AMERICA~LAND OF THE FREE~

Obama,The SOCIALIST N' CHIEF,COMMUNIST, MARXIST, FACIST, SCUMBAG

2010-03-28T07:00:00.003-04:00

THE DEATH DOCTOR AND CHIEF. "We The People" will not sit back and let a lowlife scumbag like you take over this country. You fooled a lot of people, but the Sleeping Giants have awaken. You will be defeated and your socialism will not stand.
“We will not tire, We will not falter, We will not fail.”
"YOU BETHCA" WE WANT. READ IT WEEP BUDDY.You are gone in 2012 and you can take your socilaist BS and shove it.

OBAMA LIES AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN

2010-02-03T01:00:00.004-05:00

Obama reminds Americans he inherited the high deficit from Republicans
THE POST IS FURTHER DOWN...BUT LETS READ THE COMMENTS FIRST....

We would all well be reminded that the surplus created from 1992 to 2000 was done by a person who used social security funds. Research it. This person reallocated the money from the "Social Security Administration", of which is now lacking in any funds, and used the money to make the U.S. Government look like it was running a surplus. The 1992 to 2000 Administration also had the opportunity to rein Bin Laden in to save future generations from Bin Laden’s doings. They failed to do so. Read about it. The administration from 2000 to 2008 had to deal with terrorists and Osama Bin Laden’s network that the administration in the 1990’s let go. The last administration called for the SEC to disallow much of the shenanigans regarding lending and insurance on loans. The 2003 Congress would not let that administration do it. The administration in the first decade of this century basically was challenged in salvaging what the prior administration had torn apart because the 1992-2000 Administration was too busy making things look good instead of getting down to work.

when congress was recaptured by the democrats in 2006, they sat on their hands for the next two years. Didn’t do a thing to solve any problem facing this country. Their sole agenda was to do nothing so Bush could be blamed for the problems over the next two years.

It amazes me how Bush is blamed for the financial crisis, but congress administers the funds, not the president. The democrats are as guilty as any republican because they wasted two years up to the “crisis” in Oct 2008. Then, since an election was around the corner, they got religious and screamed regulation of the financial industry needed to happen right away.

John McCain had been screaming for regulating the financial industry in those two years, but democrats like Rangel, Frank and Dodd would have nothing to do with it, Only after everything fell apart in Oct of 2008 did they scream for regulation.

Those democrats should be put in jail for that.

During 7 of Bush’s 8 years in office, the deficit increased to approx. $500B. In the last six months of his last year, the Congress (including Obama) passed, and Bush signed, the $800B bailout package (necessitated by Democrat failures over the years as much as Republican). This $800B was a LOAN, not an “expenditure,” but the federal accounting process does not have any way to account for a loan, so this went down as “spending,” artificially increasing the deficit to the mythical, and false, $1.3 trillion figure. Now, for all you screaming that “it wasn’t a loan!,” guess what? $500B has already been repaid!! That’s what’s called “a loan.” There is little doubt the other $300B will be repaid as well. Thus, the REAL deficit left by Bush to Obama was $500B, not the $1.3 trillion figure that Obama likes to use to lie to the public. Now, if I know that, and (almost) everyone else knows that, how come Obama doesn’t? Well, there are 2 choices: (1) he does know that, but he’s a liar, or (2) he doesn’t know this and he’s ignorant. Ignorant or a liar, either way he’s in over his head.

Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush, blah blah blah. Amazingly, a lot of people still swallow this nonsense.
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress,and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Pelosi and Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a ma$$ive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.
And where was Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is, I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

I have not noticed the current administration changing their historical pattern of free spending ways. They’re response to irresponsible spending is…more spending. Throw ‘em all out!

Our labor unions demand what the companies can not pay and price us out of the market by doing so. Our Gov’t gives non citizens more help than they do a native born American. You can not spend your way out of debt.

NOW....HERE IS THE POST THOSE COMMENTS RELATE TO.

Lest there be any doubt, President Barack Obama, a Democrat, blames Republicans for leaving him a huge deficit when he took office.

Heard that before? Many times, probably. The president, who is under pressure for spending associated with the $787 billion stimulus package, bank bailouts and car company rescues, introduced his budget on Monday with another reminder of what he faced when he came into office.

“The fact is, 10 years ago, we had a budget surplus of more than $200 billion, with projected surpluses stretching out toward the horizon,” Obama said.

“Yet over the course of the past 10 years, the previous administration and previous Congresses created an expensive new drug program, passed massive tax cuts for the wealthy and funded two wars without paying for any of it — all of which was compounded by recession and by rising health care costs,” he said.

The result: a $1.3 trillion deficit when he first took over the Oval Office.

On Monday his administration forecast a $1.56 trillion deficit in 2010.

Administration officials acknowledge that even though Obama didn’t create the full problem, it’s now his to fix.

What do you think? Is it right for Obama to put most of the blame for the high deficit on the opposition party and his predecessor, George W. Bush?

Expect to hear the reminder again.

Photo credit: Reuters/Jason Reed (Obama)

http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2010/02/01/obama-reminds-americans-he-inherited-the-high-deficit-from-republicans/

SPACE SHUTTLE ATLANTIS, STS 129 LANDS SAFELY AT KENNEDY SPACE CENTER NOV. 27, 2009, FLORIDA

2009-11-27T09:44:00.001-05:00

SEE VIDEO BELOW OF THE LANDING OF SPACE SHUTTLE ATLANTIS, STS-129.

Space shuttle Atlantis and its crew of seven astronauts ended an 11-day journey of nearly 4.5 million miles with a 9:44 a.m. EST landing Friday at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
The mission, designated STS-129, included three spacewalks and the installation of two platforms to the International Space Station's truss, or backbone. The platforms hold large spare parts to sustain station operations after the shuttles are retired. The shuttle crew delivered about 30,000 pounds of replacement parts for systems that provide power to the station, keep it from overheating, and maintain a proper orientation in space.

"EX-CON" Scumbag-> Martha Stewart says SARAH PALIN is a Dangerous person.

2009-11-22T21:04:00.004-05:00

Hey Martha,you just tanked your stocks (again) with those 2 little words. We, and we are a mob by the way, won't be buying or watching your stuff, even if you offer to pay us.

VIA: KristeeKelley.com

http://www.kristeekelley.com/2009/11/excon-martha-stewart-calls-sarah-palin.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FciwD+%28Kristee+Kelley%29&utm_content=Twitter

TWEET ADDRESSES FOR SENATORS, VOTE NO ON HEATHCARE BILL

2009-11-17T05:34:00.005-05:00

HERE ARE 31 SENATORS THAT HAVE TWITTER ACCOUNTS. COPY AND PASTE THE INFO BELOW OR MAKE UP YOUR OWN LINE TO THEM. STOP THIS HEALTH CARE BILL NOW.IT MUST NOT PASS. THEY NEED TO SCRAP IT AND START OVER.

SCRAP THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE BILL & START OVER, R YOU R GONE N NEXT ELECTION.VOTE NO. @russfeingold

SCRAP THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE BILL & START OVER, R YOU R GONE N NEXT ELECTION.VOTE NO. @lisamurkowski @TomCoburn

SCRAP THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE BILL & START OVER, R YOU R GONE N NEXT ELECTION.VOTE NO. @DavidVitter @SenBenNelson

SCRAP THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE BILL & START OVER, R YOU R GONE N NEXT ELECTION.VOTE NO. @SenBobCorker @ChuckGrassley

SCRAP THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE BILL & START OVER, R YOU R GONE N NEXT ELECTION.VOTE NO. @JohnCornyn @senatorsanders

SCRAP THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE BILL & START OVER, R YOU R GONE N NEXT ELECTION.VOTE NO. @clairecmc @SenArlenSpecter

SCRAP THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE BILL & START OVER, R U R GONE N NEXT ELECTION.VOTE NO.@senatorcollins @OrrinHatch @rogerwicke

SCRAP THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE BILL & START OVER, R YOU R GONE N NEXT ELECTION.VOTE NO. @JohnEnsign @senatorlugar

SCRAP THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE BILL & START OVER, R YOU R GONE N NEXT ELECTION.VOTE NO. @SenatorReid @SenSamBrownback

SCRAP THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE BILL & START OVER, R YOU R GONE N NEXT ELECTION.VOTE NO. @RichardShelby @Barbara_Boxer

SCRAP THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE BILL & START OVER R YOU R GONE N NEXT ELECTION.VOTE NO. @SenatorMenendez @jiminhofe

SCRAP THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE BILL & START OVER R YOU R GONE N NEXT ELECTION.VOTE NO. @MelMartinez @SenChrisDodd

SCRAP THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE BILL & START OVER R YOU R GONE N NEXT ELECTION.VOTE NO. @SenBillNelson @johnthune

SCRAP THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE BILL & START OVER R YOU R GONE N NEXT ELECTION.VOTE NO. @JimDeMint @SenJeffMerkley @MarkUdall

@senatorsanders @clairecmc @SenArlenSpecter
@OrrinHatch @rogerwicker @JohnEnsign
@senatorlugar @senatorcollins @SenatorReid
@SenSamBrownback @Barbara_Boxer @MelMartinez
@RichardShelby @MelMartinez @SenChrisDodd
@SenBillNelson @johnthune @SenatorMenendez
@JimDeMint @SenJeffMerkley @MarkUdall
@jiminhofe @SenatorMenendez @russfeingold
@lisamurkowski @TomCoburn @DavidVitter
@SenBenNelson @SenBobCorker @ChuckGrassley
@JohnCornyn
SCRAP THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE BILL & START OVER R YOU R GONE N NEXT ELECTION.VOTE NO.

BURN IN HELL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS,THE USA WILL NEVER FORGET WHAT YOU TRASHY PEOPLE DID ON 9-11-2001

2009-09-24T04:33:00.005-04:00

BURN IN HELL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS,THE USA WILL NEVER FORGET WHAT YOU TRASHY PEOPLE DID ON 9-11-2001

OBAMA, THE AUDACITY OF YOU TO TRY TO MAKE AMERICANS FORGET 9-11-2001 and turn it in to some kind of DAY OF SERVICE. GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK YOU SCUMBAG.

