craig Becker, President Obama’s nominee s NLRB Chair Becker is a longtime union activist who has spent considerable time and energy fighting to reduce union members' rights in order to give union management more control over workers. He has even argued that workers should not have the right to decide to not have a union. Adding insult to injury, the White House has told Congress it will reject calls for any of President Obama’s policy czars who work in the White House and don't have to go through Senate confirmation. So much for transparency and openness – not to mention the constitutional issue underlying these appointments. These are just a sample of the people President Obama is placing in positions of power within his Administration. If you want more information on these and many others, please visit the web site below – frankly, I can’t keep up with all of them as fast as they’re coming. What a bunch of bigoted, un-American incompetents! http://www.getliberty.org/content.asp?pl=187&contentid=187 And remember Klee’s Law: “We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties.” (James Madison) Rules of Engagement (December 21, 2009) If this is the way President Obama insists we fight a war, we should get out of Afghanistan and Iraq immediately in order to protect the lives of our Armed Forces. In a report by F. Michael Maloof, former senior security policy analyst in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and a frequent G2 Bulletin contributor, edited and published by the founder of WND, Joseph Farah, the rules of engagement placed on our military in Afghanistan and Iraq are killing them. The actual ROEs are said to be classified U.S. and NATO secrets, but based on individual soldier accounts. Those restrictions include the following:
In one case, villagers had tipped off U.S. forces of the presence of a Taliban commander who was threatening village elders. To get permission to go after him, U.S. troops had to get 11 separate Afghan, U.S. and international forces' approval to the plan. The approval, however, did not come until well into the next day. By then, the Taliban commander had moved on, to the consternation of the villagers who had provided the tip. Observers have claimed that it can take some 96 hours to acquire all the permissions to act. In other cases, the use of force against insurgents may be blocked if they lower their guns, only to have those insurgents return later to attack. Also, ISAF troops cannot engage insurgents if they are leaving an area where an IED has been planted. In one case, insurgents planting an IED had detected the presence of U.S. forces and immediately began leaving the area, tossing evidence of their preparations along the way. U.S. forces could not fire on them. The ROEs in some cases have gone beyond limiting ISAF troops in their operations. In one case, ROE restrictions were in effect when four U.S. Marines twice pleaded by radio for artillery support in combat action in Kunar Province in Afghanistan – and twice they were refused, before they were killed. Stop the Terrorist Trial in New York (December 21, 2009) Sign the Petition at: www.wnd.com/terror_trial To: Congress of the United States Whereas, Attorney General Eric Holder has announced he will move the trial of confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed from a military court in Guantanamo to a civilian court in New York City, where Mohammed's evil plans resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocents; Whereas, in so doing, Holder has implicitly awarded this confessed foreign terrorist all the constitutional rights due a U.S. citizen defendant accused of an ordinary domestic crime; Whereas, Mohammed fits the statutory definition of an "unlawful enemy combatant" who engaged in premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatant civilian targets; Whereas, he is not a citizen and was captured outside the United States; Whereas, Mohammed and his fellow terrorist defendants have made it clear they will attempt to use this highly publicized civilian trial in the U.S. to their own political advantage, to aggrandize themselves as martyrs and spread their jihadist ideology both internationally and domestically; Whereas, the president risks humiliation for America if this "show trial" results in acquittal, or even in endless defense motions and appeals that drag out for years; Whereas, veteran federal prosecutors claim the terrorists' defense attorneys will use this trial to discover and make public methods and practices of the CIA and the U.S. military that would severely compromise national security by revealing to America's enemies all of our secrets in fighting this war; Whereas, Congress can easily stop this dangerous mockery of justice by exercising its constitutional authority to proscribe or limit the kinds of cases federal courts are permitted to hear, an authority it has exercised many times throughout American history: SIGN THE PETITION at www.wnd.com/terror_trial We, the undersigned, assert our rights as citizens of the United States in demanding the Congress of the United States use its authority to stop this show trial and any future abuses of American jurisprudence by making a simple declaration: "Federal district courts shall have no jurisdiction over any case involving unlawful enemy combatants, as that term is defined in the United States Code (Title 10, Section 948a)." Constitutional authority is clear: Article III, Section 1, states, "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Therefore, if this outrageous and dangerous trial goes forward, responsibility for it rests squarely at the feet of the current United States Congress. The Fed's Money Monopoly (December 21, 2009) By Rep. Ron Paul L One silver lining is that the amendment to audit the Fed is still attached to the bill, and if it survives the Senate, the Fed will no longer operate in secrecy. If any version of HR 4173 becomes law, the Fed will be intervening and bailing out more rather than less, as it will gain enormous new powers in addition to those it already has. Whatever happens, the Fed and its defenders have seen that people are becoming very wary of its methods of operation, and many are downright angry at its very existence. Never again will the Fed be immune from the scrutiny of its critics. This is very positive. Because of legal tender laws that force acceptance of the dollar, the Fed has absolute power over the currency. This absolute power is leading to the absolute corruption of our currency. The money supply has doubled in the last year or so, which is extremely dangerous. The banks seem to be hoarding liquidity now but once these dollars make their way into the economy, hyperinflation and economic chaos will be a real possibility. Every time hyperinflation rips through an economy, the middle class gets completely wiped out. It is very alarming to watch the purchasing power of an entire life savings reduced to that of a few pennies. Those savings represent years of real labor, real time, effort and sacrifice exchanged for corruptible pieces of paper that politicians and bankers can destroy at whim. Legal tender laws force the people to become subject to this risk for the benefit of the rulers. Artificial demand for currency allows the authorities to create arbitrary amounts of it to pay for wasteful projects, like frivolous wars and an ever-expanding public sector. This saps the private economy of jobs and purchasing power, yet the temptation proves too great for politicians, time and time again. Our government is no different. Although our dollar has taken nearly a century to lose 98f its purchasing power, the fact that we are all obliged to participate in this slow burn of the economy on pain of imprisonment is anathema to the principles of liberty. I introduced the Free Competition in Currency Act last week to free the people from these governmental threats. HR 4248 would repeal legal tender laws, prohibit taxation on certain coins and bullion, and repeal certain laws related to coinage. The prospect of people turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies should provide incentive for Congress to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral. Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government's ability and incentive to inflate the currency and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess. With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system. E-Mails Of Climate Researchers Buttress Case Of Warming Fraud (December 14, 2009)
Networks Finally Cover ClimateGate (December 14, 2009) (And They Couldn't Be More Biased) Alexandria, VA – The world has been laughing at the broadcast network news shows for not reporting the great and growing ClimateGate scandal. It took two weeks, but NBC, ABC and CBS finally did over the weekend. In so doing, they showed that when it comes to the global warming debate, they are part of the Flat Earth Society. ABC finally reported on ClimateGate on Sunday, December 6, 2009. But they provided no specifics from the reams of emails and data from East Anglia University that caused the scandal, and concluded their report with the flatly incorrect assertion “The science is solid, according to a vast majority of researchers, with hotter temperatures, melting glaciers, and rising sea level providing the proof.” NBC reported on ClimateGate on both Friday and Sunday. On Friday they fretted that the scandal may end up “giving politicians from coal and oil-producing states another reason to delay taking action to reduce emissions.” And on Sunday they assured viewers “the evidence is overwhelming that man is behind climate change.” Neither ABC nor NBC noted that many of the “vast majority of researchers” to which they refer are at the heart of the ClimateGate data distortions and cover-up, and the “overwhelming” “evidence” they cite may very well have been tampered with by these researchers. CBS did a decent report on Saturday, but aired it on a show they knew their college football coverage blackout would prevent most Americans from seeing. Media Research Center President Brent Bozell: “Well, NBC, ABC and CBS FINALLY got around to reporting on ClimateGate. Much like with the stories of Van Jones and ACORN, the rest of the world enjoyed a laugh at their expense while waiting for them to play catch up. “It wasn’t worth the wait. NBC and ABC’s reports were so biased, they left their audiences as ill-informed afterwards as they were before. And CBS came about as close to blacking out their own coverage as possible. “ClimateGate is a huge story that is only just beginning to unfold. And I’m betting that NBC, ABC and CBS think they’ve done their duty and are done reporting on it. Hardly. This is a story that cries out for an investigation, the networks haven’t even scratched the surface, and they’re now done with it. So much for news from the broadcast ‘news’ networks.” Stop Playing Politics with National Security (December 14, 2009) By Kay Bailey Hutchison Two recent events right here in Texas provide a stark reminder that the war on terror has not ended. On Nov. 5, Nidal Malik Hasan, an apparent jihadist terrorist, coldly gunned down 13 soldiers and one unborn child in a murderous rampage at Fort Hood. On Sept. 24, another accused terrorist, Hosam Smadi, was arrested for plotting to blow up a Dallas skyscraper. Despite these horrific incidents, too many people remain complacent and fail to recognize the true nature of the threats we face as a country. The Obama administration's recent decision to transfer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and four other alleged 9/11 conspirators to federal criminal court is a glaring example of today's complacency. Just a few months ago, the U.S. Senate voted 87-7 in favor of a resolution that terrorists should be tried by military commissions. Indeed, in a 2006 speech, then-Sen. Barack Obama insisted that Mohammed would get a "full military trial" and that was how it should be. Now President Obama is reversing his position. As a result, Mohammed and his alleged co-conspirators will be tried near Ground Zero and afforded greater constitutional protections in our civilian courts than those provided to U.S. military personnel charged in a U.S. court-martial. Most dangerous of all, Mohammed will now be able to demand that the government reveal the evidence against him in open court. The problem, of course, is that evidence against al-Qaeda members includes highly classified intelligence information. It is critical that this information remains secret if we are to protect ourselves and our allies. That's exactly why Congress created military commissions: to provide a fair trial when the evidence against a defendant also includes vital national security data. Reportedly, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial – which was conducted in a civilian court – proved to be an intelligence bonanza for al-Qaeda. Prosecutors were forced to hand over critical information that the U.S. government had collected on jihadist operations. While the president's decision's concerning Mohammed is alarming, it is not the end of our worries. Next month, three parts of the Patriot Act that facilitate critical intelligence gathering capabilities will expire unless Congress acts to renew them. These capabilities, which were created to help fix gaps in our intelligence gathering after 9/11, include the "roving wiretaps" that were critical to the investigation and the capture of Hosam Smadi. If this authority expires, the government will lose its ability to listen in on known terror suspects who change phones, among other things. So what are the Democrats in Congress doing? While they have agreed to reauthorize these critical surveillance capabilities, it is only on the condition that we make a host of changes. Their bill will create major problems for intelligence-gathering and law enforcement agencies and harm their ability to protect us. The events of the last few weeks leave no doubt to the imagination: We are facing a continued threat of terrorism both at home and abroad. That's why the Senate must reauthorize the expiring intelligence-gathering capabilities without the changes that tie the hands of those who protect us. Even now, there are terrorists like Hosam Smadi and Nidal Hasan who are plotting to do us harm. We need to be able to find them, investigate them, capture them and prosecute them. The attack at Fort Hood was the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. We can never go back to our 9/10 complacency. We must get serious about national security again. Obama's Planned Transformation of America (December 14, 2009) People said it didn’t matter: When Obama wrote a book and said he was mentored when he lived in Hawaii at his grandparents from 8 years old to 18 by Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed Communist, When it was discovered his grand-parents, were strong socialist, sent Obama's mother to a socialist school, introduced Frank Marshall Davis to young Obama When people found out that he was enrolled as a Muslim child in school and his father and stepfather were Muslims, When he wrote in another book he authored “I will stand with Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction When he said in his book, that he chose Marxist friends and professors in college, When he traveled to Pakistan, after college on an unknown national passport, When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist party in 1996 as he ran for the Illinois Senate, When he and Michelle sat in a Chicago Church for twenty years and listened to a preacher spew hatred for America and preach black liberation theology, When an independent Washington organization, that tracks senate voting records, gave him the title ofthe most liberal senator, When the Palestinians in Gaza set up a fund raising telethon to raise money for his election campaign, When his voting record supported gun control, When he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done, When he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan, Mummar Kadaffi and Hugo Chavez, When it was pointed out he was a total newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing, When he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals, who had set off bombs in New York City, When his voting record in the Illinois Senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question, When he refused to wear a flag lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry, When people started treating him as a messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises, When he stood with his hands at his side for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, When he surrounded himself in the White House with advisors who were pro gun control, pro abortion, pro same sex marriage and want to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition, When he favored sex education in kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination, When his background was scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found out about him, When his place of birth was called into question and he refused to produce a birth certificate, When he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco, a man of questionable character who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home, When it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected, When he started appointing czars that were radicals, revolutionaries and even avowed Marxist/Communists,. When he stood before the nation and told us his intentions were to fundamentally transform this nation into something else, When it became known he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN, When he appointed cabinet members and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialists, When he appointed a science czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, When he appointed Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar who believes in "Explicit Consent", harvesting human organs with-out family consent, and to allow animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting, When he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual, and organizer of a group called Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Education Network, as safe school czar, and it became known he had a history of bad advice to teenagers, When he appointed Mark Lloyd as diversity czar and he believes in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth - and admires Hugo Chavez, When Valerie Jarrett was selected as Obama's senior White House advisor and she is an avowed Socialist, When Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration, When he appointed Carol Browner, a well known socialist, as global warming czar, and she is working on Cap and trade as the nations largest tax, When he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as green energy czar, who since had to resign when this was made known, When Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for health and human services secretary could not be confirmed, because he was a tax cheat, When as president of the United States, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, When he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talked of her greatness, When his actions concerning the middle east seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel , our long time friend, When he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians, When he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops the Field Commanders said we had to have to win, When he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off, When he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions and individuals that got him elected, When he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc., When he took away student loans from the banks and put them through the government, When he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control, When he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade, When he completes his transformation of America into a Socialist State, people will finally wake up but it will be too late. Any one of these things does really matter. When you add them up you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact Obama is determined to make America over into a Marxist Socialist society. All the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily by doing an Internet search. The last paragraph is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph. Will it read as above or will it be a more happy ending for most of America? Personally I like happy endings. If you are an Obama Supporter – wake up and smell reality. Your president is a socialist, there are too many facts supporting this. If you seek the truth you will be richer for it. Don't just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth. I did. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalist, Libertarians and what have you; we all need to pull together. We all must pull together or watch the demise of a society that we all love and cherish. If you are a religious person, pray for our nation. Never before in the history of America have we been confronted with problems so huge that the very existence of our country is in jeopardy. Don't rely on most television news and what you read in the newspapers for the truth. Search the internet. Yes, there is a lot of bad information, lies and distortions there too but you are smart enough to spot the fallacies. Newspapers are a dying breed. They are currently seeking a bailout from the government. Do you really think they are about to print the truth? Obama praises all the television news networks except Fox who he has waged war against. There must be a reason. He does not call them down on any specifics, just a general battle against them. If they lie, he should call them out on it but he doesn't. Please, find the truth, it will set you free. Our biggest enemy is not China, Russia , Iran ; no, our biggest enemy is a contingent of politicians in Washington DC . "Are you better off now than you were $4 TRILLION Dollars ago?" Author Unknown Top Ten Questions and Answers on Obama’s Strategy in Afghanistan (December 7, 2009) An analysis by The Heritage Foundation 1. If the President sends 3,000 more troops to Afghanistan, does that count as a “surge?” Simply put, no, because the use of that term implies an Iraq-like strategy of ramping up forces to the maximum of what the generals are requesting. It has been widely reported that General McChrystal’s assessment for additional troops to achieve maximum chance of success was between 60,000 and 80,000 troops. While the President’s decision is better than no new troops at all, it falls short of that assessment. Additionally, the White House plans to add troops over time as it sees fit, and not necessarily “surge” forces for maximum affect. We hope that the President’s far riskier strategy succeeds. If it does not, we must remember the options he had available to him before this decision. He had the chance to turn this war around; if he does not, the result will be his responsibility alone. 2. Is the announcement of a strategy the result of a thoughtful, deliberative process? The delay in making a decision is inexcusable. Given that President Obama has been in office over 10 months; was privy to extensive briefings on the Afghan situation before that; the many months General McChrystal has been on the job; and the critical situation on the ground, the delay has put the mission and American soldiers in graver jeopardy. If McChrystal originally asked for 40,000 troops, as the White House would like you to believe, it is incomprehensible to believe that it took many months to simply lower that number by 5,000. 3. Even some Republicans are starting to question whether we should be in Afghanistan at all, if we’re not prepared to win by all means necessary. Is that the alternative choice? No, this is a false choice. We must win. This is not an “optional” war in which a pull out will be cost free. A pull out will be exceedingly dangerous to the nation, possibly leading not only to another 9/11 but also to the destabilization and the possible fall of Pakistan. We should never forget that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. 4. Isn’t any opposition to the President’s strategy simply partisan bickering, and more importantly, shouldn’t we rally around the Commander in Chief during this critical time? We want President Obama and his strategy to succeed. There may be a natural impulse to argue to “give the President’s plan a chance.” While we respect our military and civilian leadership’s views, the ultimate test of strategy is success on the battlefield. There is absolutely no partisan element to the purely military calculation that success would be achieved with less risk if the President sent in the requested 60,000 to 80,000 new troops and fully committed to the strategy without engaging in a blueprint for defeat even if veiled as an “exit strategy.” 5. How long does the President have before his strategy can be viewed as a success or failure? It takes months to transfer the military personnel and resources to the theatre before any measurement of success can be taken. That’s what makes the President’s delayed decision-making all the more inexcusable. In the meantime, al-Qaeda and the Tailban will likely do everything in their power to match the U.S. buildup, drive up U.S. military casualties, attack civilian aid, kill innocents in Pakistan and attack the Pakistan government and military to create the impression that the war cannot be won. In particular, they will aim their actions to inflame the “anti-war” movement in the United States. We should remember this when any increase in violence in the months ahead prompts knee-jerk calls to withdraw. 6. President Obama has been criticized for focusing on an “exit strategy” win or lose, but isn’t an open ended commitment simply nation-building? Don’t we have to leave at some point, and won’t that be announced regardless? Telegraphing our exit to al-Qaeda will only lead to further questioning US resolve. The strategy of building capacity for Afghans to govern themselves is not open-ended or “nation-building,” which implies some fruitless undertaking, but intended to help the Afghans to build the capacity to defend themselves (and to keep the Taliban and al-Qaeda from establishing safe havens) so that we can bring U.S. troops home. This is an achievable goal; after all, it was achieved in Iraq. The ultimate purpose is to protect American lives and interests, not simply to do good for the Afghan people. 7. General McChrystal is likely to say he can achieve some necessary goals with the President’s announcement; will President Obama’s strategy give him the resources to make this reality? It remains to be seen whether the troop request will be sufficient. We hope it will be. In the meantime, the basic concept of McChrystal’s strategy is sound. The U.S. must reduce the space in Afghanistan for the Taliban to operate; and it must also build the capacity of the Afghan government to serve and secure the safety of the people. All that requires additional boots on the ground, and the more the sooner, the better. While 35,000 troops is a start, we should remember McChrystal’s original assessment of 60,000-80,000. 8. Senior Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are saying that if we simply had captured Osama Bin Laden in 2001, this war could have been averted or successfully cut short – is this true? Absolutely not, and the mere idea reflects a mindset that left us vulnerable to terrorism in the first place. Even if Osama Bin Laden had been captured or killed, there were thousands of al-Qaeda lieutenants willing to take his place. The U.S. has successfully killed or captured many of them in the past 8 years. Add to that a Taliban government in Afghanistan that was willing to safely harbor terrorist training camps and fund operations against the West. Even President Obama has called this a “war of necessity.” Defeating the Taliban, destroying al-Qaeda and establishing an Afghanistan that can govern and look after its own people are in the vital interests of the United States. The alternative risks genocide in Afghanistan, a resurgent al-Qaeda, a return to pre-9/11 threat, and a destabilization of a region that could lead to war between India and Pakistan, both of whom have nuclear weapons. 9. Isn’t sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan a continuation of the “small footprint” strategy that many criticized President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld for employing? Yes. The same people who now support limiting our troop commitment to Afghanistan, or focusing on drone strikes were criticizing the last administration for not being forceful enough at the outset of the war, even before the war with Iraq had begun. Simply put, the small footprint strategy has been proven not to work, and does not lessen the view of terrorists that we are “occupying” their land. And it often leads to bad intelligence which makes surgical strikes not so surgical, adding to the propaganda efforts of the enemy. 10. Is cost an issue? Haven’t we spent enough on these wars, when people are losing jobs, the domestic economy is suffering and our debt is so high? Preventing another 9-11 should be, by anyone’s definition, a top strategic objective of the United States, and thus should also be a top budgetary priority. How does one put a price on the lives lost on that tragic day? Winning the war in Afghanistan is part of the strategy of preventing a similar disaster from occurring again. It should categorically take precedence over new Cash for Clunkers programs, new stimulus bills, new global warming programs and new bailouts. Unlike these dubious programs, providing for the national defense is a constitutionally mandated function of the national government, its primary reason for being. Yet, President Obama has spent his first year in office spending at an unprecedented rate while cutting major defense programs. With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates the annual interest to exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. An additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So in perspective, Afghanistan strategy sessions are not the meetings the OMB Director should be spending his time in. Healthcare Freedom or Healthcare Bureaucracy? (December 7, 2009) by Rep. Ron Paul The U.S. Preventive Task Force caused quite a stir recently when they revised their recommendations on the frequency and age for women to get mammograms. Many have speculated on the timing for this government-funded report, with the Senate vote on health care looming, and cost estimates being watched closely. Just the hint that the government would risk women’s health to cut costs is causing outrage on both sides of the aisle. Even the administration is alarmed at its own panel’s recommendation. One official, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius told women to ignore the new guidelines, keep doing what they are doing and make the best decisions for themselves after consulting with their doctors. This sounds like an excellent idea to me. As a physician myself, I understand the importance of ensuring that patients are able to consult their doctors and make their own decisions without interference from government bureaucrats or government-favored corporations. However, I am confused by the administration’s reasoning and apparent change of heart. Have they reversed their position on healthcare reform and now decided that patients and doctors should be in control of individual healthcare decisions? Or are they still in the healthcare central planning business? The healthcare reform plans currently aim to empower Congress to dictate to insurers minimal standards of coverage. Those government standards will ultimately be determined by politicians and bureaucrats, not individual patients and doctors. It is naive to think that recommendations by an authoritative government panel will never be used to deny services to people that want them. It is sad to think that people will be forced to spend their hard-earned money for a one-size fits all, government mandated healthcare delivery model, but then have to scrape together additional funds to pay out of pocket for healthcare they really want or need – that is, if the government allows them to at all. After all, the federal government currently forbids Medicare beneficiaries from spending their own money on services covered by Medicare, if for whatever reason they need to. Why wouldn’t the government eventually apply these kinds of restrictions to everyone, if they are successful with this takeover? Beware of the supposed gifts offered to you by government, for when it gives you things with one hand, the other hand takes away your liberty and independence. It remains to be seen what provisions will be in the final bill. We do know we have no funds to pay for it except for debt and money printed out of thin air. We know that the nation’s creditors are getting very nervous about the government’s continuous spending sprees and bailouts. We know this healthcare bill, like all government programs, will be expensive. There will be a day of reckoning when the credit stops and the bills for all this spending come due. When that day comes and politicians and bureaucrats have to deal with reality, it will be very uncomfortable to find yourself in their liability column, which is where healthcare reform will put many more Americans. In the Dead of Night (December 7, 2009) While most Americans slept or spent time with their families, the Democrats plotted and schemed, and passed their massive health care takeover bill in an unusual vote late Saturday night. By a vote of 220-215, the Pelosi Democrats voted to raise your taxes in at least 13 different ways. They voted to spend more than a trillion dollars on a scheme that will bankrupt this country. They voted on a scheme that will impact you and your family, and with almost no input from Texas at all. This bill will cost more than $1 trillion and will end up raising the nation's debt to levels that we cannot sustain. They did all of this while unemployment soared to over 10 percent, and their stimulus has proven to be a complete failure. The Democrats promised to put this bill on the Internet 72 hours before the vote so the public could read it. They lied about that. President Obama promised to have the debate on the bill on C-SPAN where everyone could watch, but he broke that promise. Pelosi and her puppets crafted this bill in backroom meetings. The Democrats promised transparency, but they are delivering stealth votes when no one is paying attention. The Democrats promised reform, but they are delivering massive government. This bill will raise your taxes, force you to buy insurance or possibly face jail time, and will destroy at least 15,000 health care sector jobs in Texas alone. Texas Republicans stood as one against this bill. Republicans offered a cost effective bill that would have brought down costs by reforming medical lawsuits and allowing insurance competition across state lines. The Democrats killed that bill. Several Texas Democrats voted in favor of Pelosi's massive health care takeover bill. Reps. Gene Green, Ciro Rodriguez, Solomon Ortiz, Lloyd Doggett, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Al Green voted for this terrible bill. Rep Chet Edwards played games with the bill, voting to send it to the floor for a vote, then voting against the Stupak amendment that ensures no tax dollars will pay for abortions, then voting against the bill itself once Pelosi was sure it would pass without his vote. All of his moves were about gaining political cover, not about principle. Remember these Democrats' names and defeat them in 2010. They stood with Pelosi and Obama - and against the people of Texas - in voting for this bill. The Senate is now taking up this bill. Send Washington the message that we do not want the government taking over our health care. We do not want the government running our lives. Obama can’t sign unless the Democratic Congress passes it first. Disclosure: The above was taken from an article posted by the Republican Party of Texas. There is no dispute as to the facts contained therein, however.Bogus Jobs from the Stimulus Bill (December 7, 2009) Written by Adam Bitely Hats off to David Freddoso and Mark Hemingway from the Washington Examiner for doing this research. They created a map of 75,343 bogus jobs "created or saved" by the Stimulus bill. On the site, you can see a map of jobs that were reportedly "created or saved" and a description of what those jobs were. And, most importantly, they have good sources on the information. Some good examples of these bogus jobs: "The Southwest Georgia Community Action Council claimed to have saved 935 jobs with the $1.3 million it received, even though only 508 people work there. In fact, the group used most of its grant to give raises and now says it created 9.35 jobs." "Koring Group reported hiring 52 people, but it turns out that they double-counted jobs that “only lasted about two months.” The FCC estimates that “actual job count is closer to five.”" "Stetson University claimed to have created or saved 483 jobs with a grant of only $193,469." And there is much, much more on the site. Check it out at http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/maps/Bogus-jobs-created-or-saved-by-the-Stimulus.html Audit the Fed Attached as an Amendment (November 30, 2009) By Rep. Ron Paul I was pleased last week when we won a vote in the Financial Services Committee to include language from the Audit the Fed bill HR1207 in the upcoming financial regulatory reform bill. As it stands now, if HR 3996 passes, because of this action, the Federal Reserve’s entire balance sheet will be opened up to a GAO audit. We will at last have a chance to find out what happened to the trillions of dollars the Fed has been giving out. Finally, the blanket restrictions on GAO audits of the Fed that have existed since 1978 will be removed. All items on the Fed’s balance sheet will be auditable, including all credit facilities, all securities purchase programs, and all agreements with foreign central banks. To calm fears that we might be trying to substitute congressional action for Fed mischief in tinkering with monetary policy, we agreed to a 180 day lag time before details of the Fed’s market actions are released and included language to state explicitly that nothing in the amendment should be construed as interference in or dictation of monetary policy by Congress or the GAO. This left no reasonable objections standing and the amendment passed with a vote of 43 to 26. This was a major triumph for transparency and accountability in government. With unprecedented turmoil in the financial markets, the people are demanding to know and understand the extent of the Federal Reserve’s involvement in the creation of out-of-control business cycles, who they are helping, and how. We need information. The excuses for not giving out this information are flimsy at best, and the passage of this amendment is a major step to finally getting at the truth. Of course I could not have done this without the help and support of many other members who have been strong allies in this fight. Having over 300 cosponsors was obviously helpful. However, as great as this victory is, we have to remember that this amendment is attached to a bill that would give sweeping new powers to the Federal Reserve. The Fed has taken its mandate to maintain stable prices and full employment and used its immense power to help elite friends at the great expense of everyone else. The answer is not to increase their powers and ability to interfere in the economy, but that is what the legislation will do. It is a disaster waiting to happen, and unfortunately it looks as if it will pass. At least with the Audit the Fed amendment attached to the bill, the Fed will not be able to do its destructive work in secret. The people will know exactly who the beneficiaries are of this immoral system of money management. $2.1 Trillion "Takeover of Nation's Health Care System" (November 30, 2009) Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson condemned the House of Representatives for voting to approve "$2.1 trillion takeover of the nation's entire health care sector in spite of overwhelming public opposition to the measure." Americans for Limited Government estimates the legislation will cost $2.1 trillion over ten years once fully implemented, and "will drive millions Americans off of private, employer-based health care, on to substandard, below-average government-run care, and open the door for a single payer system," said Wilson. The final vote was 220 to 215. "This Congress is rotten to its core," said Wilson, adding, "Members no longer represent their constituents, they serve the Washington political elite. They have succumbed to the insider deals, handouts, and kickbacks Nancy Pelosi needed to secure the votes for the federal government to claim an iron grip of one-sixth of the nation's economy." Citing the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate of H.R. 3962, Wilson said, "This bill will raise taxes by more than $780 billion and cut Medicare by more than $450 billion. In the process, they are enraging political independents and seniors, both critical voting blocs for whom dozens of vulnerable members in the majority must answer to." "Members that voted for this abomination have signed a political suicide pact for which they will be held accountable," Wilson declared. "They have gone against the express will of their constituents who opposed this legislation." The bill would force millions of uninsured Americans to obtain insurance or else pay a fine, includes employer mandates, and creates a national, government-run "public option." Americans for Limited Government estimates more than 45 million Americans would ultimately be required to enroll in government care at an average cost of $4,700 per individual to taxpayer "As health care costs skyrocket because of the elimination of the private sector health options contained in this bill, so too will the costs owed by taxpayers, resulting in