These people TERRORIST (our enemies) agenda is very clear and they have no problem in stating what their final objective is... Extremists and Fundamentalist Islamic followers citing their Islamic teachings are killing and fighting to the death for the following goals -

1 RELIGION

1 GOVERNMENT

1 SET OF ISLAMIC BASED LAWS

for ALL people in ALL countries on Earth...

This is the Islamic Fundamentalists "FINAL SOLUTION"

Are you OK with that?

Sir Winston Churchill - “Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.”

John Fitzgerald Kennedy - “Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today, at home and around the world!”

Colonel Bull Simons - "History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight, someone who has the will to fight, will take over."

America is not perfect, but I for one would rather live the life of freedom and unequaled opportunity that is offered here and in many of our friends and allies countries long before I would wish to be subjugated to the life offered by the twisted self-serving leaders, fascists, nationalists, false prophets and religious zealots like Osama Bin Laden, North Korea's Kim Chong-il, China's Deng Xiaoping, the Taliban's Mullah Omar, Iran's current Muslim Cleric leadership with their puppet President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and many, many other so called "Leaders" and "Heads of State"..INCLUDING BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AS WELL NOW !

They are all mere men / people, somewhat like us, and certainly no better than us, and much closer to many of histories past self serving, sociopathic and twisted leaders, fascists, nationalists, false prophets, mass murderers such as; Prime Minister Tojo and the Japanese Militarists of 1930's-40's, Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Nicolae Ceausescu, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Slobodon Milosovich, and many others, known and relatively unknown throughout our recent history.

For all of these current and past tyrants, their answer to any people standing in the way of their paths to power, was to subjugate, enslave, imprison or kill all those that showed dissension or opposition to their agendas.

These past "leaders" have all come and gone, and history has shown them for what they really were. History will always remember them for their evil, murderous, destructive and self serving agendas and legacies.

History will also show today's Islamic extremists & fundamentalists for what they really are... Twisted and narrow minded men that hope they can overcome and subjugate everyone that is not like themselves with their murderous ways.

No TRUE God or Prophet of God tells his followers to KILL those that don't believe in him, or to kill those that refuse to subjugate themselves to his religion, or to kill those that stand in their faiths way or choose to leave the faith.

And when men say that there is a God or Prophet that says to either subjugate into dhimmitude, kill all those that don't believe in or follow him or kill those that choose to leave the religion... Then I say - they are not a true God or Prophet, but rather just another of history's many past false Gods, ranting Prophets, tyrants and twisted leaders that can always be found when you search through much of the most painful past of recorded human history.

These past "leaders" have all come and gone, and history has shown them for what they really were. History will always remember them for their evil, murderous, destructive and self serving agendas and legacies.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Bookstore.htm

http://www.jontzen.com/tribute.htm

Barack Obama will be GONE IN 2012, CAN'T COME SOON ENOUGH

2009-09-12T06:07:00.002-04:00

America, Pray that there will something left of AMERICA as we once knew it in 2012. Meanwhile be very selective of the people you vote for in 2010. Don't let your vote go to waste. All democrats out in 2010 and some republicans and those pesky independents Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders the SOCIALIST ! Send them packing. Let them get A real job for a change.

Barack Obama Countdown widget brought
to you by http://www.obamacountdownwidget.com/

REMEMBERING SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, MEMORIALS SEPTEMBER 11,2009

2009-09-11T03:22:00.000-04:00

http://www.jontzen.com/tribute.htm <-----THIS PAGE IS THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE PAGE ON THE NET WITH ALL THE 9-11 info.

My prayers and thoughts are with all the families who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001, and, with all Americans who grieve again today in remembrance.

God bless President Bush, and I thank him for inspiring and comforting me with these words, and for keeping me and my family safe for all the remainder of his term.

The President With A Bullhorn
by Conservative Pup on September 11, 2009

God bless President Bush, and I thank him for inspiring and comforting me with these words, and for keeping me and my family safe for all the remainder of his term.

TEA PARTY EXPRESS MOVES OUT TO WASHINGTON DC FOR 9-12 MARCH ON WASHINGTON,BE THERE !

2009-08-29T03:07:00.007-04:00

http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/26089597/cross-country-protests.htm

http://www.teapartyexpress.org/tour/index.html

http://www.teapartyexpress.org/index.html

http://www.teapartyexpress.org/about/index.html

THE TRUTH ABOUT TED (EDWARD) KENNEDY'S LIFE~READ IT !

2009-08-26T18:54:00.002-04:00

THE TRUTH ABOUT EDWARD KENNEDY. TED KENNEDY'S LIFE AND TIMES.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=804

Democratic U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, 1962-2009
A key player in the creation of Medicare in 1965
A major driving force behind the passage of the Immigration Reform Act of 1965
Escaped manslaughter charges for 1969 Chappaquiddick incident
In the 1980s, supported the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign, a Soviet-sponsored initiative that would have frozen the USSR's military superiority in place
Secretly contacted the head of the Soviet KGB in 1983, in an effort to undermine the Reagan presidency
Described the 2003 U.S. war in Iraq as "a fraud"
Favored higher taxes for people in upper income brackets, but took many measures to minimize his own tax liability
Died on August 26, 2009

Edward ("Ted") Moore Kennedy was born in Boston in February 1932, the youngest of nine children. His parents, Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. and Rose Fitzgerald, were both members of wealthy Irish American families in Boston. His father was also a leading member of the Democratic Party. Among Ted's older siblings were John F. Kennedy (a future U.S. President) and Robert F. Kennedy (a future U.S. Attorney General and Senator).

As a youth, Ted Kennedy was an average student but was admitted to Harvard University as a "legacy" because his older brothers and his father had previously graduated from the school. In his sophomore year, Kennedy was expelled for paying a friend to take a Spanish exam for him. He joined the Army in 1951 and returned to Harvard two years later. He graduated in 1956 with a bachelor's degree in history and government.

In 1957 Kennedy enrolled at the University of Virginia Law School. By the time he graduated in 1959, he had been cited four times for reckless driving, thereby earning himself the nickname "Cadillac Eddie." One violation was for night-driving at ninety miles-per-hour in a suburban area, with his headlights off.

Kennedy met Virginia Joan Bennett in October 1957 and married her thirteen months later. The couple had three children together: Kara Anne (born 1960), Edward Jr. (born 1961), and Patrick (born July 1967). By the mid-1960s, however, the marriage was troubled as a result of Kennedy's infidelities and growing alcoholism. (They would divorce in 1982.)

Kennedy entered politics in 1958, when he managed his brother John's successful campaign for a second term in the U.S. Senate. John subsequently left the Senate when he won the presidential election of 1960. Joseph Kennedy wanted Ted to fill John's Senate seat, but because the Constitution required that all U.S. senators be at least 30 years of age, Ted would not be eligible to hold that office until February 22, 1962. On Joseph Kennedy's insistence, President-elect John Kennedy asked Massachusetts Governor Foster Furcolo to appoint Benjamin A. Smith II, a Kennedy family friend, to fill John's old Senate seat until 1962, at which time he would be expected to step down and permit Ted Kennedy to run for the office in a special election; Furcolo complied, as did Smith.

In the aforementioned 1962 U.S. Senate special election, Kennedy, who had been working as an assistant district attorney for Suffolk County, Massachusetts, emerged victorious.

On November 22, 1963, Ted Kennedy's brother John was assassinated by a gunman in Dallas, Texas.

In 1964 Kennedy won a landslide re-election to the Senate, and he was re-elected every six years thereafter; his final election was in 2006.

Kennedy was a key player in the creation of Medicare in 1965, and he was a major driving force behind the passage of the Immigration Reform Act that same year. Born of liberal ideology, the 1965 bill abolished the national-origins quota system that theretofore had regulated the ethnic composition of immigration in fair proportion to each group's existing presence in the U.S. population. Kennedy saw these ethnic quotas as an archaic form of chauvinism, thus the 1965 legislation reoriented policy away from European ethnic groups.

On February 10, 1965, Kennedy, as the Senate Immigration Subcommittee Chairman, promised his colleagues and the nation that if the Immigration Reform Act were to be passed:
"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of [total] immigration remains substantially the same…. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset…. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia…. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think…. The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."

Kennedy was wrong on every count. The Immigration Reform Act made "family reunification" -- including extended family members -- the key criterion for immigration eligibility. Thus new citizens could, in turn, send for their families, creating an endless cycle known to sociologists as the "immigration chain."

After the passage of immigration reform, the intellectual, educational, and professional qualifications of new immigrants to America fell precipitously over time. Hispanic immigrants, by far the largest contingent, are today eight times more likely than natives to lack a ninth-grade education, and are less than half as likely to have a college degree. Moreover, contrary to Kennedy's confident assurance that "no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge," as of 2009 fully 21 percent of immigrants were receiving public assistance (versus 14 percent of natives).

On June 5, 1968 in Los Angeles, Ted Kennedy's brother Robert, who was running for U.S. President, was killed by an assassin's bullet.

In July 1969 Ted Kennedy became embroiled in what was perhaps the most infamous personal scandal of his life. On the evening of July 18 on the Massachusetts island of Chappaquiddick, the senator hosted a party for volunteers who had worked on his late brother Robert's 1968 presidential campaign. Shortly before midnight, Kennedy, whose wife was not at the event, left the party accompanied by a young woman named Mary Jo Kopechne.

With Miss Kopechne in the passenger's seat of Kennedy's Oldsmobile, the senator accidentally drove off a wooden bridge and into tide-swept Poucha Pond (which was, at that location, a channel); the vehicle came to rest, upside down, under the water. Kennedy managed to escape, but the young woman remained trapped inside the car and died. The senator soon left the scene of the accident and, instead of reporting what had occurred, spent the next ten hours concocting an alibi while the car lay unnoticed beneath the water. Kennedy eventually pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident.

A week after the incident, Kennedy went on national television to deliver a public "explanation" written by JFK speechwriter Ted Sorensen. Among the senator's assertions were the following:

there was "no truth whatever to the widely circulated suspicions of immoral conduct" regarding Kennedy's relationship with Kopechne
he "was not driving under the influence of liquor"
his conduct during the hours immediately following the accident "made no sense to [him] at all"
he "regard[ed] as indefensible that fact that [he] did not report the accident to the police immediately"
"[a]ll kinds of scrambled thoughts" went through his mind after the accident, including "whether the girl might still be alive somewhere out of that immediate area"; "whether some awful curse actually did hang over all the Kennedys"; "whether there was some justifiable reason for [him] to doubt what had happened and to delay [his] report"; and "whether somehow the awful weight of this incredible incident might in some way pass from [his] shoulders."
he was overcome "by a jumble of emotions -- grief, fear, doubt, exhaustion, panic, confusion and shock"
Not long after the Chappaquiddick tragedy, Kennedy announced that he would not be a candidate in the next U.S. presidential election, scheduled for November 1972. In January 1971, Kennedy lost his position as Senate Majority Leader to Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

By the late 1970s, Kennedy was ready to vie with the unpopular incumbent, Jimmy Carter, for the 1980 Democratic presidential nomination. An August 1979 poll showed Kennedy leading Carter by a 2-to-1 margin. By the time the senator formally announced his candidacy on November 7, however, his momentum had begun to wane, largely because of the public's distaste for an unimpressive, rambling response he had given a few days earlier to CBS newsman Roger Mudd's question: "Why do you want to be President?" Kennedy's campaign never regained its original traction, and eventually the senator dropped out of the race.

In the early 1980s Kennedy was a key supporter of Randall Forsberg's Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign, a Soviet-sponsored initiative that would have frozen the USSR's military superiority in place. On March 24, 1983 -- the day after Ronald Reagan's speech about the need for the U.S. to develop a missile-defense system -- Kennedy went to the Senate floor and condemned the President's "misleading Red-Scare tactics and reckless Star Wars schemes."

During that same, tense period of the Cold War, Kennedy made secret overtures to the Soviet intelligence agency, the KGB, in an effort to undermine Reagan's presidency. The evidence for this comes from a highly classified May 14, 1983 letter that KGB head Viktor Chebrikov wrote to the Soviet General Secretary, Yuri Andropov. In the letter, Chebrikov relayed to Andropov an offer from Senator Kennedy, presented by Kennedy's old friend (and former Democratic senator from California) John Tunney, to reach out to the Soviet leadership. According to Chebrikov, Kennedy was deeply troubled by the deteriorating relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, and he feared that the two nations were coming perilously close to nuclear confrontation. The senator, according to Chebrikov, blamed this situation entirely on Reagan. Moreover, said Chebrikov, Kennedy was "very impressed" with Andropov.

Chebrikov's letter further spoke of Kennedy's desire to stop Reagan's allegedly aggressive defense policies and his 1984 re-election bid. The letter stated that Kennedy had recommended a number of PR moves to help the Soviets counter Reagan's "propaganda" and improve their image with the American public. Specifically, the senator had suggested a plan to put Andropov and other senior apparatchiks in touch with influential members of the American media, through whom they could better present their message and make their case. Specifically, the names of Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters were mentioned in the letter. Also, said Chebrikov, Kennedy himself had offered to travel to Moscow to meet with Andropov.

In 1987 Kennedy led Senate Democrats in their bitter fight to prevent the confirmation of President Reagan's Supreme Court nominee, Robert Bork, whose originalist judicial philosophy Kennedy rejected. Less than an hour after Bork's nomination, Kennedy, whose staff had thoroghly researched the judge's writings and record, went to the Senate floor to announce his opposition. Among his remarks were the following:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens ..."

Largely as a result of Kennedy's efforts, Bork's nomination was defeated, both in committee and in the full Senate.

In July 1992 Kennedy married his second wife, a Washington attorney named Victoria Anne Reggie, who was 22 years his junior.

Throughout his political career, Kennedy advocated the wholesale redistribution of wealth via steeply progressive tax rates designed to fund an ever-expanding array of entitlement programs and social-welfare benefits as well as the public education system. Opposed to any provisions in the tax laws that might help mid- to high-earners minimize their tax liability, Kennedy once said, on the Senate floor, that he would be glad if "the word 'shelter' disappears from the tax vocabulary."[1] On another occasion he said, "Instead of shutting down classrooms [due to a supposed lack of funding], let us shut off tax shelters."[2] Whenever fellow legislators proposed tax cuts, Kennedy typically framed them as "giveways" and "bonanzas" intended to help only the wealthy.[3] And in the name of social justice, he supported the inheritance tax on assets that are transferred from one generation to the next; a repeal of that tax, he said, would unjustly "benefit millionaires."[4]

But while the multi-millionaire Kennedy stood firmly in favor of raising taxes on high earners across the United States, he showed a pronounced reluctance to pay taxes on his own wealth. For many years, Merchandise Mart, the Chicago-based real estate conglomerate that Joseph Kennedy established in 1935, was the most valuable asset belonging to Ted Kennedy and his family. In 1974 Joseph Kennedy divided Merchandise Mart's ownership among numerous family members, including Ted, in the form of a trust that was domiciled in the Pacific island of Fiji. Because the trust was based in Fiji, it was not subject to the taxes normally imposed on trusts domiciled in the United States.

As of 2005, the tax rate on U.S.-based trusts was 49 percent on everything above the first $2 million. But as of 2005, the Kennedys, who had transferred at least $300 million in trust funds from one generation to another, had paid a mere $132,000 in estate taxes -- a rate of four one-hundredths of one percent.[5] Had they set up those trusts in the United states, they would have owed more than 7,000 times that amount in taxes.

Ted Kennedy also received additional money -- free of inheritance taxes -- from a series of trusts that were established for him in 1926, 1936, 1978, 1987, and 1997.

Kennedy became skilled at avoiding not only inheritance taxes but also property taxes. For example, in 1980 theChicago Tribune conducted an investigation which found that although Merchandise Mart had a market value of $35 million, it had been assessed at only $22.8 million by tax assessor (and Ted Kennedy political ally) Thomas Tully. The low assessment permitted Kennedy and his extended family to decrease their property taxes by some $4 million over the course of two years. Another Kennedy-owned building, Apparel Mart, received similar, preferential consideration from the tax assessor, saving Kennedy and his clan another several million dollars in property taxes.[6]

In yet another maneuver to avoid paying taxes, Senator Kennedy invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax-free Massachusetts bonds.[7]

An additional area where Kennedy's rhetoric is inconsistent with his actions was in the realm of affirmative action. Publicly, Kennedy championed the virtues of race- and gender-preferences (in favor of nonwhite minorities and women) in business and academia. Largely because of his unwavering support of affirmative action programs, the NAACP gave Kennedy a perfect 100 percent rating.

But in his private business dealings, Kennedy preferred not to be bound by the dictates of affirmative action regulations. In 1981, for instance, the senator and his family formed two limited partnerships under whose auspices they purchased an entire city block of prime piece of real estate near the Capitol Building in Washington, DC. Their intent was to build, on that land, an upscale office complex that could generate a fortune in rental income.

The DC Redevelopment Land Agency had previously enacted a set-aside requirement mandating that minority-owned businesses be guaranteed of participating, to some extent, in any new development project like the one planned by the Kennedys. At the senator's request, Kennedy political ally and DC mayor Marion Berry -- an African American who strongly supported affirmative action -- waived the set-aside clause.

By the late 1980s, the newly constructed Kennedy building housed several government agencies as long-term renters. The senator, to avoid the "appearance of a conflict of interest," sold his stake in the property to his father's trust company, Joseph P. Kennedy Enterprises. As of 2005, the building was worth $200 million.[8]

Another hallmark of Senator Kennedy's career was his passionate, outspoken advocacy of leftwing environmentalist crusades. He introduced dozens of bills to encourage the development of solar, hydrogen, and wind energy as alternatives to oil and coal. He once told an audience at the National Press Club that Americans must "start demanding immediate action to reduce global warming and prevent catastrophic climate change that may be on our horizon now." "We should replace our dependence on foreign oil," he added, "not by drilling in the priceless Arctic National wildlife Refuge in Alaska, but by investing in clean energy."[9]

Then, in 2003, a group of investors launched an initiative known as the Cape Wind Project, whose aim was to meet most of Cape Cod's electricity needs with wind power rather than the coal-fired power plants that were then in use. A 3,800-page study released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concluded that the project was economically feasible and would provide "compelling environmental and economic benefits" to the area.

But the Kennedys objected. At issue was the fact that the proposed wind turbines, which the senator and his family considered to be unsightly, would be built on Nantucket Sound -- six miles off the coast of the Kennedy compound in Hyannis, and in the immediate vicinity of one of the family's favorite sailing and yachting areas. Shortly after the report was issued, Senator Kennedy got his longtime friend, Sen. John Warner of the Armed Services Committee, to quietly insert into the defense budget an amendment to stop the project. That amendment, however, was later withdrawn when some other senators noticed it and objected to it.[10]

While Senator Kennedy was a relentless critic of the environmental damage allegedly caused by oil drilling, for decades he and his family were actively engaged in the oil industry and profited greatly from it. The Kennedys' oil connections dated back to 1950, when Joseph Kennedy purchased Arctic Oil Company, which drilled mainly in Texas and Oklahoma. Eleven years later he bought two additional oil companies, Kenoil and Mokeen Oil, which eventually struck some massive deposits in Texas and Louisiana, earning millions of dollars for the Kennedys.[11]

The Kennedys also bought the mineral rights to hundreds of properties throughout the southern United States -- in places as far-flung as Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi. They purchased most of these properties for pennies on the dollar, usually from poor farmers and rural families who had no idea that their land was rich in underground oil or natural gas. When securing these mineral rights, the Kennedys negotiated arrangements that would permit them, even if they were someday to sell the land, to continue drilling for oil and gas as long as they wished.[12] To date, Ted Kennedy and his family earned tens of millions of dollars in profits from their oil ventures.[13]

Notwithstanding those profits, Senator Kennedy frequently condemned oil companies for their alleged greed. When oil prices rose dramatically in late 1970s, for instance, he criticized the "excessive profits by oil companies" and he sought to eliminate a number of tax deductions from which those companies had long benefited. In particular, he crafted legislation designed to end the 22 percent depletion allowance for oil companies, characterizing it as "welfare" for the wealthy.