hundreds of billions of deficit-spending," said Wilson. "Because insurance under the plan is mandatory, the more private insurers that are driven out of business by diminishing insurance pools, the more Americans who will be forced onto government-run and subsidized care." "This bill will ration care away from seniors, water down and reduce the quality of everyone's care , increase health premiums, put bureaucrats between doctors and patients, break the public treasury, and leave taxpayers with a bill that cannot possibly be paid back," Wilson added. According to Rasmussen Reports, 54 percent of voters oppose the "public option" proposed, which only 42 percent support. In addition, James Carville's Democracy Corps polls found a full 54 percent of seniors oppose the nationalized health care plan. According to the poll conducted in June, 41 percent of seniors strongly oppose the Obama plan and only 14 percent strongly favor it. "To pass this monstrosity on the heels of Tuesday's overwhelming election results against her party, Nancy Pelosi has clearly lost her mind and needs to check her meds. She doesn't care if vulnerable members in her caucus are wiped out in 2010 or not," Wilson said. "Democrats are throwing away seniors as a political constituency," Wilson added, stating in conclusion, "They are enraging independents, who see their children and children's children being burdened with an unsustainable debt that will rise to $20 trillion in 2020 and top the Gross Domestic Product in 2011. And taking over health care against the express wishes of tens of millions of Americans who like their private health options and want to keep them." No Wonder Republicans Want to Vote Against All Incumbents (November 23, 2009) Recently Judge David Hamilton, a radical left-wing federal judge, was nominated by President Obama for appointment to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. This is Obama’s first federal court appointment and a sign of things to come. Let’s look at his record: Judge Hamilton worked for ACORN, that fraud infested voter registration organization currently under indictment, and was the litigation director for the Indiana ACLU. But why stop there? In a speech before the Federalist Society, Judge Hamilton was quoted as saying a judge’s job is to “write footnotes to the Constitution” and argued that judges “need to emphasize” with the parties in cases rather than dispassionately and equitably applying the rule of law. Judge Hamilton has ruled “that prayers to Jesus Christ offered at the beginning of legislative sessions violate the Constitution, but that prayers to Allah do not. He chose not to follow mandatory sentencing guidelines and overturned a sex offender registry law, and had “urged the President to grant clemency for a police officer who had pled guilty to producing child pornography.” In spite of this, ten Republicans for cloture regarding his nomination and put an end the filibuster against him. Among such Republican notables were Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snow of Maine – that was to be expected. A few other liberal Republicans joined in with them. In the middle of such astute company was our own Senator John Cornyn! I can’t do anything about the others but as for Cornyn, that’s a different matter come election time. It pays not to listen to politicians – words are their stock in trade and double speak is part and parcel of their bag of tricks. But actions speak louder than words. As scripture tells us, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” All 60 Democrats voted in lockstep for closure. Ten Republicans bolted from their Party stalwarts – loyalty and discipline be damned. Granted, in the end closure would have prevailed but at least one could stand on principle. Who the heck wants a judge sitting on a Court of Appeals who is sympathetic to child pornography – aside from Democrats? Talk about being detached from their constituents! And remember Klee’s Law: “Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Muammar Qaddafi and Vladimir Putin have all praised Barack Obama. When enemies of freedom and democracy praise your president, what are you to think? When you add to this Barack Obama's many previous years of associations and alliances with people who hate America-- Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfleger, etc. - at what point do you stop denying the obvious and start to connect the dots? (Thomas Sowell) ©2009 Harvey H. Klee Flash! This just in from Sen. John Cornyn’s office: “I will vote “no” on the confirmation of Judge David Hamilton.” WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, made the following statement prior to his vote on the nomination of Judge David Hamilton to the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: “I will not support Judge David Hamilton’s elevation to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. After close review, I believe Judge Hamilton’s writings and statements show an unwillingness to serve as a neutral arbiter of the law,” said Sen. Cornyn. “At the time he was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, the American Bar Association rated Judge Hamilton ‘not qualified.’ This rating is still apt.” “In numerous opinions written during his tenure on the District Court, Judge Hamilton has displayed a lack of impartiality, a disregard for precedent, and a willingness to legislate from the bench. His writings also evince his propensity to value ‘an understanding of the world from another’s point of view’ above an understanding of the facts of a case.” “For instance, in striking down Indiana’s popularly enacted informed-consent abortion law, Judge Hamilton radically ruled that the law unconstitutionally imposed an ‘undue burden’ on the right to an abortion because it allegedly forced ‘women to make two trips to a clinic.’” A Woman’s Choice v. Newman, 132 F.Supp.2d 1150, 1151 (S.D. Ind. 2001). “In making this ruling, Judge Hamilton flaunted the directly applicable precedents of the Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit. He also, according to Seventh Circuit opinion that reversed his ruling, relied on a ‘faulty study by biased researchers who operated in a vacuum of speculation.’” A Woman’s Choice v. Newman, 305 F.3d 684, 689 (7th Cir. 2002) “Similarly, in a case where a child’s complaint to school officials about her mother’s drug abuse led to the mother’s arrest, Judge Hamilton suppressed the drug evidence against the mother on the ground that the police had violated her substantive due process right to ‘family integrity.’ United States v. McCotry, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62777 (S.D. Ind., July 13, 2006). “To reach this conclusion, Judge Hamilton ignored controlling Seventh Circuit law and relied instead on the dissenting opinions of Ninth Circuit judges. And when the Seventh Circuit reversed Judge Hamilton, it chastised him for not properly considering the wrongs of the mother in the case, who ‘risked her relationship with her nine-year old daughter by dealing drugs.’” United States v. Hollingsworth, 495 F.3d 795, 803 n.3 (7th Cir. 2007). “In these cases, and many more, Judge Hamilton has shown an unvarnished result-orientation and has confirmed his reputation as ‘one of the more liberal judges in the district.’ Almanac of the Federal Judiciary. This record has not earned him the honor of elevation to a higher court. “As President Obama’s first nominee, there is no doubt that Judge Hamilton possesses the empathy and desire to write “footnotes to the Constitution” that catch the eye of liberal activists and partisan politicians. But these qualities are not ones that a Circuit Judge of the United States should possess. Accordingly, I will vote “no” on the confirmation of Judge David Hamilton.”Why Valerie Jarrett – and Why Now? (November 23, 2009) Web Site of the Week: www.stopjarrett.com It has become abundantly clear to inside observers that Valerie Jarrett is the eminence gris of the Obama White House. Her title is the intentionally imprecise “Senior Adviser and Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement.” Her role, quite simply, is to enforce Barack Obama’s will inside and outside the Obama White House. zA radical leftist with a ruthless agenda, she is the Obama advisor most responsible both for originating and orchestrating his most egregious attempts to impose a socialist regime upon the American people. Policies and appointments, brickbats and bouquets – they all come through Valerie Jarrett’s office. Little escapes the notice of her piercing eyes. And it is time to expose her heavy hand. Read more at www.stopjarrett.comSenator Hutchison on House Passage of Democrats’ Government-Run Health Care Bill (November 16, 2009) WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) released the following statement regarding House passage of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats’ government-run health care overhaul that further burdens our already struggling economy and includes higher taxes and a mandate on American families and businesses: “I'd like to commend the Republican members of the Texas delegation for their unanimous vote against the Democrats' government takeover of healthcare. Today and every day, they are fighting for Texas and the best interest of their constituents. Unfortunately, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress refuse to listen to the American people as was reflected in tonight's vote. “We need to work to improve access to healthcare, but we must do so in a way that does not hijack our healthcare system. What the Democrats have passed tonight, a government takeover of our healthcare and the tax increases that go along with it, is a disappointing substitute for real reform. I will do everything in my power to prevent this bill, and anything remotely similar to it, from passing the Senate. "My Republican colleagues and I have put forth fiscally responsible ideas for reform such as small business pooling, nationwide medical malpractice reform and tax credits for individuals who purchase insurance. These measures would lead to more affordable and accessible health insurance without crippling families and businesses." Congress Refuses to Read the Bills They Vote On (November 9, 2009) Nancy Pelosi's 400,000-word bill puts the pre-born and pro-life Members of Congress - squarely in the crosshairs. Nancy Pelosi finally unveiled her massive 19+ pound, nearly 2,000-page government takeover of healthcare. And she is already pushing for a floor vote as soon as next week but no later than Veteran's Day, Nov 11. This bill is longer than Leo Tolstoy's ponderous book "War and Peace"! It is five times longer than the Old Testament! In short, it's a monstrosity. And most of it is written in "legalese"! The last bill from Pelosi was 1,000 pages. They didn't think anyone would read it, but some did, so now she added another 1,000 pages! Sen. Jim Bunning’s proposal to require the Senate finance Committee to post the final language of the nearly trillion dollar health care bill, along with the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the bill, on the committee’s web site for at least 72 hours prior to the a vote on the bill was voted down 12-11, wit only one Democrat voting for it. Here's what we already know: Pelosi's bill includes the "public option," government-run, taxpayer-funded abortions and alarming new taxes. No wonder they've been hiding it! On Page 110, lines 17-22, there is explicit authorization of a new government health insurance program that commits federal funds to pay for abortions! So much for President Obama staring directly into the camera and promising no federal funding of abortion! And what about his promised "conscience clause" protection for doctors and nurses? It’s also expect Harry Reid's version of ObamaCare to emerge from behind closed doors, with pressure for a vote as soon as possible. That means we could be facing TWO major votes on ObamaCare within the next week to ten days! They've "Shown Us The Bill," but it's largely unreadable! As you might expect from the Obama/Pelosi/Reid power axis, Congress will now be RUSHED to approve bills that no staff can be reasonably expected to digest in just a few days. Lawmakers tell us it could take a week or more just to get through the text, but Pelosi will be demanding passage by then! When confronted with the bill's staggering length and complexity, Democrats say Congress has already dealt with every part of the bill! Well, maybe a FEW of them have - behind closed doors - but nobody else has seen this radical manifesto! It is TWICE as long as anything the committees spewed out! Pro-life Congressmen are facing intense pressure. Thankfully, many courageous pro-life Democrats and a growing number of moderates are speaking out against their leadership's kamikaze plans. One Representative even said he was willing to jeopardize his career to stand up for life. But the pressure to fall into line next week will be immense! Please call your Representative and your two Senators. Here is their contact information: Rep. Conaway 202-225-3605 Sen. Hutchison 202-224-5922 Sen. Cornyn 202-224-2934 Welcome to the World Of Obamaland (November 9, 2009) Facts, not Racism The Obama government owns 72.5% of GM and the
bondholders just 10% Obama diverted funds from the $700 Billion Troubled
Asset Relief Program Only 15.6% or $123,525,000,000.00 of $787,000,000,000 Stimulus has been spent. Under Obama the number of unemployed persons has
increased by According to Joe Biden, Obama "guessed wrong" predicting unemployment would remain at 8 percent or below through 2009 if an economic stimulus plan won congressional approval. Obama will double consumer energy costs perpetuating The Great Carbon Lie - that CO2 causes global warming – as the world gets colder not warmer despite the rise in CO2 levels. Obama's $646 Billion Cap-And-Trade Spending Bill has a New CO2 Green Tax to raise $80 Billion a year selling carbon credits and will double your energy costs. Under Obama each American family's national debt doubled and your family's share of the government debt is now over a million dollars. Obama lied and plans to keep Gitmo open and spend $80 million moving detainees to Afghanistan. Obama is raising the death tax on family farms and
small businesses to Obama borrows 50 cents of every budget dollar he spends
from China Obama Heath Care adds $2 trillion to the national debt
and Obama will Don’t blame me – I didn’t vote for him. More Obama Looney Appointments (November 2, 2009) The mainstream media continue to ignore President Obama’s appointment of bizarre personnel to run the government. Personnel is policy. That being the case the American people need to know about these appointments. This week I look at other Obama appointees. These are not isolated incidents or an occasional bad apple. These folks are representative of the appointments he is making with little or no push back from the Senate during the confirmation process. All have been extensively vetted and all are exactly who Obama wants in office. Mark Lloyd, Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer, Federal Communications Commission
David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Occupational Safety and Health
Kevin Jennings, President Obama's appointee as Safe School Czar. · His homosexual "partner" states that Jennings was a leading member of Act Up, a militant homosexual group that invaded St. Patrick's Cathedral during a Mass in 1989, harassing the congregation and desecrating the Sacraments. · Act Up was responsible for many other outrages, including throwing the ashes of dead AIDS victims onto the White House lawn. · Jennings also wrote the forward to a book entitled, "Queering Elementary Education" which boldly calls for pushing the homosexual agenda in the earliest grades. Cass Sustein, President Obama's appointee as Regulatory Czar. · Sunstein proposed that the concept of marriage should become privatized, with the state only granting civil union contracts to couples wishing to enter into an agreement. · He also strongly pushed for the removal of organs from deceased individuals who did not explicitly consent to becoming organ donors. Sunstein advocates making it mandatory for all citizens to register either as an organ donor or as unwilling to donate their organs. · Sunstein wrote he has no problem with forcing taxpayers to fund abortions even if they morally object to their money being used for such a purpose. Craig Becker, President Obama’s nominee s NLRB Chair Becker is a longtime union activist who has spent considerable time and energy fighting to reduce union members' rights in order to give union management more control over workers. He has even argued that workers should not have the right to decide to not have a union. Adding insult to injury, the White House has told Congress it will reject calls for any of President Obama’s policy czars who work in the White House and don't have to go through Senate confirmation. So much for transparency and openness – not to mention the constitutional issue underlying these appointments. These are just a sample of the people President Obama is placing in positions of power within his Administration. If you want more information on these and many others, please visit: http://www.getliberty.org/content.asp?pl=187&contentid=187 Senate Finance Committee Passes $4,000 Family Healthcare Tax (October 26, 2009) Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today condemned the Senate Finance Committee for approving what he called a "$4,000 family health care tax on private insurance options, forcing, over time, more families onto substandard government-run health care." Wilson pointed to a recent report by America's Health Insurance Plans that stated, "by 2019 the cost of single coverage is expected to increase by $1,500 more than it would under the current system and the cost of family coverage is expected to increase by $4,000 more than it would under the current system." The report continues, "This amounts to an additional 18 percent increase in premiums by 2019." The report states that this average increase is a "composite of increases by market segment": a 49 percent increase for the individual market, a 28 percent increase for employers with fewer than 50 employees, an 11 percent increase for larger employers, and a 9 percent increase for self-insured employers. "The whole point of so-called health care 'reform' was to reduce the costs of health care," said Wilson. "Now, we learn that the Baucus bill does precisely the opposite—increasing the cost of private premiums at an even faster pace than they would have." "Which," Wilson added, "is the point. The idea is to push Americans off of private health options onto the government-run scheme." The Committee voted 14-9 in favor of the Baucus-led bill, which ALG estimates could extend to as many as 45 million at a cost of $2.1 trillion over ten years. Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine was the only Republican voting in favor. "The Senate Finance Committee has accepted the doctrine of quantity over quality—that every American must have health care, no matter how much government's mandate that it be so reduces quality over time," said Wilson. Wilson pointed to the average cost per individual covered under the Baucus plan, which is $2,858. "The Baucus plan puts the basic price per individual at about $2,000 less than what it actually costs today for a health premium. Which means that the plan will provide below-average medical care to participants, millions of whom will be forced on to the plan," Wilson explained. Last week, Wilson blasted the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for "understating" the cost estimates of the Senate Finance Committee bill, which according to ALG estimates was $1.271 trillion off the mark. Wilson also took issue with the amount of individuals that estimated to be covered under the Senate plan by the CBO. "The CBO estimates that a government program in which 91.5 million people under the age of 65 are technically eligible for will only result in 29 million new enrollees," Wilson said. "That just does not pass the smell test." According to the CBO letter to Senator Max Baucus, taxpayers would subsidize care for those making 400 percent above the poverty level, or individuals who make $43,320 a year or less. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, that includes 91.5 million people under the age of 65, or 125.8 million in total. Currently, 80.5 million now receive their health care from the government. Wilson said that means at least 45 million will be eligible, "and eventually, will be forced on to, by government mandate, on to these government-run plans." According to the CBO analysis, the Senate bill will cut Medicare and Medicaid by approximately $404 billion, and include tax increases of $406 billion over ten years. "Rather than put this bill in the trash where it belongs, the Senate Finance Committee is consigning the American people to a future of health care rationing without their own private options at a cost that will break the public treasury once and for all," Wilson concluded.