When writing the bill, however, Kennedy distinguished between "small struggling oil producers" (which would be permitted to keep their tax shelters) and "already cash-rich-companies," which would not.[14] Kennedy's companies, by the definitions the senator himself penned, fell into the former category and consequently were allowed to take depletion allowances and other drilling deductions that, over the years, would save the family hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In 1985 Senator Kennedy and his family devised yet another way to avoid paying taxes: They converted their oil companies, Kenoil and Mokeen, from corporate ownership to a royalty limited partnership (i.e., a royalty trust), thereby freeing themselves from having to pay any corporate tax or income tax. Now they pay only a 15 percent capital gains tax.[15]

During the George W. Bush administration, Kennedy was an outspoken critic of the manner in which the President and his advisors conducted the war on terror. He opposed, for instance, the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), which, after its implementation in 2002, was known to have stopped several hundred foreign criminals and several known terrorists who attempted to enter the United States at certain official ports of entry. In late January 2003, Kennedy slipped a provision into the Senate's omnibus appropriations bill to completely cut off funding for NSEERS.

Kennedy was also one of the Senate's most vocal opponents of the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq in 2003. In late 2002 he voted against authorizing the President to use military force against Saddam Hussein, just as he had done prior to the first Persian Gulf War in 1991. Characterizing the 2003 war as "a fraud" plotted by President Bush, Kennedy accused the administration of manipulating intelligence data in order to justify an invasion of Iraq. "There was no imminent threat," the senator said on September 18, 2003. "This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud."

In 2007 Kennedy supported a carbon "cap-and-trade" system -- a massive tax scheme ostensibly designed to reduce "greehouse gas emissions" -- which would impose an estimated $4,500 in additional yearly costs on every family of four.

Over the course of his long legislative career, Kennedy dramatically changed his position on the issue of abortion. In a now-famous 1971 letter to a constituent, the senator wrote that "human life, even at its earliest stages, has a certain right which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old." But Kennedy thereafter became an unwavering proponent of abortion-on-demand. He voted several times -- in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2003 -- against a proposal to ban the late-term procedure commonly known as "partial-birth abortion." In 2004 he voted against a proposal to make it an added criminal offense for someone to injure or kill a fetus while carrying out a crime against a pregnant woman. He consistently received ratings of 100 percent from abortion-advocacy groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood.

As the 2008 presidential election season approached, Kennedy initially stated that he would support John Kerry if the latter chose to run. When Kerry opted not to join the race, Kennedy remained neutral while Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battled in the primaries. Eventually Kennedy opted to support Obama, an endorsement he announced on January 28, 2008.

For an overview of Kennedy's Senate voting record on a number of key issues, click here.

In May 2008 Kennedy was diagnosed with brain cancer. From his sickbed in 2009, he quietly orchestrated meetings with lobbyists and lawmakers to craft legislation for a government-run health-care plan, which he called "the cause of my life." One of the groups with which he collaborated most closely was We Believe Together -- Health Care for All.

Early on the morning of August 26, 2009, Kennedy died at his home in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts.

REST IN PIECE.

NOTES:

[1] Peter Schweizer, Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (New York: Doubleday, 2005), p. 79.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., p. 80.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., p. 81.
[6] Ibid., p. 82.
[7] Ibid., p. 83.
[8] Ibid., p. 84.
[9] Ibid., p. 85.
[10] Ibid., pp. 87-88.
[11] Ibid., p. 89.
[12] Ibid., p. 90.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid., p. 91.
[15] Ibid., p. 92.

THE LIFE AND TIMES OF TED KENNEDY~ THE TRUTH !

2009-08-26T18:45:00.003-04:00

The Life and times of TED KENNEDY. The truth.
Ted Kennedy
AKA Edward Moore Kennedy
Born: 22-Feb-1932
Birthplace: Brookline, MA
Died: 25-Aug-2009 Location of death: Hyannis Port,
MACause of death: Cancer - Brain
Gender: MaleReligion: Roman Catholic
Race or Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: PoliticianParty Affiliation: Democratic
Nationality: United States
Executive summary: US Senator from Massachusetts, 1962-2009
Military service: US Army (1951-53)

Ted Kennedy held his Senate seat for more than four decades. He authored or argued for legislation that ensured a variety of civil rights, increased the minimum wage in 1981, made access to health care easier for the indigent, and funded Meals on Wheels for fixed-income seniors. His other successes include reducing the voting age from 21 to 18, and Title IX, which gave women's athletics much better funding. Widely held as the "standard-bearer for liberalism", his legacy is that his era has been dominated by conservatives (Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush) and moderates (Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton).

Kennedy earned C grades at the private Milton Academy, but was admitted to Harvard as a "legacy" -- his father and older brothers had attended there, so the younger and dimmer Kennedy's admission was virtually assured. While attending, he was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once for paying a classmate to cheat for him. While expelled, Kennedy enlisted in the Army, but mistakenly signed up for four years instead of two. His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador to England, pulled the necessary strings to have his enlistment shortened to two years, and to ensure that he served in Europe, not Korea, where a war was raging. Kennedy was assigned to Paris, never advanced beyond the rank of Private, and returned to Harvard upon being discharged.

While attending law school at the University of Virginia, he was cited for reckless driving four times, including once when he was clocked driving 90 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood with his headlights off after dark. Yet his Virginia driver's license was never revoked. He passed the bar exam in 1959, and two years later was appointed an Assistant to the District Attorney in Massachusetts' Suffolk County.

In 1962, at age 30 (constitutionally, the minimum age to hold a Senate seat) he ran for the Senate. His timing was perfect -- his brother John had given up the seat to become President, and Kennedy easily won the office. He was re-elected eight times to the office.

In 1964, he was seriously injured in a plane crash, and hospitalized for several months. His sister Kathleen and nephew "John John" were killed in separate plane crashes.

On 19 July 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts. At about 11:00 PM, he borrowed his chauffeur's keys to his Oldsmobile limousine, and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo Kopechne, a campaign worker. Leaving the island via an unlit bridge with no guard rail, Kennedy steered the car off the bridge, flipped, and into Poucha Pond. He swam to shore and walked back to the party -- passing several houses and a fire station -- and two friends returned with him to the scene of the accident. According to their later testimony, they told him what he already knew, that he was required by law to immediately report the accident to the authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way to his hotel, called his lawyer, and went to sleep.

Kennedy called the police the next morning. By then the wreck had already been discovered. Before dying, Kopechne had scratched at the upholstered floor above her head in the upside-down car. The Kennedy family began pulling strings, ensuring that any inquiry would be contained. Her corpse was whisked out-of-state to her family, before an autopsy could be conducted. Further details are uncertain, but after the accident Kennedy says he repeatedly dove under the water trying to rescue Kopechne, and he didn't call police because he was in a state of shock. In versions not so kind, it is widely assumed Kennedy was drunk, that he was having an affair with Kopechne, and/or that he held off calling police in hopes that his family could fix the problem overnight.

Since the accident, Kennedy's political enemies have referred to him as the distinguished Senator from Chappaquiddick, or worse. He pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and was given a suspended sentence of two months. Kopechne's family received a small payout from the Kennedy's insurance policy, and never sued. There was later an effort to have her body exhumed and autopsied, but her family successfully fought against this in court, and Kennedy's family paid their attorney's bills.

In 1973, at the height of Nixon's Watergate scandal, Kennedy thundered from the Senate floor, "Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?"

In 1980, Kennedy challenged Carter, his own party's sitting President, for the Democratic nomination. Kennedy's bid was hampered by questions of Chappaquiddick and by an interview with CBS Newsman Roger Mudd, who asked the straightforward question, "Why do you want to be President?" Kennedy couldn't come up with a straightforward answer. Carter was nominated for re-election, but the party's divisions contributed to the victory won by Reagan.

In a late-1980s media profile, Kennedy was succinctly described as someone who "grew to manhood without learning to be an adult". He is rumored to have had several affairs while married to his first wife, and had often been seen in public while thoroughly tanked and/or behaving obnoxiously. In 1987 he was caught in flagrante delicto with an unidentified woman on the floor of a restaurant. His public image since the early 1990s and during his second marriage has been more conservative and restrained.

In 2001, Kennedy worked with President Bush to enact the No Child Left Behind Act. He later complained publicly that he had been hoodwinked, because the legislation did not include funding to pay for its requirements.
Kennedy voted against the Iraq war, and in 2003, Kennedy said of it: "There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud."

In 2004, Tom Ridge's Department of Homeland Security put Kennedy's name on the secret national "no-fly list", and he was barred from a shuttle flight from Washington to Boston. After a flurry of phone calls to Ridge's office, Kennedy's problem was described as "a clerical error", and solved within a few days.
http://www.nndb.com/people/623/000023554/

He is uncle to Maria Shriver and, by marriage, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Father: Joseph P. Kennedy (b. 6-Sep-1888, d. 18-Nov-1969)Mother: Rose Kennedy (b. 22-Jul-1890, d. 22-Jan-1995)Brother: Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. (b. 25-Jul-1915, d. 12-Aug-1944 killed in action)Brother: John F. Kennedy (US. President, b. 29-May-1917, d. 22-Nov-1963 assassination)Sister: Rosemary Kennedy (b. 13-Sep-1918, d. 7-Jan-2005)Sister: Kathleen Kennedy (b. 20-Feb-1920, d. 13-May-1948 airplane crash)Sister: Eunice Kennedy Shriver (b. 10-Jul-1921, d. 11-Aug-2009)Sister: Patricia Kennedy Lawford (b. 5-May-1924, d. 17-Sep-2006)Brother: Robert F. Kennedy (US Attorney General, b. 20-Nov-1925, d. 6-Jun-1968 assassination)Sister: Jean Kennedy Smith (diplomat, b. 20-Feb-1928)Wife: Virginia Joan Bennett (m. 30-Nov-1958, div. 6-Dec-1982, three children)Son: Patrick Joseph Kennedy (U.S. Congressman)Daughter: Kara Kennedy (TV news producer)Son: Edward Kennedy, Jr. (disability rights attorney, right leg amputated in 1973, cancer)Mistress: Suzy Chaffee (rumored affair while Kennedy was married to Bennett)Wife: Victoria Anne Reggie (attorney, m. 3-Jul-1992)Daughter: Curran Kennedy (stepdaughter, through marriage to Reggie)Daughter: Caroline Kennedy (stepdaughter, through marriage to Reggie)
High School: Portsmouth Abbey School (attended) High School: Milton Academy, Milton, MA (1950) University: BA, Harvard University (1956) Law School: Hague Academy of International Law, The Hague, Netherlands (1958) Law School: LLB, University of Virginia (1959)
US Senator, Massachusetts (1962-2009) Close Up Foundation Board of Advisors Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. Foundation President Kennedy Center Ex-Officio Member RFK Memorial Board of Directors Four Freedoms Medal 1999 Presidential Medal of Freedom 12-Aug-2009 Plane Crash 1964 Surgery 12-Oct-2007 (repair blocked neck artery) Reckless Driving Leaving the Scene of an Accident 1969 Wedding: Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver (1986) Funeral: Katharine Graham (2001) Secret Service Codename Sunburn Dubya Nickname Senator Kennedy Family Risk Factors: Obesity, Alcoholism, Brain Cancer
Official Website:http://kennedy.senate.gov/
Rotten Library Page:Ted Kennedy

Some Surprised By 'Clunker' Tax~Extra taxes are due when you get your tag. LOL

2009-08-25T22:34:00.001-04:00

CASH FOR CLUNKERS RECIPIENTS ARE GOPING TO BE QUITE SURPISED WHEN THEY GO TO GET THEIR NEW TAX. And..they thought the government was giving them something for free. LOL

KELOLAND.COM - Some Surprised By 'Clunker' Tax

Shared via AddThis

HARRY REID REALLY REALLY SUX ! DEFEAT HIM !

2009-08-25T04:29:00.003-04:00

VOTE HARRY REID OUT...THROW HIM UNDER THE BUS AND ACCELARATE !
THIS IS THE MOST DIPICAPLE LITTLE WEASAL I HAVE EVER SEEN.
IF I COULD SEE HIM IN PERSON I WOULD THROW UP ALL OVER HIM. He makes me sick !

HE HAS OVERLOADED BIG TIME DRINKING THE KOOL AID. THESE PEOPLE HAVE GONE INSANE.

BILL BURTON IS ANOTHER SCUMBAG PUPPET FOR OBAMA

2009-08-25T04:07:00.005-04:00

BILL BURTON IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A BRAINSWASHED FOOL IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTATION. A truly brainwashed SCUMBAG ! LOOK HIM UP ON THE NET. BILL BURTON'S LIES ! YOU WILL FIND MANY MANY OF THEM.
Everytime you turn around he is telling another lie. Today he defends a new position. THIS DAMN ADMINISTRATION JUST KEEPS ADDING TO THE DEBT THIS COUNTRY IS INCURRING DUE TO THE POLICIES OF OBAMA. CZARS OUT THE YING YANG AND NEW DEPARTMENTS OUT THE YING YANG. Spending all this moeny is no problem to him. He is running AMERICA INTO THE GORUND. That has been his intention from the very start. WHAT A SICKO SCUMBAG THEY ALL ARE.
Why don't you ask the 9-11 victims familes how they feel about interrogations. The damn murderers get treated better than the victims. This is administation is made up of a bunch of brainswashed scum. They bow to their New Messiah.

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama has approved creation of a new, special terrorism-era interrogation unit to be supervised by the White House, a top aide said Monday, further distancing his administration from President George W. Bush's detainee policies.

The administration has also decided that all U.S. interrogators will follow the rules for detainees laid out by the Army Field Manual, according to senior administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the decision. That decision aims to end years of fierce debate over how rough U.S. personnel can get with terror suspects in custody.

The new unit does not mean the CIA is now out of the interrogation business, deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton told reporters covering the vacationing Obama at Oak Bluffs, Mass.

Burton said the unit will include "all these different elements under one group," and it said that it will be situated at the FBI headquarters in Washington.

The unit would be led by an FBI official, with a deputy director from somewhere in the government's vast intelligence apparatus, and members from across agencies. It will be directly supervised by the White House, but the senior administration officials insisted the unit's agency bosses will make operational decisions, not the White House.

The officials also said that in cases where terror suspects are transferred to other countries, the U.S. will work harder to ensure the suspect is not tortured.

Separately, Burton said that a recommendation now before Attorney General Eric Holder to reopen and pursue prisoner abuse cases is a decision solely for Holder to make without any intervention from the president.

The structure of the new unit the White House is creating would depart significantly from such work under the previous administration, when the CIA had the lead and sometimes exclusive role in questioning al-Qaida suspects.

Obama campaigned vigorously against Bush's interrogation policies in his successful run for the presidency. He has said more recently he didn't particularly favor prosecuting Bush administration officials in connection with instances of prisoner abuse. Obama still believes "we should be looking forward, not backward," Burton said Monday.

Nonetheless, the spokesman added, Obama believes the attorney general should be fully independent from the White House and he has full faith in Holder to make the decision on whether to reopen several such cases with an eye toward possible criminal prosecution. "He ultimately is going to make the decisions," Burton said of Holder.

CIA Director Leon Panetta said in an e-mail message to agency employees Monday that he intends "to stand up for those officers who did what their country asked and who followed the legal guidance they were given. That is the president's position, too," he said.

Panetta said some CIA officers have been disciplined within the agency for going beyond the methods approved for interrogations by the Bush-era Justice Department. Just one CIA employee— contractor David Passaro— has ever been prosecuted for detainee abuse.

"The CIA has played a vital role in the work of the task force, and its substantive knowledge will be essential to interrogations going forward," agency spokesman George Little said Monday.

Obama campaigned vigorously against President George W. Bush's interrogation policies in his successful run for the presidency. He has said more recently he didn't particularly favor prosecuting Bush administration officials in connection with instances of prisoner abuse. But the issue now before Holder for consideration would have the new administration do precisely that: reopen several such cases with an eye toward possible criminal prosecution.

The new interrogation unit will be known by the acronym HIG.

The administration was publicly confirming the new interrogation unit on the same day that the CIA inspector general was to unveil a report on Bush administration handling of suspects. Details were expected to show that highly questionable tactics were used.

Now, all such questioning will fall under the rules of the Army manual.

The manual, last updated in September 2006, authorizes 19 interrogation methods used to question prisoners, including one allowing a detainee to be isolated from other inmates in some cases.

The manual prohibits forcing detainees to be naked, threatening them with military dogs, exposing them to extreme heat or cold, conducting mock executions, depriving them of food, water, or medical care, and waterboarding.

Subjecting prisoner abuse cases to a new review and possible prosecution could expose CIA employees and agency contractors to criminal prosecution for the alleged mistreatment of terror suspects in the years after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Holder reportedly reacted with disgust when he first read accounts of prisoner abuse earlier this year in a classified version of the IG report. And the Justice report is said to reveal how interrogators conducted mock executions and threatened at least one man with a gun and a power drill. Threatening a prisoner with death violates U.S. anti-torture laws.

A federal judge has ordered the IG report made public Monday, in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The accounts of the White House-supervised interrogation unit and the ethics recommendation to Holder were first reported, respectively, by The Washington Post and The New York Times.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705325517/Official-New-interrogation-unit-set-up.html

A MATTER OF TRUST~YOU CAN'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT ANYMORE OR ANY COMPANIES !

2009-08-25T03:50:00.003-04:00

READ THE ARICLE BELOW..
AND I SAID ....
Thank you for your honesty in writng this article. You are right about all you said in your article. Very seldom do I read anything ABC publishes and I certainly do not watch any ABC news on TV anymore.
As you said trust is an important thing. I understand why newspapers are no longer read anymore.
I do not read them myself nor do I buy them anymore. Only my local neighborhood papers and sometimes you have extrmeist writng in those papers too!
I too have been a victim of Comcast being down while I am in the middle of doing stuff on the net. The TV being out does not bother me half as much as my interent cable being out. LOL I too never gave up my lnad line. I had comcast pitch to me the thing about their phone service. Tried it and gave it back to them before they came out with their new phone serivce. Don't trust any of thier phone services. I told them Thanks, but no thanks !
I always call and make them give me credit for a days service !
Our government now days has been taken over by a bunch of radical sheep.
Yes people have a huge distrust in government and RIGHTLY SO !
I TRUST NO ONE IN OUR GOVERNMENT ! NOT ONE PERSON. They have been glorified mobsters and are not afraid to let you know how they stand. And...if you don't like it that is your problem.
How we are going to get out of this mess I have no clue, but as an American I know we will endure. We always have managed, somehow, someway.
Thanks again for your column today. Keep up the good work.
GOD BLESS AMERICA !

A Matter of Trust
In a Growing Marketplace, Maintaining Customer Trust Is Important
COLUMN By MICHAEL S. MALONE WITH ABC NEWS

I'm writing this column from table No. 3 at Peet's Coffee in Cupertino, Calif.

Why am I here, instead of working from my own home office two miles away? Therein lies a story.

Simply put, my Comcast cable service crashed Wednesday afternoon at 4 p.m. That not only means my Internet access is down on all five of our family computers, but my cable television is down, as well. In fact, the only service still working in our house is the landline phone, and that's only because, when Comcast offered that service, as well, my wife replied, "I don't trust you people not to screw that up, as well. I need something in this house I can depend on to work right."

And, in fact, she used that phone to call Comcast to report the outage. And I took off for Peet's to file this column.