As reported in WorldNetDaily recently, a $200 billion lawsuit filed on behalf of shareholders of American International Group has been amended to include Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox as defendants. The case, filed earlier by a public interest law firm, Freedom Watch USA, is on behalf of shareholders of AIG who have watched the value of the company plummet by some $214 billion. The class action lawsuit filed in federal court in Los Angeles is a "wide reaching" claim that will do what Congress cannot, said Freedom Watch USA founder Larry Klayman. "The American people, not the compromised ruling elite in Washington, D.C., have begun a second American Revolution to take the country back from the con men on Wall Street, and on Pennsylvania Avenue – who under successive administrations played a central role in the meltdown of the U.S. financial system and economy," Klayman said. The amended complaint now alleges that the additional defendants violated the constitutional rights of the shareholders by denying them the right to their property, the shares themselves. "The inspiration for this amendment was information disclosed by University of Missouri professor William K. Black on the Bill Moyers' PBS television show last Friday, where he implicated these government officials in a massive cover up of the banking scandal, mostly for the benefit of Goldman Sachs, the former employer of both Paulson and Geithner, in which they held a significant financial interest," Klayman reported. "As for Cox, his reckless and intentionally impotent oversight at the SEC is the basis for the claim against him," he said. Klayman noted that under precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. vs. Bivens, the defendants can be named as individuals, as well as officials. Klayman also decried the apparent attempt by AIG CEO Edward Liddy to avoid being served with the original lawsuit. On at least three occasions already, he has "run," telling AIG security not to allow process servers into his office suite, Klayman said. "This is an absolute disgrace," said Klayman. "It shows the complete lack of respect AIG and its directors have for the Rule of Law. Liddy can run but he cannot hide. It's only a matter of time before he and his co-horts, along with Geithner, Paulson and Cox, will be held accountable by the American people, not compromised politicians in Washington, D.C., like Barney Frank Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who yesterday refused to answer a legitimate question from a Harvard student who inquired why he and his committee failed to oversee the banking scandal." The complaint alleges the defendants "jointly and severally, have seriously undermined and damaged AIG's financial health and valuable past reputation by systematically causing and/or permitting the company to engage in a litany of highly risky, detrimental and reckless business dealings …. that have caused the company to verge on bankruptcy and which have required in excess of $190 billion dollars to date of government provided monies to prevent total company failure." The action seeks judgments against defendants "for the amount of damages sustained by the shareholders as a result of the defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets, causing a decrease in shareholders equity in an amount in excess of $200 billion dollars." "Freedom Watch will not rest until justice is done and it won't come from the Obama administration, bent on deceiving the U.S. taxpayer that it intends to clean up this corruption, all the while lining the pockets of its friends at AIG with government bailout money, who gave handsomely to have the president elected," said Klayman. The lawsuit alleges the defendants, also including Richard Holbrooke and Martin Feldstein of the Obama administration, have caused the company's value in 1990 to drop from "approximately $217 billion dollars" to today's estimated $3.5 billion, "a net decline of $214.5 billion based on the market capitalization rate formula." AIG used "financially unsound" credit default swap derivative contracts and collateralized debt obligations to expose the company to "enormous risk," the suit says. "After AIG posted a record breaking $62 billion dollar loss for the 4th quarter of 2008, the defendants, each and every one of them, incredibly paid out $165 million dollars in bonuses to its executives in March of 2009 and $55 million dollars in December of 2008 for this poor performance, and also paid out dividends when this was not reasonable or warranted under the circumstances," Klayman's case alleges. Klayman said 400 workers each received between $1,000 and $6.5 million, and seven executives in the unit responsible for many of the losses each got more than $3 million. "The bonuses were allegedly for retention, in part, and also performance based, but it has become clear that this was not the reason for the bonuses; rather looting of shareholder and government assets was the motivation," the case alleges. It continues, "During this time of unprecedented wealth destruction for AIG shareholders, each of the defendants were compensated generously by way of handsome salaries and exorbitant bonuses and dividends, among other benefits and perks, despite their misconduct." WND recently reported a poll indicated three in four Americans want members of Congress to return money they got from AIG for their political campaigns. The poll from The O'Leary Report by Brad O'Leary and Zogby International showed 73 percent of Americans think politicians, including President Obama and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., should not have profited from AIG and should return the money. Obama and Dodd were the top recipients of campaign largesse from AIG over the past two years, with Obama getting $104,332 and Dodd taking in $103,900. Others received money, too, but in smaller amounts. All together, AIG donated $644,218 to federal politicians. According to the Washington Post, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently confirmed that he had wanted to sue AIG to stop the company from paying out about $165 million in bonuses, but Fed lawyers advised against the litigation. AIG CEO Edward Liddy told Congress last week that the Fed signed off on the bonuses before they became public. The company also has said some of the employees have promised to return the bonuses voluntarily. Proof of Obama’s Socialist Ties (October 19, 2009)
Trevor
Louden of the NewZeal.Blogspot.com has done considerable research on this
issue and has come up with some documentary proof that President Barack
Hussein Obama was a member of the Illinois New Party, a socialist
organization. Michelle Obama and Patient Dumping (October 19, 2009) It must run in the family Please check out this story on what appears to be "Patient Dumping" at the University of Chicago Medical Center: Patient Dumping is the practice of dumping those that cannot afford medical services or those that would burden the system onto other medical care providers. At the University of Chicago Medical Center, patient dumping appears to be a routine practice. In 2002, Michelle Obama became the Executive Director for Community Affairs at UCMC. Interestingly, Susan Sher, who hired Michelle for the UCMC gig, currently serves as Michelle Obama's chief of staff at the White House. Shortly after Barack Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Michelle received a promotion to become the Vice President for Community and External Affairs. Also serving on the board during this time was Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to the Obama administration. In this new position, one of Michelle's top priorities was to solve a problem of too many poor patients or those on Medicare and Medicaid clogging the emergency room at UCMC. To deal with this problem, Michelle helped create the Southside Health Collaborative. This project served to provide a way to shuttle away patients to other medical clinics to receive care. This was blatant patient dumping. As the program grew, Southside Health Collaborative eventually changed its name to the Urban Health Initiative. After hiring David Axelrod's public relations firm, the name was changed again. Now we arrive in 2009. Congressman Bobby Rush (D-IL) who represents the district where UCMC is located, sent a letter requesting an investigation into the apparent acts of Patient Dumping to Congressman Edolphus Towns. Mr. Towns is the Committee Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, the committee that Mr. Rush requested to look into this matter. The letter from Mr. Rush, dated May 25, 2009, has apparently gone unanswered. We have attempted to reach Mr. Towns' office but our message has gone unanswered. The actors in this Patient Dumping scheme are the same actors designing the new Health Care system. These types of matters must be addressed before this debate is allowed to go any further. Citizens need to get to the bottom of this and start asking some tough questions concerning where Obamacare is taking us. Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Price (October 19, 2009) By its terms, the Nobel Peace Prize should go to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses." Obama has done nothing along those lines yet he was nominated for the award just 12 days after assuming office. But then, Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore also received the award so go figure. Can five politically biased Norwegians be wrong? Rather than you hearing me joining the multitude of critics still laughing over Obama’s receipt of the award, you might like to hear what the “Man (or women) in the street” has to say about it. After all, if I said it, you might think I’m biased. “Who in the world gets nominated for one of the world's most prestigious awards after only serving 11 days in office? Iraq is breaking down; North Korea continues to fire test missiles; Israel is about to get attacked from all sides; the president shelves Gen. McChrystal's request for 40-60,000 more troops for over 40 days, and now can't make a decision without his "war council"; and finally, it looks like the French are taking the lead against Iranian nuclear intentions. Are you sure the Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth" doesn't really go to Barack Obama? And he won the Nobel Peace Prize for what?” – Aryea Gottlieb “The Nobel Prize has been a joke for many years. But giving it to Barack Obama, who has no positive accomplishments on his record, is shameful. Claiming that Obama has brought America respect lost under Bush escapes me completely. Obama snubbed the Italian president and Canada's PM. Barack and Michelle embarrassed the queen of England by hugging her against protocol. Obama upset the Spanish PM when he took photos of his children, thus endangering them. Obama snubbed Sarkozy of France. We now have the worst relationship with Israel in history. Obama has sucked up to Russia, China, Cuba, Syria, Iran and Venezuela, the biggest threats to peace and to us. If you're an enemy of America, you love the choice. Everyone else is laughing or crying.” – R. Moon “Credibility of the Nobel Peace Prize is now lower than the value of the American dollar, both thanks to Obama.” Harold Johnson “Obama reluctantly accepts the Nobel Peace Prize. Dude! You can't even keep the peace between your homies in Chicago.” R. B. Cox “So, The One has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (on credit for more surrenders of American sovereignty in the future, no doubt). If the Nobel Committee is so degraded as to award that treasonous empty suit a Nobel Prize, then why not a retroactive 1926 Nobel Prize for Literature to Hitler for Mein Kampf? Disgustedly yours,” R.C. Rochte “So, Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," according to the Nobel Committee. Translation: They are impressed with the way Obama was willing to grovel before other nations and further weaken the United States with his economic policies. Well then, George Bush should get the Nobel Peace Prize as well. He gave away a chunk of our economy to illegal immigrants and put our troops into another "war for democracy," the kind we do not fight to win. Since Bush was a white Christian from the United States and not a Black Muslim from Kenya, he wasn’t an "inspirational" choice. The world sees this better than Americans.” Matthew Peak “I just can't believe they would nominate him for this - he's been in office all of 10 months, and he has not done ANYTHING that would deserve a nobel peace prize. This totally speaks ill of the entire nobel peace prize system - it's clearly just based on world opinion of a person - not on what they ACTUALLY do. I think this completely devalues the entire nobel peace prize system - apparently, you don't have to actually DO something worthy to get it. All you have to do is get people to like you, and they will just give it to you, and the money that comes with it.” Elflngchld “Who know what the future might bring, maybe someday he might actually earn one. For now, however, I see this as a blatant attempt to bribe the US President into doing things the Nobel people think they want him to do. This is shameful, and with this cloud over the award he should respectfully decline, asking that he be judged later on accomplishments.” Flrxfire By now you get the idea. The only positive comments I picked up came from the usual suspects: Michael Moore, Katie Couric, Keith Olbermann and all those other crazies in the MSM who still get a tingle up their leg when Obama’s name is mentioned. And remember Klee’s Law: Congressman Joe Wilson got into more trouble for telling the truth than President Barack Obama got into by telling a demonstrable lie about adding millions of people to the insurance rolls without adding a dime to the deficit. As regards providing medical insurance for illegal immigrants, I doubt that the president will do that. More likely, he will legalize them first and then give them medical insurance. (Thomas Sowell) And a corollary to that: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” (George Orwell) ©2009 Harvey H. Klee Obama Funds Offshore Drilling or Why I Watch Fox News - (October 12, 2009) Fox was the only news to report this (20 Aug 2009): "Today even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for oil for this country, he signed an executive order to loan $2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil. The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and not the USA. The Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil". We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever Wait it gets more interesting. The largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and the primary beneficiary is American Billionaire, George Soros, Liberal businessman who is a radical left wing supporter, finances MoveOn.org as well as other liberal programs and was President Obama's largest and most generous supporter during his campaign. If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was on any of the other news networks. Treasury Admits Cap and Trade is A Massive Tax (October 5, 2009) Thanks to the relentless work of Christopher Horner at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, U.S. Department of Treasury admitted cap and trade would be a tax that could generate revenue between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. Horner obtained the information from the Treasury by using the Freedom of Information Act. Horner says, These are candid, internal discussions of what they are telling each other and what they won’t tell you. The words cap and trade were chosen for a reason, and that is to avoid a vote on tax. This memo tells you it’s a tax. Why else are they discussing hundreds of billions of revenue to be taken from the taxpayer?” The energy tax amounts to $1,761 a year for families – “the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent” as stated by Declan McCullagh of CBSNews. Horner writes that the Treasury memo offers much more, including: the admission that cap-and-trade would cause the loss of steel, paper, aluminum, chemical, and cement manufacturing jobs which, as happened under Europe’s scheme, tend to export themselves to saner environments. Windfall profits under the scheme of allocating the ration coupons, the Waxman-Markey approach, are also admitted to.” These admissions are akin to our economic analysis of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill where we found:
And according to climatologists, all of these costs will be paid for no more than a 0.2 degree (Celsius) moderation in world temperature increases by 2100, and no more than a 0.05 degree reduction by 2050. “Heritage is saying publicly what the administration is saying to itself privately,” says Horner. Obamacare’s Five Flaws - (September 28, 2009) There is little disagreement among liberals and conservatives that America's current health care system needs serious reform. But the Left's plan is seriously flawed. Heritage Foundation expert Nina Owcharenko dissects "five major faults with the health care bills" being pushed in the House and Senate. 1. The public "option." Both proposals would create a government-run insurance plan which proponents claim would foster honest competition among private insurers. But how can there be fair competition when one of the players -- Washington -- is both writing the rules and playing the game? What's more, this scheme could lead millions of Americans to lose their private health insurance. 2. Centralized regulation. Both the House and Senate bills would result in sweeping and complex federal regulation of health insurance. This would take oversight away from states and concentrate it in Washington -- and this oversight is best left at the state level. 3. Greater dependency on government. Both bills would expand existing government health care programs and introduce massive new taxpayer-funded subsidies to buy health insurance. This would leave millions of Americans dependent on government for their health care. 4. Employer mandate. The plans would force employers to provide coverage for all employees or face a massive tax. These "play-or-pay" mandates will raise prices, stifle economic growth and particularly hurt low-wage earners. 5. Individual mandate. Both bills require that all Americans purchase health insurance. Those without coverage or whose plans don't meet the new federal standards would face tax penalties. Special interests are sure to "lobby intensively to expand the legally mandated health benefits, medical treatments and procedures, and drugs that all Americans must buy under penalty of law." Taken together or individually, these flaws would inflict serious damage on an industry that represents one-sixth of our nation's economy. Instead, Owcharenko suggests the government refocus its efforts on incrementally introducing real, cost-effective reform. Such a reform would grant more autonomy to individual states; extend tax relief to everyone who purchases private health insurance, regardless of employment; and rein in runaway spending on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. "Policymakers need to proceed slowly and deliberately," advises Owcharenko, "making sure that the initial steps they take are not disruptive of what Americans have and want to keep, actually work, and do not result in costly and damaging and unintended consequences." So far, they're on the wrong track.How Gubmint Works – A Reality Check (September 21, 2009)
Glenn Beck: Obama is a RACIST! Hates White Folks! (September 21, 2009)Obama is a puppet for the elite agenda to bring in their communist one world government aka the New World Order. Time to wake up and learn the truth about the Obama deception. Watch the Video