How annoyed I am at this loss of service, a service I depend upon to make my living? A little bit less than load-the-Winchester angry, but a whole lot more than kids-having-a-drunken-party-next-door pissed off. The cable TV I can live without -- although it makes the kids a little more bored and truculent than usual -- but that's because I spend more time these days on the Internet than television.

But the loss of my wireless router and, thus, my Internet connection, has got me wandering about in a Lear-like confused rage. This is my livelihood, my entertainment, my connection to the bigger world. I can't get my e-mail, I can't research my story, I can't find out what's going on out there.

OK, but I'm actually angrier than the loss of those things would predict. After all, I can go into any Starbucks, Peet's, or even Mickey D's these days and find a wireless hot spot. And Comcast promises to come out today -- hey, thanks! -- to find out what's wrong.

No, I think the real source of my anger is what can best be described as a betrayal of trust. There is no greater source of anger in this world than just that sort of violation. Open the newspaper or turn on the news (as if I could right now) on any given day and probably half of the stories involve just such a betrayal: adultery, breaches of contract, anger at politicians, blown drug deals, embezzlement, child molestations, angry consumers, etc., etc. Seen from this perspective, it sometimes seems that almost every form of human friction devolves into some kind of betrayal of perceived trust.

What is surprising about this is that, despite the fact that we live in a largely scientific, empirical world -- one in which natural scientists, sociologists and economists have come up with yardsticks and equations to measure and quantify almost every kind of human behavior -- we really have no common and accepted measure for trust. And, it follows, because we lack that measure, we have no precise way of knowing when that trust changes, when it fails, or what the consequences will be of that failure.

Michael Malone: Don't Know the Value of Anything
Not that there haven't been attempts. A few years back, I wrote a book with the Swedish economist, Leif Edvinsson, entitled "Intellectual Capital." The impetus for the book was the growing realization in the business and financial communities that we really had no idea what anything was worth anymore. That is to say, we had all of the traditional accounting measures: inventories, capital equipment, etc. But the gap between that sum and what the stock market seemed to believe the company was actually worth was growing by the day. For example, how could Intel, which at the time had about $20 billion in revenues, be worth more than the entire U.S. automobile industry?

In fact, the only accounting entry that seemed to be stretching to encompass these changes was that little item called "goodwill," traditionally a kind of mulligan to cover the difference between the book value and sale price of traditional companies. But, nowadays, such goodwill might be three times the book value of the firm, meaning if we were willing to admit it, that we really don't know the value of anything anymore. [That's even more true now than it was then, which helps explain the increasing volatility of the world economy.]

Edvinsson and I (along with a number of other folks working with the same idea at the same time) set out to find real measures and real numbers for these other "intangible" assets, a company's hidden "intellectual" capital.

In the end, we came up with a whole bunch of different measures, from executive turnover to the number of patent filings to customer satisfaction ratings. Other folks came up with other measurement schemes. Some worked pretty well, others less so. A few of the measures have been unofficially adopted by companies and industry analysts, although none yet officially so.

Someday, I suspect that intangible asset measures will be an accepted part of all balance sheets. But it won't happen anytime soon.

Looking back, if there is one part of our research I would have emphasized a whole lot more, and would have tried harder to quantify, it is the matter of Trust. Writing at about the same time, in his book of that name, political scientist Francis Fukuyama got it right: Trust is the single most valuable currency of the modern global economy, the maker and breaker of nations.

Everywhere you look, the question of trust is defining winners and losers in the Internet age. Why are newspapers dying? Not just because technology passed them by, but because they violated readers' trust that they would deliver timely, accurate and unbiased news. Why is Apple Computer so successful? Because it has upheld its customers trust that Steve Jobs will continue to give them interesting, innovative and "cool" products. Why have a handful of bloggers earned huge audiences, while millions of others have not? Because we trust those few to either consistently entertain us, or we trust their judgment in selecting interesting items for us to read, or we trust that their world view is just like our own and their ability to enunciate those views even better. Why is the xBox 360, a superior game player, falling behind Nintendo and Sony? Because gamers don't trust Microsoft to continue delivering the best games.

But it is even more complicated than that because Trust is not just a static characteristic, it also changes. A company that delivers a highly trusted product or service can suddenly find that it is losing that trust because the underlying technology has moved on and left it behind. If your customers expect you to be state-of-the-art in performance, quality or price, anything less is a betrayal of their trust.

Michael Malone: A Matter of Trust
Success, too, can lead to a betrayal of Trust. So can an evolution in customers. In the tech world, the most famous example is that of the scandal that nearly killed Intel Corp.: the software bug in the Pentium microprocessor chip. There had always been bugs in processors, but because most of the people using the early microprocessors were scientists and engineers, they expected them, worked around them, and waited for Intel or Motorola to send them fixes. But with Pentium, and the transformative marketing campaign that surrounded it -- "Intel Inside" -- Intel now found itself with a gigantic customer base of everyday consumers ... people for whom such a bug was a catastrophe, a betrayal of trust by the company, and a source of real fear by unsophisticated users. Intel initially dismissed the growing controversy -- and, then, in a move that may have saved the company, reversed itself and agreed to replace all of the faulty chips.

As the world grows more complex, the marketplace expands to encompass billions, and the stakes go ever higher -- so does the importance of Trust. And nowhere is the burden of trust greater than when we enter into a relationship that requires us to abandon all alternatives. Because Trust can never be perfect, it always helps to know that if that Trust begins to falter, we have someplace else to go, an escape hatch.

This human need, I suspect, is what underlies the angry response right now to the Obama administration's health care plan. Progressives and other social engineers always make the same mistake: They find what they believe is the One Best Way, the empirically most efficient, reasonable and fair process, and then seek to impose it on the entire population as the Right Thing To Do. What they inevitably fail to appreciate (because they are Utopians) is that they are demanding from the populace almost infinite Trust -- in matters of life and death, something most sensible adults will, wisely, never give -- while at the same time stripping away every other alternative. This is guaranteed to create fear, a sense of helplessness ... and ultimately, anger.

In a smaller way, that same impulse helps to explain my anger at Comcast right now. I entered into the agreement trusting that the cable company would provide me with reliable service.

In the meantime, as long as I'm trapped and helpless, I think I'll have a latte.

This is the opinion of the columnist and in no way reflects the opinion of ABC News.

Michael S. Malone is one of the nation's best-known technology writers. He has covered Silicon Valley and high-tech for more than 25 years, beginning with the San Jose Mercury News as the nation's first daily high-tech reporter. His articles and editorials have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, The Economist and Fortune, and for two years he was a columnist for The New York Times. He was editor of Forbes ASAP, the world's largest-circulation business-tech magazine, at the height of the dot-com boom. Malone is the author or co-author of a dozen books, notably the best-selling "Virtual Corporation." Malone has also hosted three public television interview series, and most recently co-produced the celebrated PBS miniseries on social entrepreneurs, "The New Heroes." He has been the ABCNews.com "Silicon Insider" columnist since 2000.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Technology/customers-lack-trust-companies-michael-malone-writes/Story?id=8376254&page=1

GOP Chief Steele Dares Democrats to Pass Health Overhaul On Their Own - Political News - FOXNews.com

2009-08-22T03:02:00.001-04:00

GOP Chief Steele Dares Democrats to Pass Health Overhaul On Their Own - Political News - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

'Tea Party' Organizers Plan Anti-'Obamacare' Rallies Across the Country - Political News - FOXNews.com

2009-08-22T03:01:00.001-04:00

'Tea Party' Organizers Plan Anti-'Obamacare' Rallies Across the Country - Political News - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

GOP Chief Steele Dares Democrats to Pass Health Overhaul On Their Own - Political News - FOXNews.com

2009-08-21T06:39:00.001-04:00

GOP Chief Steele Dares Democrats to Pass Health Overhaul On Their Own - Political News - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

Army of the Lord? Obama Seeks Health Care Push From Pulpit - Political News - FOXNews.com

2009-08-21T06:35:00.001-04:00

Army of the Lord? Obama Seeks Health Care Push From Pulpit - Political News - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

DAVID ALEXROD JUST ANOTHER CROOK IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-20T07:31:00.005-04:00

Hey Axelrod...Joe the plummer has something for you !

Axelrod's ties targeted in health fight

Critics of President Obama’s health-care overhaul are zeroing in on his senior adviser David Axelrod, whose former partners at a Chicago-based firm are the beneficiaries of huge ad buys — now at $24 million and counting — by White House allies in the reform fight.

The unwelcome scrutiny, largely from Republicans, comes at an inopportune time as Obama seeks to shore up support for health care reform. It revolves around two separate $12 million ad campaigns advocating Obama’s health care plan that were produced and placed partly by AKPD Message and Media, a firm founded by Axelrod that employs his son and still owes Axelrod $2 million.

A separate firm, GMMB, is also handling the campaigns. Both AKPD and GMMB did millions of dollars of work on Obama’s presidential campaign, continue to tout their connections to the campaign and still maintain close ties to his inner circle.

The two firms were hired to make the health-care ads by a pair of linked coalitions supporting Obama’s health-care overhaul proposal — Healthy Economy Now and a newer offshoot unveiled last week called Americans for Stable Quality Care.

The Associated Press reported this month that Healthy Economy Now paid AKPD and GMMB to produce a $12 million national ad campaign echoing White House talking points supporting the health care overhaul.

And a spokesman for Americans for Stable Quality Care, which essentially supplanted the now-defunct Healthy Economy Now, confirmed that it is using the two Obama-linked firms to produce and air a separate $12 million ad campaign launched Thursday designed to shore up support among the conservative House Blue Dog Democrats and to target swing senators. The ad, which is airing in a dozen states, is the opening salvo in a campaign planned for this fall that will cost tens of millions of dollars more.

The coalitions are a strange-bedfellows mix of business, labor and health care groups including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (better known as PhRMA), the American Medical Association, the Service Employees International Union and the liberal group FamiliesUSA.

Neither coalition would reveal how much AKPD or GMMB was paid for its work on the ads. The firms will likely net only a fraction of the $24 million total campaign price tag, but — unlike with election campaign spending — there are no mandatory reporting requirements for such so-called issue advocacy.