“Czarist Washington” (September 21, 2009) by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison “The deployment of this many czars sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the Constitution's guarantee of separated powers. It must be stopped.” – Senator Hutchison The Framers of the Constitution knew that the document founding our democracy must be the anchor of liberty and the blueprint for its preservation. Wisely, they provided a balance of powers to ensure that no individual and no single arm of government could ever wield unchecked authority against the American people. Nearly 250 years later, these critical lines of separation are being obscured by a new class of federal officials. A few of them have formal titles, but most are simply known as "czars." They hold unknown levels of power over broad swaths of policy. Under the Obama administration, we have an unprecedented 32 czar posts (a few of which it has yet to fill), including a "car czar," a "pay czar" and an "information czar." There are also czars assigned to some of the broadest and most consequential topics in policy, including health care, terrorism, economics and key geographic regions. So what do these czars do? Do they advise the president? Or do they impose the administration's agenda on the heads of federal agencies and offices who have been vetted and confirmed by the Senate? Unfortunately -- and in direct contravention of the Framers' intentions -- virtually no one can say with certainty what these individuals do or what limits are placed on their authority. We don't know if they are influencing or implementing policy. We don't know if they possess philosophical views or political affiliations that are inappropriate or overreaching in the context of their work. This is precisely the kind of ambiguity the Framers sought to prevent. Article One tasks the legislative branch with establishing federal agencies, defining what they do, determining who leads them and overseeing their operations. Article Two requires the president to seek the advice and consent of the Senate when appointing certain officials to posts of consequence. Thus, authority is shared between government branches, guaranteeing the American people transparency and accountability. As the senior Republican on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, I oversee legislation and agencies that cover policy areas as vast and varied as trade, technology, transit, consumer protection and commercial regulation. As many as 10 of the 32 czars functionally fall under my committee's jurisdiction. Yet neither I nor the committee chairman have clear authority to compel these czars to appear before our panel and report what they are doing. The Obama administration presented only two of these officials for our consideration before they assumed their duties. We have had no opportunity to probe the others' credentials. Recently we saw the kinds of dangerous details that can slip by when a powerful federal official isn't put through the Senate confirmation process. Before assuming the post of "green jobs czar," Van Jones had engaged in such troublesome activities as endorsement of fringe theories about the Sept. 11 attacks. He has ties to a socialist group. The Senate confirmation process would typically provide an appropriate forum for identifying and discussing these types of issues and for allowing for public input. Jones's case highlighted the lack of accountability that is becoming commonplace under the Obama administration. While Jones rightly resigned, there are dozens of other administration czars about whom we still know very little. It is Congress's duty to know who is serving at the highest levels of government, what they are doing, and what qualifications or complications these people bring to the job. It is also our responsibility to make this information known to the people who have elected us to serve and protect them. This is how we ensure accountability. The deployment of this many czars sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the Constitution's guarantee of separated powers. It must be stopped. President Obama should submit each of his many policy czars to the Senate so that we can review their qualifications, roles and the limits on their authority. To deliver anything less is to deny the American public the accountability and transparency the Constitution guarantees Sen. Hutchison Endorses Obama’s Appointees (September 14, 2009) “I know President Obama and his staff work diligently to ensure that each appointee has the best credentials and experience to effectively manage his or her job responsibilities,” Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. This is among the responses I received from Sen. Hutchison regarding an e-mail I sent to her urging her not to support Cass Sustein as Regulator Czar. I had to re-read her e-mail twice to believe she actually said that. Let’s take a look at Obama’s diligent efforts to appoint those with “the best credentials and experience to effectively manage their job responsibilities.” Sustein is a staunch animal rights advocate and Peter Singer devotee. Singer is quoted as saying, “Killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.” He’s also on record as outlawing sport hunting and giving animals the legal right to file lawsuits: “Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian-like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients’ behalf.” So far, Obama has appointed 34 “czars” managing everything from the restructuring of the domestic auto industry to closing Quantanamo Bay prison to ending the genocide in Darfur in an attempt to circumvent the Constitution’s requirement of Congressional confirmation. Sustein is only one of many of the certifiable nutcases he’s appointed so far. How about Van Jones, Obama’s Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality? Jones is an admitted Black Nationalist and radical communist. He calls Republicans “assholes,” signed a petition supporting the “9/11 Truther” movement, which claims that the Bush administration allowed the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to happen and makes off the wall claims that a “black kid” would never shoot up a whole school like a “white kid.” Or consider John Holden, the Science Czar. He’s a population control zealot who has stated the Constitution justifies compulsory abortions: “There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” Mark Lloyd, Diversity Czar extraordinaire. He’s all set to impose a 100 percent tax on broadcast outlets in order to collect money to provide alternative viewpoints, mandatory diversity in station ownership and the idea of requiring broadcast businesses to cater to the demands of local activism committees. There are also the 14 nominees up for Senate confirmation I reported on in my August 10, 2009 article, “Evaluate Your Representatives – Update” for which Sen. Hutchison does have a vote. All are left-wing radical crack-pots. For the most part, Obama has nominated or appointed some of the most extreme left-wing socialists imaginable for high level office. Several are confirmed racists – including the Attorney General, Eric Holder who refused to prosecute the Black Panthers who intimidated white voters, many are anti-American and seem intent on destroying the very country in which they live and all, including Obama himself, refuse to follow the Constitution that they are sworn to uphold and defend. All of his nominees and appointees reflect his own political bent For a Republican senator to believe that “President Obama and his staff work diligently to ensure that “each appointee has the best credentials and experience to effectively manage his or her job responsibilities,” is ludicrous. What they ensure is the destruction of everything that has made this country the greatest country in the world. The apparent difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is the speed with which they do it. To her credit, however, Sen. Hutchison voted against the recent Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Cass R. Sunstein, to be Administrator of the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Maybe she was just trying to be diplomatic in her e-mail. The gratuity, however, was unnecessary. And remember Klee’s Law: “There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.” (John Adams) ©2009 Harvey H. Klee Van Jones" Only "Suburban White Kids" Shoot up Schools
From IONS
Conversations at the Edge, San Fransisco, December 2nd, 2005: White House Appeal for “Fishy” Emails Warrants Lawsuit (September 7, 2009) By Ellen Carmichael The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE) announced that they have filed a lawsuit in DC District Court against the White House for their request for “fishy” emails from opponents. In an August 4, 2009 press release, the Obama Administration asked that supporters turn in any persons guilty of disseminating “disinformation” that is contrary to their faming of liberal health care reform proposals. Healthcarehorserace.com discovered last Tuesday that the White House disabled the “flag@whitehouse.gov” email address they provided for submitting the sources of “fishy” emails. Still, the buzz surrounding the White House’s appeal persisted, with Americans on both sides of the aisle concerned that the Obama Administration overreached by essentially monitoring the discourse of private citizens regarding policy issues that will impact their lives forever. Now, the AAPS and CURE intend to fight for these Americans and make an example out of the Administration for their inappropriate exercise of power. The White House has “unlawfully collected information on political speech,” thereby illegally using the power of the White House to chill opposition to its plans for health care reform, according to the complaint filed in District Court for the District of Columbia, by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE) The lawsuit was prompted by the White House solicitation for the public to report any “fishy” comments to ‘flag@whitehouse.gov.’ Although the White House slightly revised its data collection procedure last week, the email address still exists, the illegal activity continues, and is part of an “unlawful pattern and practice to collect and maintain information” on the exercise of free speech, which “continues in violation of the Privacy Act and First Amendment even if the Defendants terminate a particular information-collection component due to negative publicity.” The lawsuit outlines how the White House has employed a form of “bait-and-switch” tactic of accusing the Plaintiffs and other opponents of spreading misinformation about the Administration’s goals for health care reform, and thereby refusing to ‘come clean’ about its real agenda. The groups believe that the “White House knew that the data collection would chill free speech, and in fact, intended to do just that.” According to Kathryn Serkes of AAPS, the call to report Obamacare adversaries catalyzed a significant increase in the number and severity of scathing emails her organization received. “My hate mail started shortly after the White House issued the ‘fishy’ request,” said Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy and Public Affairs. “We were quite visible and vocal before then, so it doesn’t seem like a coincidence. Who did they share their data with? With whom might they share it?” Star Parker, Founder and President of CURE, expressed that while the White House’s bullying did not dissuade her, she does find it disconcerting that President Obama’s administration would see no problem in developing a database to track those who might oppose their policies. “As a black conservative spokesperson and columnist, intimidation tactics aren’t new to me,” Parker said. “But it is of great concern to see the current Administration build an enemies list of those who disagree with them on this important issue.” A few significant excerpts from the AAPS and CURE lawsuit delivered to the White House include: 43. As part of their effort to advance the White House healthcare reform agenda, Defendants have accused opponents (including Plaintiffs) of spreading misinformation on issues such as whether (a) health reform would provide public funding for abortions, (b) put “death panels” in place to deny care to the elderly or infirm, (c) amount to a government takeover of healthcare, and (d) increase healthcare costs..the Defendants and the administration have spread misinformation, semantics, and disinformation on these topics….. “45. By denying and continuing to deny that healthcare reform legislation includes “death panels” that make individual life-or-death decisions on the elderly or infirm, the Defendants and the current administration have ignored and implicitly denied and continue to ignore and implicitly to deny both that their healthcare reform agenda involves rationing healthcare…” The lawsuit demands that the Obama Administration “remove all information already collected, and further, be prohibited from collecting any personal data in the future.” It requests “declaratory and injunctive relief,” a procedure that would force the White House to cease their “fishy” email collections or face criminal penalties. Such a judicial restraint is rare, as the courts have ruled consistently in favor of the defendant’s right to freedom of speech. This case might be different, however, because the White House is a federally-funded entity and the injunction, in the eyes of the plaintiffs, would provide the only remedy to correct their errors and protect the American people. AAPS and CURE argue that Americans’ First Amendment-guaranteed rights to privacy and freedom of speech deem the behavior of the White House as unconstitutional. The suit was issued yesterday to the “Executive Office of the President,” located at no other than 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and was addressed to Nancy-Ann Deparle, director of the White House Office of Health Care Reform, and Macon Phillips, the Director of New Media for the White House.
About Ellen Carmichael Ellen Carmichael is a political consultant and commentator from Baton Rouge, La. Previously, she served as a communications associate at Americans for Tax Reform in Washington, D.C. and in the newsroom for Baton Rouge's newspaper, The Advocate. She is currently the state coordinator for Patients First in Louisiana for Americans for Prosperity, a political nonprofit that promotes fiscal responsibility and regulatory restraint. Additionally, Carmichael has worked for several campaigns as both a consultant and staffer. Her special topics of interest include government waste and spending, tax reform and health care issues. Carmichael will graduate in December 2009 from Louisiana State University with a degree in Mass Communication: Political Communication and a minor in Political Science. Fact Checking the White House (September 7, 2009) Rather than debate the substance, the White House is in full campaign mode in order to label any opposition to its government-heavy health reform agenda as “misinformation” or “myths you’ve heard.” Case in point: The White House now has a taxpayer-funded Web site to “reality check” credible criticisms and arguments. Problem is the videos “debunking” each “myth” are low on facts. See Heritage House’s current video responses to White House “misinformation” and “myths” regarding the attempt to nationalize health care in the United States at http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/reality/
Obama Denies Flyover of 'GOD & Country Rally' (August 31, 2009)First time in 42 years. Why? Because of Its “Christian Nature.” What has Obama got against Christians or, put another way, God and Country?
Physical Attacks on American Citizens (August 24, 2009) It all started when the Obama White House publicly asked Americans to report fellow citizens who simply exercise their First Amendment rights by opposing the "ObamaCare" socialized health care plan. Earlier this week, the White House announced a chilling, very scary project to have ordinary citizens report to them the names of their friends, colleagues, and neighbors who hold "fishy" views about the proposed health care legislation. This type of George Orwell 1984-type behavior is un-American and a clear violation of free speech. Further, it violates the privacy of American citizens and undermines the basis of democracy and freedom -- not to mention, they're violating the law by using a "dot gov" website for politics! Within hours of the White House saying it is going to "punch back twice as hard" against the thousands of fed-up patriotic Americans who are protesting the Left's plan to take over healthcare... there was physical violence at town hall meetings:
I guess we shouldn't be surprised that the Radical Left is now resorting to violence and police-state tactics to try to ram their government healthcare takeover down our throats. Even MoveOn.org is sending out emails this week saying, "We’re mobilizing so quickly to fight back" against all of these "right-wing mobs disrupting congressional town-hall meetings with venomous attacks on President Obama's plans!" These so-called "mobs" are nothing more that American citizens - constituents of these members of Congress who are angry that their voices aren't being listened to:
More than 88 million Americans could lose their private, employer-based coverage, according to a new analysis of "The American Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" by The Heritage Foundation. While Obama, Pelosi and Reid insist that "if you like your health insurance coverage, you'll get to keep it," it's now very clear: once again, they’re lying. If the public plan is implemented as detailed in this bill, people with private insurance will be moved on a public plan, regardless of what they want, because their employers will make that decision because of the financial incentives in the bill. That's not all: Yearly premiums for Americans with private coverage could jump as much as $460 per person as a result of more cost-shifting, which would stem from the public plan. Even doctors stand to lose thousands of dollars of income under the legislation. Annual physician net income is estimated to drop by 6.3 percent or $13.4 billion (coming in at an average $18,900 per physician) when compared with current trends. Throughout the last presidential campaign, Barack Obama repeatedly promised the American people: "If you're a family that's making $250,000 a year or less you will see no increase in your taxes. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your personal gains tax, not any of your taxes." He lied. Just 15 days into office, President Obama signed a bill expanding the children's health insurance program that was paid for with a 156% tax hike on tobacco. Since slightly more than half of today's smokers (53%) earn less than $36,000 per year, Obama's first effort at expanding government's role in health care also became his first broken promise in a long list of broken promises. But that first Medicaid expansion was nothing compared to the estimated $1.3 trillion health care plan Congress is considering now. And how is Obama planning to pay for it? Tax hikes - including employer health care mandates, which are really just a TAX on low-income workers, since employers will have to lower pay and cut jobs because of the tax penalties on them. you can send a FREE message opposing the government-run Health Care Bill directly to your Representative by clicking here, and to your Senators by clicking here. And remember Klee’s Law: "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." (President Ronald Reagan” MSNBC Creating Racial MythsAccording to MSNBC, gun-toting protesters are 'white' racists. They will even go so far as to manufacture evidence to prove it. Here's the video. The facts follow:
On Tuesday, MSNBCs Contessa Brewer fretted over health
care reform protesters legally carrying guns: "A man at a pro-health care
reform rally...wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a
pistol on his hip....there are questions about whether this has racial
overtones....white people showing up with guns." Brewer failed to mention
the man she described was black.