Some of the Healthy Economy Now ads began airing in June, around the time PhRMA was negotiating with the Senate Finance Committee on an eventual agreement to win the drug lobby’s support for a health care overhaul by capping the costs the drug industry would absorb to $80 billion over 10 years.

The deal, which was blessed by the White House, has angered some progressive activists and liberal House Democrats, who until recently counted Big Pharma as both an impediment to health care reform efforts and a Republican-aligned lobby.

Republicans are aggressively seeking to capitalize on the AKPD connection, and the House Republican Conference distributed a one-page talking points memo Tuesday asserting the White House-PhRMA deal raises “serious questions as to whether the drug lobby is helping to bankroll a multimillion dollar severance package for one of the President’s senior advisers.”

The memo points out that the drug industry will profit handsomely from the deal and asks whether Axelrod “recused himself from the PhRMA ‘deal,’ or will he work to defend an agreement with an industry that is directly funding his son’s work, and indirectly funding his own $2 million severance package?”

PhRMA vice president Ken Johnson said his group wasn’t involved in selecting AKPD or GMMB, and that, in fact, he had no idea the coalitions had picked the former Axelrod firm until he was asked about it by a reporter from Bloomberg.

“We’re very involved in reviewing ad copy and determining targeted districts and states, but not in determining which consultants are hired to carry out the campaign. That’s left to the people who you hire to manage it,” he said, adding that PhRMA had not hired either firm for ad buys the group aired on its own, which will likely dwarf the buys it helped fund as part of the coalition.

He declined to comment on the House GOP criticism, except to say, “Unfortunately, we’re a talking point and I’m not going to talk about the talking point.”

Spokesmen for Healthy Economy Now and Americans for Stable Quality Care said their groups paid AKPD and GMMB to produce the ads because they are considered top ad firms, not because of any connection to Axelrod or the White House.

Indeed, AKPD is widely recognized as a talented Democratic consulting firm with significant experience on health care-related issues.

They “are among the best in the business, so it was a no-brainer to hire them to help out this new effort to explain what health care reform means for Americans,” said Phil Singer, a spokesman for Americans for Stable Quality Care.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Tuesday dismissed a reporter’s question about whether Axelrod was profiting from the health care fight.

“That's ridiculous,” Gibbs said during a Tuesday afternoon briefing. “David has left his firm to join public service.”

AKPD’s continued payments to Axelrod are based on “an agreement, I think, that was made because David started and owned the firm. He left the firm, and if I'm not mistaken, is being paid for the fact that he created it and sold it, which, I think, is somewhat based on the free market.”

Financial disclosure records show that Axelrod, while preparing to take a job in the White House at the end of last year, sold AKPD for $2 million. And the records show that he sold a separate corporate public relations firm he founded called ASK Public Strategies for $1 million at the end of 2008.

AKPD is now owned by a group of consultants who helped steer Obama’s campaign, mostly while working at the firm, and ASK is owned Axelrod’s former partners there. Both firms will pay his buyouts in preset annual installments starting at the end of this year, terms that were settled on prior to Axelrod’s White House service.

AKPD officials declined to speak publicly about the arrangement, but a source familiar with the firm’s operations and finances said it is not reliant on the revenue from the Healthy Economy Now and Americans for Stable Quality Care campaigns to fulfill Axelrod’s annual payments, which the source described as “a fraction” of AKPD’s operating costs.

Additionally, the source said David Axelrod never discussed the coalitions’ campaigns with representatives from the firm or the coalitions themselves. The source added that Axelrod’s son Michael is a junior-level AKPD employee who has worked there for fewer than five years and is not involved in the coalitions.

It’s difficult to determine the clientele of ASK or AKPD, since neither are required to report them. But Axelrod’s disclosure statement shows that before he left the firms, both represented clients with business interests that stand to be affected by administration policy.

AKPD, for instance, represented the AFL-CIO, while ASK has worked for power concerns including Exelon and Commonwealth Edison Co. that could be affected by the administration’s push for a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions. The company also has worked for the nonprofit corporation formed to lure the 2016 Olympics to Chicago, an effort that the Obama administration has thrown its weight behind. White House officials have said Axelrod was not involved in the Olympic push.

On his first day in office, Obama unveiled a strict ethics policy barring officials from working on issues “directly and substantially related” to their former clients or employers for two years.

The White House vigorously denied that Axelrod violated the spirit of that policy. And, in fact, Axelrod's buyout agreements were cleared by the independent Office of Government Ethics, which is headed by a director appointed in 2006 to a five-year term by former President George W. Bush.

“David Axelrod has fully complied with the toughest ever ethics rules for administration officials, including divesting from AKPD before the administration began,” said Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt. “The notion that Mr. Axelrod should decline to participate in all health care policy work because his former firm — from which he has divested himself — has retained a single client which he has had no contact with is absurd.”

Nonetheless, the selection of Axelrod’s former firm to push the president’s top initiative raises appearance questions, particularly since Axelrod’s son Michael still works there, said Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for stricter government disclosure and ethics rules.

“The big issue seems to me whether there is a quid pro quo with PhRMA,” said Allison, adding “there’s no evidence that Axelrod steered the business to the firm. But the fact that special interests like PhRMA and the American Medical Association working hand in glove with the White House picked a firm that is so close to the White House shows how incestuous Washington can be.”

WE THE PEOPLE MISS YOU PRESIDENT GEORGE W.BUSH

2009-08-16T22:16:00.001-04:00

BREITBART: George W. Bush-by-proxy syndrome - Washington Times
WE THE PEOPLE MISS YOU PRESIDENT GEORGE W.BUSH
BREITBART: George W. Bush-by-proxy syndrome - Washington Times

Shared via AddThis

SWINE FLU SHOT LINKED TO KILLER NERVE DISEASE. TAKE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

2009-08-16T00:03:00.009-04:00

Swine flu jab link to killer nerve disease: Leaked letter reveals concern of neurologists over 25 deaths in AmericaRead more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206807/Swine-flu-jab-link-killer-nerve-disease-Leaked-letter-reveals-concern-neurologists-25-deaths-America.html

Prevention: Is the swine flu jab safe?

A warning that the new swine flu jab is linked to a deadly nerve disease has been sent by the Government to senior neurologists in a confidential letter.
The letter from the Health Protection Agency, the official body that oversees public health, has been leaked to The Mail on Sunday, leading to demands to know why the information has not been given to the public before the vaccination of millions of people, including children, begins.
It tells the neurologists that they must be alert for an increase in a brain disorder called Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), which could be triggered by the vaccine.
GBS attacks the lining of the nerves, causing paralysis and inability to breathe, and can be fatal.
The letter, sent to about 600 neurologists on July 29, is the first sign that there is concern at the highest levels that the vaccine itself could cause serious complications.
It refers to the use of a similar swine flu vaccine in the United States in 1976 when:
More people died from the vaccination than from swine flu.
500 cases of GBS were detected.
The vaccine may have increased the risk of contracting GBS by eight times.
The vaccine was withdrawn after just ten weeks when the link with GBS became clear.
The US Government was forced to pay out millions of dollars to those affected.
Concerns have already been raised that the new vaccine has not been sufficiently tested and that the effects, especially on children, are unknown.
It is being developed by pharmaceutical companies and will be given to about 13million people during the first wave of immunisation, expected to start in October.
Top priority will be given to everyone aged six months to 65 with an underlying health problem, pregnant women and health professionals.
The British Neurological Surveillance Unit (BNSU), part of the British Association of Neurologists, has been asked to monitor closely any cases of GBS as the vaccine is rolled out.
One senior neurologist said last night: ‘I would not have the swineflu jab because of the GBS risk.’
There are concerns that there could be a repeat of what became known as the ‘1976 debacle’ in the US, where a swine flu vaccine killed 25 people – more than the virus itself.
A mass vaccination was given the go-ahead by President Gerald Ford because scientists believed that the swine flu strain was similar to the one responsible for the 1918-19 pandemic, which killed half a million Americans and 20million people worldwide

The swine flu vaccine being offered to children has not been tested on infants

Within days, symptoms of GBS were reported among those who had been immunised and 25 people died from respiratory failure after severe paralysis. One in 80,000 people came down with the condition. In contrast, just one person died of swine flu.

More than 40million Americans had received the vaccine by the time the programme was stopped after ten weeks. The US Government paid out millions of dollars in compensation to those affected.

The swine flu virus in the new vaccine is a slightly different strain from the 1976 virus, but the possibility of an increased incidence of GBS remains a concern.

Shadow health spokesman Mike Penning said last night: ‘The last thing we want is secret letters handed around experts within the NHS. We need a vaccine but we also need to know about potential risks.

‘Our job is to make sure that the public knows what’s going on. Why
is the Government not being open about this? It’s also very worrying if GPs, who will be administering the vaccine, aren’t being warned.’

Two letters were posted together to neurologists advising them of the concerns. The first, dated July 29, was written by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the HPA’s Immunisation Department.
It says: ‘The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use.

‘GBS has been identified as a condition needing enhanced surveillance when the swine flu vaccines are rolled out.
‘Reporting every case of GBS irrespective of vaccination or disease history is essential for conducting robust epidemiological analyses capable of identifying whether there is an increased risk of GBS in defined time periods after vaccination, or after influenza itself, compared with the background risk.’

The second letter, dated July 27, is from the Association of British Neurologists and is written by Dr Rustam Al-Shahi Salman, chair of its surveillance unit, and Professor Patrick Chinnery, chair of its clinical research committee.

Halted: The 1976 US swine flu campaign

It says: ‘Traditionally, the BNSU has monitored rare diseases for long periods of time. However, the swine influenza (H1N1) pandemic has overtaken us and we need every member’s involvement with a new BNSU survey of Guillain-Barre Syndrome that will start on August 1 and run for approximately nine months.
‘Following the 1976 programme of vaccination against swine influenza in the US, a retrospective study found a possible eight-fold increase in the incidence of GBS.

‘Active prospective ascertainment of every case of GBS in the UK is required. Please tell BNSU about every case.

‘You will have seen Press coverage describing the Government’s concern about releasing a vaccine of unknown safety.’