A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words (August 17, 2009)
The body language is most revealing following Obama’s beer summit with Professor Henry Louis Gates and Sergeant Michael Crowley at the White House– another Obama plunder. Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious? When it comes to the wealthy and powerful, one way to quickly capture the moral essence of a person is to watch how they treat those who are less powerful. Do they understand that the others are also human beings with feelings? Especially when they think nobody is looking. This picture becomes a metaphor for ObamaCare. The elderly are left in the back, with only the kindness of the Crowley’s of the world, the stand up guys, to depend on. The government has other priorities. One of the major subtexts of the health care debate involves the public's fear of indifferent, powerful bureaucrats ruling their lives. It is one thing to wait in line at the DMV to find out which other line you should wait in, in order to begin the process of waiting for multiple bureaucrats to go through the motions of processing your request. Entire afternoons can be spent going through this process. But when we get to health care, waiting often means enduring pain and dysfunction longer than necessary, sometimes a worsening of the condition, and sometimes death. That's why this image should have genuine resonance. It captures something to which older Americans in particular can relate. The President presses ahead with a program that will tell them to take painkillers instead of getting that artificial hip. At every stage of the entire Gates affair, Obama has provided a revealing tell. The "acted stupidly" blunder revealed that he automatically blames the police and thinks they really are stupid to begin with. It didn't trigger a single alarm bell in his mind as he figured out what to say. Then, the non-apology apology revealed an arrogant man who cannot do what honest people do: admit it when they make a mistake. Now at stage three, the beer photo op looked OK. It didn't turn into a disaster. But then in a small moment that nobody in the White House had the brains to understand, Obama goes and sends a body language message like this. He’s going to get deeper and deeper into trouble. He is no longer repeating the familiar scripts dreamed up for the campaign. He was a master performer. But when he goes improv, as a president must do, he lets his true character show. This helps widen the level of doubt that Obama is the same guy a majority voted for. Those doubts can only grow. An overwhelming case
has been assembled that Obama has lied about who he is. More and more
Americans are likely to become open to the argument that they have been had
by a sophisticated and ruthless effort to foist a phony on America. Story credit goes to Thomas Lifson , www.americanthinker.com Biden Admits Obama Administration Incompetent (August 10, 2009) In a recent interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week, Joe Biden admitted that he, Obama and his administration “Misread how bad the economy was” and acknowledged “it’s now our responsibility.”This came after Obama pushed through congress a “stimulus” package of questionable constitutionality that predictably would and did fail despite Biden’s remark that “No one anticipated, no one expected that the recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having to distribute the bulk of money." News Flash - Space to planet Earth: anyone with a basic knowledge of economics knows you can’t buy your way of debt.As part of the propaganda to gain support for the Obama “stimulus” package, the administration stated the national unemployment rate wouldn’t go past 8 percent and that millions of jobs will be created. The unemployment rate is now at 9.5 percent and expected to be at 10 percent by year’s end.The vice president noted that it was too early to determine if the country would need a second “stimulus” package, apparently believing the current “stimulus” package was a super idea. Actually, this would be a third “stimulus” package if you count Bush’s TARP fiasco. It’s an often tried and failed approach to solving government created problems: “Throw more money at it.” And how has that worked so far?In any event, it’s refreshing to hear the vice president acknowledge the administration’s fiscal incompetence. Too bad nothing will be done about it.Let’s see, what else has our illustrious vice president said lately?1. Russia is a crumbling country, they have a withering economy, they have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years, and that “the world is changing before them and [the Russians are] clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable.” This is a great way to enhance relations with Russia – and the guy is only a heartbeat away from being president!2. He doesn’t want his family traveling on public transportation because of the swine flue; the administration knows that some of the $787 billion in economic “stimulus” dollars are going to be “wasted;” that Obama and his advisors had “misread the economy;” and implied that the United States would not stop Israel from attacking Iran if the Jewish state felt Tehran was an “existential threat.”So how does all this all up? The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said, “He’s an enormous asset to the administration” and in a Washington Post/ABC News poll, 55 percent of respondents said they approve of Mr. Biden’s job performance. Thirty-three percent disapproved and the rest were simply clueless. Only in America!And remember Klee’s Law: “Some days you are the bug; some days you are the windshield.” (Anon)©2009 Harvey H. KleeEvaluate Your Representatives – August 10, 2009 Update Sen. Hutchison and Cronyn’s Vote re Sotomayor Not unexpectedly, Sotomayor was confirmed. All but one Republican voted against confirmation. Hutchison and Cronyn voted against confiormation. U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas explained to a ballroom of Hispanic small business owners recently that she would not vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor next week out of concern for protecting gun ownership rights. The National Rifle Association has dubbed Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor "hostile" to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Hutchison's explanation that she could not approve anyone for the federal bench who left any doubt about their absolute support for the right to bear arms earned a smattering of applause during her speech to the Texas Association of Mexican-American Chambers of Commerce annual convention. The tepid response was eclipsed when Hutchison noted that 30 percent of nominees she had submitted for federal judgeships were Hispanic. Cash for Clunkers – OPPOSE “Cash for Clunkers” extended at a $2 billion price tag by a 60-37 Senate vote. Hutchison and Cronyn voted against the extension. A $2 billion extension of the "cash for clunkers" auto sales incentive because the government ran out of “clunker” money in six days is before the Senate for vote. OPPOSE Reason: Cash for clunkers involves federally backed rebates of up to $4,500 to consumers who trade in old, gas-guzzling vehicles and buy new, fuel-efficient ones i.e. the government is subsidizing the purchase of new cars with taxpayer money when even Obama admits we’ve run out of money. The Obama administration is not releasing information regarding sales but so far it appears that most buyers are not picking Ford, Chrysler or General Motors vehicles. Six of the top 10 vehicles purchased are Honda, Toyota and Hyundai. Stay tuned for how Sen. Hutchison and Cornyn voted on the $2 billion extension. Here’s a recent statement by Sen. Hutchison: “After listening to all sides of this issue, I must vote against another $2 billion for the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program. We don’t even have a report on how much has been spent on this program, nor reliable estimates of future requirements. It would be irresponsible to pass on another $2 billion with so little information.” Votes Pending re 14 Controversial Nominations - OPPOSE The following 14 controversial nominations by Barack Obama do not deserve the support of the U.S. Senate. Some of the nominees have serious conflicts of interest or are otherwise unqualified for the position they are expected to serve in. Their names, Department and position for which they are being nominated is indicated below as well as the reasons why they should not be approved by the senate. I will post how Senators Hutchison and Cornyn voted when known. 1. Commerce: John Fernandez Assistant Secretary Of Commerce For Economic Development • John Fernandez approved the spending of $1 million of taxpayers’ money for the demolition of a building on private property. He later took a job with the property’s owner. • Under his mayoralty, Bloomington chose a company led by a partner at Fernandez’s wife’s law firm to redevelop a city parking lot. This well connected company was chosen over a more experienced company. • Fernandez served on the board of the Monroe County Solid Waste Management District. The organization was mismanaged, and Hoosier Disposal took over waste management. Fernandez later took a job as counsel with Hoosier Disposal. • John Fernandez has appearance-of corruption issues having personally benefited too much from his "public service." 2. State: Karen Kornbluh Permanent Representative of the U.S. to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development • Kornbluh is quite liberal having drafted the 2008 Democrat Party platform. • Her husband works for a firm that lobbies the State Department. 3. Federal Labor Relations Authority: Julia A. Clark General Counsel • Julia Clark profited from her time at the Anti-Trust Division by immediately joining an antitrust law firm upon leaving the Justice Department. • Clark served as counsel for a violent homeless “union,” the National Union of the Homeless, which staged “bath-ins” at public fountains, seized property, and clashed with police. 4. Labor: Patricia Smith Solicitor • Designed a program in NY to use community activist groups to enforce wage and hour laws. This essentially deputizes union thugs to shake down employers that are organizing targets of the union. • Business groups pointed out the problems stating: “To give quasi-enforcement capabilities to certain, seemingly hand-selected, constituencies sets a troubling precedent that could spread among the spectrum of state agencies.” • The New York Post pointed out the problems of the program stating: “No reasonable person objects to state efforts to fairly, fully enforce the law. But empowering interest groups between the state and the citizen can quickly distort the law's purpose.” 5. State: Arturo Valenzuela Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs • Arturo Valenzuela sits on the boards of radical left-wing organizations. • He has defended Chavez and favors better relations with Cuba. • Valenzuela also appears to lack the knowledge and temperament for the job. 6. Executive Office of the President: Cass R. Sunstein Admin. Off. Of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB • Cass Sunstein would like to give animals and even property the right to sue. • He favors limits on the First and Second Amendments. • Sunstein would like another Bill of Rights to guarantee employment, food, clothing, shelter, education, recreation, and health care. 7. Justice: Christopher Schroeder Office of Legal Policy Assistant Attorney General • Chris Schroeder despises cost-benefit analysis and thinks that it should be done after regulations are in place. • He thinks that overregulation is not a problem and that industry should be forced to use the best technology available. • He views conservatives as enemies of the environment and public health. 8. Justice: Dawn Johnsen Assistant Attorney General • She spent years litigating abortion issues for NARAL and ACLU. • Equated pregnancy to slavery. • Fierce critic of the Office of Legal Counsel’s activity’s during the Bush Administration. 9. Judiciary: David F. Hamilton United States Circuit Judge for the 7th Circuit • He currently serves as district court judge and was overturned with strong language by the 7th Circuit in a parental notification law case. Also has issued decisions prohibiting clergy from mentioning Jesus in prayers before state legislatures. • Previously served as Vice President for Litigation and Board Member, Indiana branch of the American Civil Liberties Union. • Struck down a provision that would have allowed sex offenders' computers to be searched long after their sentences had been served. 10. Federal Election Commission: John J. Sullivan Commissioner • Longtime union counsel in election cases. • FEC regulations already strongly favor unions compared to other entities and such concern exists about how he would push the FEC regulations as regards issues such as “member communications” a loophole that unfairly benefits unions while muzzling other entities. 11. Justice: Mary L. Smith Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division • No tax law experience. • She hasn’t litigated tax issues, written any papers on tax issues, or given any speeches on tax issues. • She hasn’t even taken a Continuing Legal Education course on tax law issues. 12. Justice: Preet Bharara U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York • Chief Legal Counsel to Sen. Schumer which shows that he is hyper partisan • Bharara become the point man on the firing of the US attorneys • As point man he “immediately jumped on the allegations…”, tried to “prove wrongdoing by the Bush Administration”, and was to “make the case the Bush Administration obstructed justice.” 13. Justice: Tom Perez Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division • Believes that institutions of higher education should use race as a factor in deciding which students they accept. • Perez served on the board of CASA de Maryland, an organization advocating for non-enforcement policies regarding immigration laws. 14. Commerce: Francisco J. Sanchez Under-Secretary for International Trade • Francisco Sanchez showed himself to be emotionally unstable and untrustworthy. • Sanchez served as president of a company that went bankrupt as well as on the boards of two troubled companies and a troubled charity. The Safe Prisons Communications Act of 2009 (S. 251) - SUPPORT The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee approved bipartisan legislation sponsored by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Committee, to allow prisons to block calls from contraband cellular phones. The Safe Prisons Communications Act of 2009 (S. 251), would prevent prison inmates from using smuggled cellular phones by allowing states to petition to operate wireless jamming devices in particular correctional facilities. The bill now moves to the full Senate for consideration.
Still No Proof of Obama Meeting Citizenship Requirements (August 10, 2009) According to published reports, Barack Obama's legal team has been paid over one million dollars, so far, to stop anyone from seeing any of his actual identification documents, or many other documents:
The issue of the Occidental College records is
especially pertinent. The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) served
officials at Occidental College with a subpoena to produce records
concerning Barack Obama's attendance there during the 1980's, because those
records could document whether he was attending as a foreign national. You
see, Mr. Obama attended the school on a scholarship -- and there are
questions as to whether the financial aid he received was reserved for
foreign students. The Obama attorneys have bent over backward to block the
subpoena. He doesn't want anyone to see those records. He's still trying to
hide them; those financial records still have not been released. Efforts are being made to convince State Attorneys
General, all across the country, to investigate whether Barack Obama has
committed perjury by knowingly filing false nomination papers... claiming to
be constitutionally eligible to run for, and serve as, President of the
United States. The available evidence shows that he was born in Africa.
The evidence demands that Barack Obama answer why he has been hiding the truth from the American people about his eligibility to run for, and serve as, President! Even though he was sworn in on January 20, 2009, Barack
Obama is not legally the President of the United States, unless he can prove
that he is a "natural born citizen." And remember Klee’s Law: When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” (Thomas Jefferson) Obama Tax Hikes Are Taking Shape (August 3, 2009) Everybody knows that all of President Obama’s economic proposals will mean an increase in taxes for everyone, whether directly or indirectly. But until his proposals are approved, he’s keeping it a secret just how much and where these increases will be. The lie that no one making less than $250,000 annually will not be subject to any increase in their taxes is simply that - an out an out lie, but then with Obama, what else is new? The first planned tax increase out of the bag to help pay for Obama’s multiple socialist programs in an increase in postage rates. According to a local postmaster, come May 11, 2010 the price of First Class mail will go from the current $ .44 per once to $ .50 per once. That’s about a 17 percent increase in the cost of a First Class stamp and the highest price increase in the history of postage rates in the United States. Unfortunately, as Al Jolson once said, “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.” The postal service has been losing business to UPS, FedEx and other private carriers for years; these proposed increases in postage rates will simply exacerbate their problem. “Snail mail” is essentially obsolete, made partly so by postal rate increases and people turning to the internet to get around the rising cost of mailing a First Class letter. Businesses are making an all out effort for consumers to “go green” by replacing their written billing statements with an e-mail notification of their monthly bill, thereby saving millions in postage costs. It’s a “win-win” situation since both parties save on postage costs. The only problem I can detect is what one doesn’t receive an e-mail notice when their computer goes on the blink? Those late fees can get expensive if I should miss a payment. For that reason I continue to receive written statements but pay on-line. To paraphrase an old saying, “Build a better mouse trap and a smarter mouse will evolve.” The increase in postage rates is sure to encourage more people to drop “snail mail” and conduct most, if not all, of their distant communication by e-mail. Holiday greetings, birthdays, anniversaries, special event congratulations, etc. can all be sent by e-mail without costing a cent above what one is now paying for internet service – and if you’re using free internet access available at local libraries you can bypass even that cost. The government’s reaction to people trying to save on postage expenses through e-mail alternatives will most likely result in a tax on each message sent and/or received. The proposal has been suggested by various individuals and organizations but no bill along those lines to my knowledge has been introduced in congress – but with Obama in charge it’ll be just a matter of time before it will be forthcoming. For those who are still living in the horse and buggy days of communication, they might be interested to know that even e-mail may become obsolete or at least, not one’s primary means of distance communication. Social networking sites have been making there way across the internet for years. There are well over 400 such sites on the internet. Some of the more popular ones are Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and Classmates. There are also thousands of discussion groups one can join dealing with subjects of particular interest to the subscribers – and usually are free! Full documents can be shared with others through a SharePoint site or share them via Groove which is designed to support small teams of people working together on a project. In effect, these internet sources can easily take the place of e-mailing and avoid any e-mail tax the government can come up with. Incidentally, the younger generation strongly favors social networking to e-mail so the trend away from a potentially taxable source of communications i.e. e-mail is already in place. Bottom line: Obamanomics is likely to price the postal service out of existence. More likely, it will be subsidized by the taxpayers similar to Amtrac because “It’s too big to fail.” Lord, what a drain on the economy. And remember Klee’s Law: “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation.” (James Madison) ©2009 Harvey H. Klee GOP Not Allowed to Say “Government-Run Health Care” (August 3, 2009) It looks like Obama’s government-run health care plan will not be voted upon before the August recess. In order to stifle any opposition to the plan now and until after the August recess when a vote is expected to be taken, the Obama administration is censoring all information critical of the plan in any way it can in additional to out and out lying about the plan’s provisions and intent. What follows is a special report written by Connie Hair for Human Events concerning censorship of Obama’s government-run health care.. Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), the secretary of the House Republican Conference and a former District Court Judge, is having his messages to constituents censored by Democrats on the Franking Commission. Republicans are no longer allowed to use the words "government run health care" in the communications to their constituents. Carter received an email from the Franking Commission informing him of the censorship. "It came to me from the Franking Commission and I have the email from the Franking Commission here if you'd like to see it," Carter said. "We held a telephone town-hall... When you hold telephone town-halls you have a recorded message that introduces the town-hall and the subject matter you're going to be talking about. You have to now submit that language to the Franking Commission. “What we proposed as language was as follows, ‘House Democrats unveiled a government-run health care plan,’” Carter said. “Our response from Franking was, ‘You cannot use that language. You must use, ‘The House majority unveiled a public option health care plan,’ which is Pelosi-speak or ‘just last week the House majority unveiled a health care plan which I believe will cost taxpayers…’” “I would submit to you this is a free speech issue, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,” Carter said. A highly-placed Hill staff source tells HUMAN EVENTS this is the new policy being enforced by Democrats. Republicans will be forced to use the Democrats’ version of language describing their attempted government takeover of healthcare on their official communications with their constituents or they will have to pay for the postage personally. Constitutionality of Obama’s Stimulus Bill Challenged (August 3, 2009) According to a recent report in World Net Daily, a nurse has filed a lawsuit against the medical records provisions of President Obama's stimulus bill alleging it not only gives government officials access to personal health records, it opens the door for bureaucrats to make health care decisions. The lawsuit was filed in federal court for the Southern District of New York by Beatrice Heghmann, a nurse from Durham, N.H. It targets the health sections of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that demand all health care records be put into an electronic format. The recently filed claim cites the authorization of the "Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology." The lawsuit explains the federal law specifies, "The National Coordinator shall perform the duties under subsection (c) in a manner consistent with the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information and that among other functions provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care." Using the personal information, the lawsuit claims, "the National Coordinator will monitor treatments to make sure the plaintiff's doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective." The lawsuit said the federal plan's goal "is to reduce costs and 'guide' plaintiff's doctor's decisions." The language is virtually identical to what former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., prescribed in his 2008 book "Critical, What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis" after voters in his state refused to return him to Washington. "According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and 'learn to operate less like solo practitioners,'" the lawsuit said. "The National Coordinator will be able to enforce his decision as to what is appropriate treatment through sanctions against health care providers. Health care providers that are not 'meaningful users' of the new system will face penalties. 'Meaningful user' is not defined in the Stimulus Act. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose 'more stringent measures of meaningful use over time.'" The result is that penalties that could be imposed against doctors that would "deter the plaintiff's health care providers from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols should (a medical) condition become atypical," the lawsuit said. Further, the demand that all health records be kept electronically would put the plaintiff's personal information "a mouse-click away from being accessible to [strangers]." That amounts to an unconstitutional release of her personal and private health information, the lawsuit says. Named as defendants are Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and other Obama administration officials. Twila Brase, president of the Citizens' Council on Health Care, has been working on privacy issues related to health care records for years. She's seen some success in Minnesota, where health officials have been taking DNA from newborns and archiving it for eventual research use. She said while the wording of the stimulus law is convoluted, it appears to set up a requirement for all medical records to be posted online so that government administrators in Washington could review a diagnosis as well as a prescription and apply pressure to the doctor if they felt the treatment was more expensive than they wanted. Brase said the federal law calls for a single electronic medical record for every U.S. resident by 2014 and providing access to those records to "providers, health plans, the government, and other interested parties." Worst of all, she said, it appears to eliminate a state's right to impose stricter privacy standards as provided by the current federal law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Brase said in a nextgov report that the bottom line is that privacy would be in the hands of a Washington bureaucrat instead of a physician. Analysts said they believe there will be similar lawsuits over the privacy of medical records. The lawsuit seeks class-action status, and explained that the plaintiff, as a patient, "was required [on several occasions] and in the future will be required to reveal intimate aspects of her life to the health care provider during the course of consultation and treatment." Since she never has been covered by either Medicare or Medicaid, her doctors were selected by her and paid either directly by her or in combination with private health insurance she maintained. "Under the Hippocratic Oath, state law and federal law while the medical records are the property of the plaintiff’s health care providers, the information contained in the records remains property of the plaintiff and the health care providers are required by law to maintain that information in strict confidentiality." But the new law, the lawsuit said, "attempts to render the privacy provided under federal law, state law, the Hippocratic Oath and HIPAA null and void." Betsy McCaughey Exposes Obama Healthcare Lies (July 27, 2009)
Her objective analysis of Obama's government-run health plan should be required listening for all concerned citizens. Listen to the audio and learn what this bill is really about.
Obama's Health Reform "Bargain" Puts Hospitals at Risk (July 27, 2009) By Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison An intense debate on how to reform our health care system is unfolding in the nation's Capitol. It is important that all American patients be aware of the devastating impact the proposed reforms could have on hospital systems throughout our state for both rural and big city hospitals. Imagine a patient goes to the hospital for surgery to have a stent placed in his heart. Once there, he is told that the surgery will not occur unless he first donates a kidney. As shocking as this scenario is, it is not unlike the position many American hospitals will be placed in if the Obama Administration has its way. Last week, the Administration announced that it struck a bargain to pay for health care reform, in part, by slashing federal reimbursements to hospitals. Without question, Americans want to see health care reform legislation enacted to improve access to health insurance and restrain runaway health care costs, but many of our hospitals are already on life support. Siphoning their funding would be disastrous for the millions of patients who rely on these facilities for care each year, and it could sink the hospitals to new and dangerous fiscal lows. Our hospitals currently bear the financial burden of having to keep pace with increasingly expensive technological advancements; meanwhile, their federal reimbursements are shrinking at an alarming pace. Further, many hospitals are required to provide billions of dollars in uncompensated care to our 47 million uninsured residents. Despite this untenable financial dilemma facing our hospitals, the Obama Administration expects them to take further cuts in reimbursements on the hopes that the proposed government-run insurance provider would eventually lessen the number of Americans without insurance coverage. In short, the Administration asked for an upfront investment by the hospitals and offered an IOU in return. But what the Administration is calling a "bargain" is actually a gamble with very high stakes - the health of entire communities. They are essentially gambling away health care access to achieve health care coverage. Their so-called "bargain" ignores the unique challenges facing rural hospitals, which serve communities that are, per capita, older, sicker, and poorer. And due to the low number of patients, rural hospitals operate with little to no profit margin. Lowering these hospitals' badly needed federal reimbursements could result in reduced services, or even worse, the closure of entire facilities. Another costly problem that has been entirely ignored by the Obama Administration is the uncompensated care hospitals provide to illegal immigrants each year. This is a huge challenge in my home state of Texas. Last year, 6,540 visits from undocumented immigrants cost Parkland Hospital System in Dallas $7 million, and Memorial Hermann in Houston incurred over $4 million in cost for their care. Border states are not alone in this dilemma. Hospitals in Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Nevada, and other states have drawn 100 percent of the available federal aid to help defray the costs associated with providing care for illegal immigrants. I have consistently championed federal efforts to offset these costs to hospitals and to prevent local and state taxpayers from having to shoulder the burden. However, the program has expired and the Administration and the Majority Leaders in Congress refuse to address this problem in health care reform. It will be impossible for some hospitals in Texas to remain operational if they are asked to carry an even heavier financial burden. Patients should also be concerned that the cost of these proposed reimbursement cuts may actually be transferred to them. Hospitals may be forced to pass on these cuts to patients with private insurance, ultimately resulting in even higher premiums. A shrinking hospital budget must be filled in some way if the hospital is going to survive. If our hospitals are placed in such peril that they can no longer afford to keep their doors open, who do you think will have to rescue them? Ultimately, this proposal leads us one step closer to a government takeover of the health care system. Over the last several months, we have seen the federal government seize control of Wall Street, the banking industry, the housing market, and the auto manufacturers. Can we really trust the health of Americans to a big government that is willing to take high stakes risks on the American health care system? Obama Born in Three Places (July 20, 2009) It’s official, President Obama was born in three places: The Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, the Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii and Mombasa, Kenya. See, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103306 Obama still stubbornly refuses to produce his birth certificate to settle the issue once and for all. As of now, there is no reason to believe Obama is constitutionally qualified to serve as president of the United States and every reason to believe he is not. Enter United States Representative Bill Posey of Florida who has proposed the following H.R. 1530 bill that provides in part: "To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution" and, "Congress finds that under section 1 of article II of the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years." The bill has six co-sponsors: Reps. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee, John Campbell, R-Calif.; John R. Carter, R-Texas; John Culberson, R-Texas; Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.; and Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas. Hopefully, the bill will become effective for the 2012 presidential election when Obama will be booted out of office. It is now pending in a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. Urge your Representative to support the measure and to get it out of committee for a floor vote. Cornyn Pushing Amnesty Again (July 20, 2009) Summary of this week's Peter Morrison Report: Our illustrious senator, John Cornyn, has been working with the Obama administration in the latest attempt by cheap labor allies and liberal Democrats to pass an illegal alien amnesty. This is simply unacceptable in someone who's supposed to represent Texas conservatives. The full story: Senator John Cornyn has betrayed his party, the voters who put him in office, and the people of Texas and America. Cornyn, a Republican In Name Only, has signed on to be a part of Obama's sham "bipartisan" effort to "reform" immigration in America. This is nothing but a brazen plan to betray the American people by shoving amnesty down our throats in the name of "immigration reform." It's bad enough that Obama and the Democrats want to stab the American people in the back, but it's unconscionable for alleged Republicans to help them do it. Conservative Texans have known for quite a while that Cornyn is not one of us. On many important issues, he's a squishy moderate who can be counted on to let us down when the stakes are the highest. He's similar to the self proclaimed "maverick", John McCain, much of whose presidential campaign consisted of him talking about how well he gets along with liberal Democrats. Cornyn is always willing to take one for the team - as long as it's the other team. It's worse than that, actually - men like McCain and Cornyn are willing to throw the game if it wins them adulation from the Democrats and their friends in the liberal media. Loyalty to the people who elected them means nothing to these sellouts. Just look at Cornyn's response to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Sotomayor is a hard core leftist who will be a disaster if she's confirmed for the vacant seat. She has made it abundantly clear where she stands on issues of vital concern to conservatives and average Americans, both with her record and her many public statements. She has stated that a "wise Latina" like herself makes a better judge than a white man. She made a horrendous ruling against hard working white firefighters who got shafted in the name of affirmative action and racial quotas. She brags that she herself is "the perfect affirmative action baby", who never would have been accepted into the Ivy League schools she attended if it weren't for anti-white discrimination, because her test scores were so low. What was Cornyn's reaction to all this? He condemned Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich for simply pointing out her racist statements and record: "I think it's terrible. This is not the kind of tone that any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent," Cornyn told NPR's "All Things Considered" of the attack on Sotomayor as "racist." "Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials," he said of Gingrich and Limbaugh. "I just don't think it's appropriate and I certainly don't endorse it. I think it's wrong." Of course a traitor like Cornyn thinks it's "wrong" to point out that Sotomayor openly brags about her anti-white racism. Because she's a minority, Cornyn doesn't want to hold her to the same standard. Besides, if the word gets out about her blatant racism, average Americans might get angry and demand that her nomination be withdrawn and Cornyn doesn't want that. He wants to be able to pat himself on the back for not standing in the way of the first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court, no matter how radical she is. If he stood in her way, the media might quit praising him as a "reasonable" Republican. Cornyn has a long history of pandering to the Hispanic illegal alien lobby by his silence. He has never been strong on opposing immigration, although he always manages to mouth a few platitudes when campaign time rolls around. He refuses to talk honestly about illegal immigration at all. His favorite line is that "America's immigration system is broken." That's not true. Cornyn is simply being dishonest. The problem is the feds refuse to enforce the laws or do anything about the invasion of millions of illegals. When state or local governments try to deal with the problem some liberal federal judge can always be found to declare their efforts unconstitutional. The system isn't so much the problem; it's Cornyn and his pals in DC who are the problem. They won't deal with illegal immigration because the Democrats want to keep importing millions of future Democrat voters, while cowardly, backstabbing Republicans like Cornyn want to make sure that big business has a steady supply of cheap Third World labor. What makes Cornyn's traitorous support of amnesty under another name even more galling our dire economic situation. Nationally, unemployment is at 9.1 percent, the highest it has been in 25 years. Millions of Americans are out of work, and the numbers are getting higher every month. In many parts of the country, it's even worse. Several states, and nearly 100 metro areas, now have an unemployment rate of 10 percent or higher. There are over a dozen American cities where unemployment is above 15 percent. For Cornyn to be teaming up with Obama to give amnesty to nearly 20 million illegals when millions of Americans are out of work is absolutely despicable. Not only do we need to bring an immediate halt to illegal immigration, we also need to start deporting the illegals who are already here and give their jobs back to American citizens. If Cornyn and Obama get their way, that's not going to happen. They want these millions of invaders to stay, even as millions of American citizens are without jobs. Make no mistake - what Cornyn is proposing is amnesty, no matter how much he denies it, or how he tries to spin it. Here's his idea of "immigration reform": "I think what we need is a plan from the president of the United States. So far, we seem to get a sliding schedule where, first, he says he's going to do it in the first year, and now, of course, his spokesman says it's unlikely they'll be able to get it done this year. But we know what the options are. There are various plans out there. Senator Kyl and I introduced one in 2005, a comprehensive bill. Senator McCain, Kennedy, others have offered legislation. But what we need now is not another photo op at the White House. What we need is a plan from the President of the United States, if he believes it's possible for us to get this problem solved, and we'll work with him." When Cornyn talks about getting "this problem solved", he means amnesty. He even recommends the infamous McCain/Kennedy bill of a few years back, which would allow every illegal alien to stay permanently in America simply by paying a nominal "fine". Incredibly, Cornyn's only disagreement with Obama on amnesty for illegals is that he thinks Obama and the Democrats aren't moving fast enough to bring it about. John Cornyn is a disgrace to the Republican Party and the state of Texas. The term RINO doesn't even begin to describe his contempt for the laws of this country or his callous and sickening disregard for millions of unemployed Americans and their families. We have to let him know that we won't stand for his betrayal of the people of Texas and America. We also have to make it clear to the GOP that we're not going to put up with any more of these sellouts and backstabbers. We've had enough, and we're not going to put up with it any longer. We must build a true conservative movement, one that puts Americans and their families ahead of politicians that only care about big business or radical minority groups. Take Action: Please send a fax to Cornyn about this by clicking here: http://www.morrisonreport.com/fax_test/index.php?faxID=80 You can call his office at 202-224-2934. This is simply unacceptable in someone who's supposed to represent Texas conservatives. The Peter Morrison Report http://www.PeterMorrisonReport.com http://www.facebook.com/pages/Peter-Morrison/70301468419 PO Box 8742, Lumberton, TX 77657, USA Government Shuts Down GM Dealership (July 20, 2009)
Rep. Bachmann examines how President Obama's Auto Task Force is forcing private GM dealerships into closing their doors with little recourse against the government. Cap and Trade: Will It Save the Earth? (July 13, 2009)
A focus group lets us know what they think about global warming and cap and trade policy proposals that reduce emissions. Heritage analysts point out some key misconceptions that might change their minds about this massive new energy tax. Government Suppresses Non-Global Warming Threat (July 13, 2009) Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla has ordered an investigation
into the Environmental Protection Agency's alleged suppression of a 98-page
report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin that questioned the science
behind global warming.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Is Food For Plants not "Air
Pollutant"
And remember Klee’s Law: “One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent. We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes into which other countries have been led by leaders with that same charismatic talent.” (Thomas Sowell)
Last Chance to Defeat Cap and Trade (July 6, 2009) A message from Phil Kerpen, Director of Policy, Americans for Prosperity: Last week we had an unbelievably tight, down-to-the-wire fight in the U.S. House of Representatives over the massive Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade energy tax bill, the largest tax hike in American history and an unprecedented intrusion of the federal government into our economy and our lives. Thank you so much for everything you did to give the side of economic sanity a fighting chance. Your calls and emails made a huge difference, and AFP members like you were clearly one of the driving forces last week. We weren’t quiet able to win in the House, but we’re confident that if we can keep educating and mobilizing regular common-sense Americans, we can beat this disastrous bill in the Senate.
Unfortunately, we also learned that the White House is willing to do anything to get this bill passed, including misleading and intimidating members. That means the Senate fight will be right down to the wire, and pressure from back home will be the only way to stop this from passing. We
also know the stakes, in the President’s own words: Thanks for everything you do to make AFP great.
Phil Kerpen P.S. We can and will win this fight in the Senate if you stay as engaged and active as you were during the House debate. Please forward this message to anyone you know in these most crucial Senate target states: Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Pentagon Burns Soldiers Bibles
(July 6, 2009) Had the Bibles not been seized and destroyed, they
could have legally been given as gifts during off-duty time to Afghani
citizens who welcome our troops in their homes, as an expression of American
gratitude for Afghani hospitality, promoting the democratic ideals
of freedom of religion and freedom of the press. The American values of freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of Christian speech offended some extremist Muslim groups, and angered a small group of American atheists, who demanded the chaplain be punished for "proselytizing" because he simply repeated Jesus' words to "Go and make disciples of all nations" in church. (Can you imagine their outrage if we burned the Koran, instead of the Bible? IT'S NOT PROSELYTIZING, IT'S EVANGELISM: All of this raises the question: Why are we still in Afghanistan? The original intent, as I understand it, was to capture Osama Bin Laden but it seems we got sidetracked along the way and got involved in nation building instead i.e. helping the Afghanis defeat the Taliban. We’re not an international police force. Twenty-one U.S. military personnel were killed in Afghanistan last month. As long as our men and women are sacrificing their lives for the benefit of the people of Afghanistan, they should be allowed to practice their religion. After all, presenting a Bible as a gift is not like cutting off someone’s head. If that’s unacceptable, President Obama should have the testicular fortitude to withdraw our troops and refocus our efforts on capturing Bin Laden. It needn’t require an expansive involvement of troops or money to do it. An offer of a million dollars for the assassination of Bin Laden , with the proceeds going to the benefit of their family, should do the trick. That’s better than 72 virgins any day. If our battle in Afghanistan is a war then it's natural to pay people to kill in war. That's what our Armed Forces do. If it's not war, why are we financing it without a congressional declaration of war? The Taliban apparently understand this better than we. According to U.S. Defense Department and Pakistani officials, Pakistan's top Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud, is buying children as young as 7 to serve as suicide bombers in the growing spate of attacks against Pakistani, Afghan and U.S. targets, the going price for child bombers is $7,000 to $14,000 - huge sums in Pakistan, where per-capita income is about $2,600 a year. A million dollars is one heck of an incentive and would save multiple lives. A million dollars would also be a cheap way to end the war in Afghanistan and take away our lame excuse for being there. Obama recently signed legislation providing about $80 billion for war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan – this from the guy who opposed the invasion of Iraq and said he would bring the troops home if elected president – another campaign promise gone south. Afghanistan and Iraq are now Obama’s war and so far he’s handling it badly. And remember Klee’s Law: “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." (James Madison, while a U.S. Congressman) ©2009 Harvey H. Klee
National Government Run Health Care (July 6, 2009) by Bill Smith. From ARRA News Service A headline in a Roll Call edition summarizes the recent health care debate: “More Hurdles for Health Care.” Democrats struggle with their various health care proposals in the wake of inconvenient reports that the two health care bills in the Senate would likely cost in excess of $1 trillion and would fail to cover all uninsured Americans. More problems are surfacing as Americans get a better look at what President Obama and Democrats are proposing to do. First, Democrats may have problems with each other when they attempt to merge bills being written in the Senate’s Finance and HELP committees. Roll Call notes, “last week, it was increasingly apparent that these two Senate committees are working on separate, and conflicting, tracks.” While the HELP bill includes a government-run insurance plan that could cost $1.6 trillion over ten years, the Finance bill does not include one. But the Finance bill is estimated to cost $1 trillion, and Democrats are now hastily rewriting it to lower the cost, widening the gap with the HELP bill. Not only that, the lead Democrat legislators on the committees seem to have different goals in mind. On Thursday, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), who is writing the HELP bill said, “my goal is not bipartisanship,” and also dismissed cost projections for it. Yet Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, said, “I think it’s very important to get a good, bipartisan bill” and is quite concerned with reducing cost projections for his bill. Indeed, the cost of these health care reforms, and particularly that of government-run health plans, has become a key issue. The Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt sees the writing on the wall, pointing out, “it is quite likely that any legislation that emerges will create a hugely expensive health-care entitlement with no guarantee of the upward cost spiral being slowed.” Saturday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell discussed this issue. “Throughout this debate . . . the administration’s central argument has been that America needs health care reform for the sake of the economy. Yet according to independent estimates, every health care proposal Democrats on Capitol Hill have offered would only hurt the economy.” The policies being pushed by Democrats and President Obama look more and more problematic as Americans get a better look at them. Yesterday, George Will explained key problems with the idea of a government-run insurance plan. “The Lewin Group estimates that 70% of the 172 million persons privately covered might be drawn, or pushed, to the government plan. . . . Assurances that the government plan would play by the rules that private insurers play by are implausible. Government is incapable of behaving like market-disciplined private insurers. Competition from the public option must be unfair because government does not need to make a profit and has enormous pricing and negotiating powers. Besides, unless the point of a government plan is to be cheaper, it is pointless.” A costly government-run insurance plan that pulls people out of the insurance they already have with a $1 trillion-plus price tag that the country can’t afford is not the right direction on health reform. The Hertitage Foundation reports "You Can’t Trust Obama on Health Care" and concludes "The American people know what the true costs of government-run health care would be: lower quality, less access, and less choice. As the health care debate continues this summer, and the reality behind Obama’s rhetoric is exposed, we’ll see how many people still support a government-run health insurance plan. FOIA Request to get "full truth" about "Walpin-gate" firing (July 6, 2009) Americans for Limited Government today filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to get what it termed the "full, unvarnished truth" about the Obama Administration's controversial firing of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin. "Mr. Obama is stonewalling," ALG president Bill Wilson said. "In direct violation of his own declaration 'In the face of doubt, openness prevails,' he has clearly instructed his minions to close ranks and refuse to tell the full, unvarnished truth about why he summarily fired Gerald Walpin despite the IG's long record of stalwart service." Walpin was fired in late June after what all agree was a contentious board meeting in which he had questioned the oversight procedures of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). The AmeriCorps IG had taken issue with the usage of a grant for community related activities in which he believed was being used improperly by former N.B.A. star and current Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson. When first questioned about the Walpin firing, the White House failed to provide a reason. Only later, after "Walpin-gate" became a major story in the media did Obama spokespersons offer a belated explanation, charging that Walpin was "confused" and "disoriented" at the May 20 board meeting. Both Walpin and at least one witness to the meeting have denied the charges. "The White House response is nothing more than a mockery wrapped in a sham," Wilson said. The real intent of the firing is two-fold – first to stop the investigation of AmeriCorps malfeasance by an Obama crony, and, second, to send a message to AmeriCorps IG's nationwide that they are not to touch the 'Obama Youth Corps.' "Knowing the stated intent of Mr. Obama to use AmeriCorp as his own 'civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded,' as the United States Army, his message to IG's nationwide is particularly disturbing," Wilson said. The FOIA filed by ALG promises to leave no stone unturned in its pursuit of what actually occurred at the CNCS board meeting many now feel was set up to orchestrate Walpin's firing. According to the FOIA, ALG is demanding copies of "any records that may exist "We believe Barack Obama fired Gerald Walpin in order to provide cover for his misuse of AmeriCorps – aka, the Obama Youth Corps. And we believe he is now stonewalling the investigation of Walpin-gate in order to cover his tracks," Wilson said. "He would do well to remember the oft-repeated refrain after the Watergate scandal that felled an earlier president: It's not the crime, it's the cover up, that brings you down." Congress Energy Bill Speedreading Atrocity (June 30, 2009)
Speed reading a
bill is equal to treason! The majority of Republicans voted against the Cap and Trade bill. Republicans voting in favor of cap and trade or not voting – None were from Texas: Bono Mack CA; Castle DE; Kirk IL; Lance NJ; LoBiondo NJ; McHugh NY; Reichert WA and Smith NJ Republicans Not Voting: Flake AZ; Sullivan OK Three Texas Democrats voted against the bill: Edwards; Ortiz and Rodriguez
Obama’s Payoff for the Hispanic Vote (June 29, 2009) Enough is Enough! Just say "NO" to Amnesty The push for amnesty officially began on June 8, when
President Obama hosted a closed door meeting (hidden from the American
people) of bi-partisan Congressional leaders at the White House to “start a
dialogue” about comprehensive immigration reform. The "guest list" included
Texas Senator John Cronyn In “The New Case Against Immigration, Both legal and Illegal,” Mark Krikorian references a Heritage Foundation study by Robert Rector concluding that amnesty for illegal immigrants would nearly triple the fiscal burden they place on the federal budget, from $10.4 billion a year to $28.8 billion. Far from saving money, an amnesty “would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years.” Obama’s political paybacks are destroying the economy of this country. George Bush’s spending was miniscule by comparison. But it’s not just the economy that’s affected by mass immigration, both legal and illegal. America is a changed country since the initial waves of immigrants came to our shores. Educational levels are higher, technology is more advanced, birth rates have declined and life expectancy has increased affecting the quality of life in this country. Mass immigration by those with little formal education, non-technical skills, high birth rates and shortened life expectancy and accustomed to a poor life style have an almost impossible burden to overcome to assimilate in this country. Those with rural backgrounds unaccustomed to earning a living in a highly industrialized and advanced educational nation like ours are like fish out of water. Compounding the problem is that many immigrants don’t want to assimilate, preferring to maintain allegiances to the country from which they’ve emigrated and retain the culture, language, and loyalties to their native land. This raises havoc with the Americanization process and leads to the Balkanization of our own country. Yet, out government insists that American citizens accommodate immigrants, including illegal immigrants, and not the other way around – all in the name of multiculturalism aka political pandering. If we ever had a war with Mexico, where would the allegiances of the 12 million illegal immigrants in this country be – most of which are Mexicans? What about the 20 million unassimilated immigrants here legally? I can’t imagine anyone loving this country that would grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. They’ve already proven they have no regard for our laws and they certainly have no allegiance to this country. Recall the tearing down the American flag at Montebello High School in California and running it up the flag pole upside down below the Mexican Flag. And those were purportedly legal immigrant-related students! Americans – it’s time we took back our country. Urge your representative to vote “NO” on illegal immigrant amnesty and “YES” in immigrant reform. They can start by enforcing the law already on the books. And remember Klee’s Law: “In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." (Theodore Roosevelt) ©2009 Harvey H. Klee Index of National News publications available on this page To read a particular article, simply click on the title below 2010 Articles
2009 Articles
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This site was last updated 03/05/10
Excuse
me Mr. Obama, I mean President Obama, Sir. Um. . I know you're busy, and
important and stuff. I mean, running the country is very important and --
ah -- I hate to bother you, Sir. I will only take a minute. Ok, Sir?
“I
hope President Obama’s words are followed by concrete actions to rectify
shortcomings in our intelligence gathering, sharing, and utilization. We
also need to review airline security procedures, and I look forward to the
Senate Commerce Committee’s hearings on January 20th, and hope
that the Obama Administration fully cooperates with the Committee and
participates in the hearing so we can quickly move to improve our nation’s
security. 
ast
week, in the name of protecting the little guy from Wall Street, the House
passed HR 4173 to increase the little guy’s false sense of security in the
financial system. This mammoth piece of legislation would massively
increase government regulation and oversight in the banking industry under
the misguided reasoning that more government could have stopped faulty
lending practices, when in actuality it caused them. This bill would also
greatly increase the powers of the Federal Reserve, which too many in
Congress still see as savior rather than perpetrator in this mess.
Dr.
McCaughey is founder and Chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection
Deaths (RID) –