If there are signs of a rise in GBS after the vaccination programme begins, the Government could decide to halt it.

GBS attacks the lining of the nerves, leaving them unable to transmit signals to muscles effectively.
It can cause partial paralysis and mostly affects the hands and feet. In serious cases, patients need to be kept on a ventilator, but it can be fatal.

Death is caused by paralysis of the respiratory system, causing the victim to suffocate.
It is not known exactly what causes GBS and research on the subject has been inconclusive.
However, it is thought that one in a million people who have a seasonal flu vaccination could be at risk and it has also been linked to people recovering from a bout of flu of any sort.

The HPA said it was part of the Government’s pandemic plan to monitor GBS cases in the event of a mass vaccination campaign, regardless of the strain of flu involved.
But vaccine experts warned that the letters proved the programme was a ‘guinea-pig trial’.

Dr Tom Jefferson, co-ordinator of the vaccines section of the influential Cochrane Collaboration, an independent group that reviews research, said: ‘New vaccines never behave in the way you expect them to. It may be that there is a link to GBS, which is certainly not something I would wish on anybody.

‘But it could end up being anything because one of the additives in one of the vaccines is a substance called squalene, and none of the studies we’ve extracted have any research on it at all.’

He said squalene, a naturally occurring enzyme, could potentially cause so-far-undiscovered side effects.

Jackie Fletcher, founder of vaccine support group Jabs, said: ‘The Government would not be anticipating this if they didn’t think there was a connection. What we’ve got is a massive guinea-pig trial.’

Professor Chinnery said: ‘During the last swine flu pandemic, it was observed that there was an increased frequency of cases of GBS. No one knows whether it was the virus or the vaccine that caused this.

‘The purpose of the survey is for us to assess rapidly whether there is an increase in the frequency of GBS when the vaccine is released in the UK. It also increases consultants’ awareness of the condition.

Panic over? The number of swine flu cases has fallen sharply in the past few weeks

‘This is a belt-and-braces approach to safety and is not something people should be substantially worried about as it’s a rare condition.’

If neurologists do identify a case of GBS, it will be logged on a central database.

Details about patients, including blood samples, will be collected and monitored by the HPA.

It is hoped this will help scientists establish why some people develop the condition and whether it is directly related to the vaccine.

But some question why there needs to be a vaccine, given the risks. Dr Richard Halvorsen, author of The Truth About Vaccines, said: ‘For people with serious underlying health problems, the risk of dying from swine flu is probably greater than the risk of side effects from the vaccine.

‘But it would be tragic if we repeated the US example and ended up with more casualties from the jabs.

‘I applaud the Government for recognising the risk but in most cases this is a mild virus which needs a few days in bed. I’d question why we need a vaccine at all.’

Professor Miller at the HPA said: ‘This monitoring system activates pandemic plans that have been in place for a number of years. We’ll be able to get information on whether a patient has had a prior influenza illness and will look at whether influenza itself is linked to GBS.

‘We are not expecting a link to the vaccine but a link to disease, which would make having the vaccine even more important.’

The UK’s medicines watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, is already monitoring reported side effects from Tamiflu and Relenza and it is set to extend that surveillance to the vaccine.

A Department of Health spokesperson said: ‘The European Medicines Agency has strict processes in place for licensing pandemic vaccines.

‘In preparing for a pandemic, appropriate trials to assess safety and the immune responses have been carried out on vaccines very similar to the swine flu vaccine. The vaccines have been shown to have a good safety profile.
‘It is extremely irresponsible to suggest that the UK would use a vaccine without careful consideration of safety issues. The UK has one of the most successful immunisation programmes in the world.’

I COULDN''T EAT OR SPEAK... IT WAS HORRENDOUS
Victim: Hilary Wilkinson spent three months in hospital after she was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome
When Hilary Wilkinson woke up with muscle weakness in her left arm and difficulty breathing, doctors initially put it down to a stroke.

But within hours, she was on a ventilator in intensive care after being diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome.

She spent three months in hospital and had to learn how to talk and walk again. But at times, when she was being fed through a drip and needed a tracheotomy just to breathe, she doubted whether she would survive.
The mother of two, 57, from Maryport, Cumbria, had been in good health until she developed a chest infection in March 2006. She gradually became so weak she could not walk downstairs.
Doctors did not diagnose Guillain-Barre until her condition worsened in hospital and tests showed her reflexes slowing down. It is impossible for doctors to know how she contracted the disorder, although it is thought to be linked to some infections.
Mrs Wilkinson said: ‘It was very scary. I couldn’t eat and I couldn’t speak. My arms and feet had no strength and breathing was hard.
I was treated with immunoglobulin, which are proteins found in blood, to stop damage to my nerves. After ten days, I still couldn’t speak and had to mime to nurses or my family.

‘It was absolutely horrendous and I had no idea whether I would get through it. You reach very dark moments at such times and wonder how long it can last.

But I’m a very determined person and I had lots of support.’

After three weeks, she was transferred to a neurological ward, where she had an MRI scan and nerve tests to assess the extent of the damage.

Still unable to speak and in a wheelchair, Mrs Wilkinson eventually began gruelling physiotherapy to improve her muscle strength and movement but it was exhausting and painful.
Three years later, she is almost fully recovered. She can now walk for several miles at a time, has been abroad and carries out voluntary work for a GBS Support Group helpline.

She said: ‘It makes me feel wary that the Government is rolling out this vaccine without any clear idea of the GBS risk, if any. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone and it certainly changed my life.

‘I’m frightened to have the swine flu vaccine if this might happen again – it’s a frightening illness and I think more research needs to be done on the effect of the vaccine.’

Hotline staff given access to confidential records

Confidential NHS staff records and disciplinary complaints could be accessed by hundreds of workers manning the Government’s special swine flu hotline.

They were able to browse through a database of emails containing doctors’ and nurses’ National Insurance numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, mobile phone numbers and scanned passport pages – all details that could be used fraudulently.

And private and confidential complaints sent by hospitals about temporary medical staff – some of whom were named – were also made available to the call-centre workers, who were given a special password to log in to an internal NHS website.

It could be a breach of the Data Protection Act.
The hotline staff work for NHS Professionals, which was set up using taxpayers’ money to employ temporary medical and administrative staff for the health service.

The not-for-profit company runs two of the Government’s swine flu call centres – with 300 staff in Farnborough, Hampshire, and 900 in Watford, Hertfordshire.
Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley described the revelations as ‘disturbing’.

Anne Mitchell, a spokeswoman for Unison, said: ‘There’s no excuse for such a fundamental breach of personal security. Action needs to be taken as soon as possible to make sure this does not happen again.’

A spokeswoman for NHS Professionals would not confirm whether access to the confidential files had been granted.

AARP LIES LIKE HELL AND SO DOES OBAMA. DECIDE FOR YOUR SELF !

2009-08-15T23:44:00.004-04:00

DECIDE FOR YOURSELF. I have ! AND.. THEY REALLY SUX !
http://aarplies.com/

Is AARP's Facts Vs. Myth Website lying?! Read from the bill here and decide for yourself.
And we challenge AARP to put data and links on their website and remove their misinformation.

Updated Saturday 8/15/09, 8:45 pm PDTLatest updates: Medicare Advantage to be eliminated
Extra update: Another GREAT alternative health care plan from Whole Foods' CEO
Sen. Arlen Spector (R, er, D) caught clueless about what's in the Bill
We were shocked when we compared the most recent House bill (H.R.3200 - America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) with the AARP website.
The AARP website misrepresents what is in the Bill.
All we want is honest information so we as voters can decide. Please read and decide for yourself, and let's have our Representatives and Senators quote from the bill and defend and convince us with FACTS, instead of trying to snow us with "trust us" (watch Sen. Arlen Specter lie and make a fool of himself). NOTE THAT EVERY CLAIM ON THIS WEBSITE HAS LINKS TO THE ACTUAL BILL OR VIDEO OF SPEECHES -- SO YOU CAN DECIDE.
First, we'll summarize the problem and the obvious solutions, and then we'll refute the AARP "Facts vs. Myths" webpage section-by-section. Obviously, we are NOT affiliated with AARP, nor any other group -- we're indepdent thinkers and voters, who can't stand disinformation. We reference sources for all linked information and include excerpts without claiming ownership or authorship. And we DID call AARP and try to get them to change their misleading website but they refused, so we had to make this website.
Also, here's a good summary table of some of the House and Senate Bills from Examiner.com.
And another good summary with even more scary details, here, from The Free Republic
And a doctor's analysis of the bill, here
What should you do if you agree that AARP is being misleading?
Call your local Representative and Senator TODAY and tell them how you feel
Call AARP TODAY at 1-888-687-2277 and CANCEL your AARP membership (so they know you mean it !)
The ways to reduce costs for healthcare are to:
Increase insurance company competition -- allow writing of policies across state lines.
Reduce government regulation and requirements of extra coverages in ALL policies only used by very few customers (they could be required for certain policies just like 'assigned risk' in auto insurance, and yes, those policies would cost more, but also cover more, and people could choose)
Have a considered (= 3-5 months of debate), public discussion of ways to help the 9-12 million US Citizens who can't afford health insurance.This is much cheaper than ANY option in the current bill!
Work on tort reform (to limit legal judgments, so insurance costs don't need to be so high).
Encourage Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) so you can control where you spend your money
Don't put the US Government and your tax dollars into running another bureacracy. A Single-Payer health system will not make money or even cover its costs, but will undercut the free market and subsidize itself off your taxes -- actually increasing the cost to you while reducing care -- it's a death spiral !
NOBODY IS SUGGESTING DOING NOTHING!Here's another great set of alternatives from Whole Foods' CEO
Why we don't trust our Representatives and Senators:
Congress won't be required to enroll. Why isn't it good enough for them but good enough for us? (The current bill exempts Congress -- and Members even refused good faith attempts to fix this: "On July 16, Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., went further and offered an amendment to the House version during the Ways and Means Committee markup that would require members of Congress to enroll in its own government-run health care program. Democrats defeated the amendment, 23 to 18.)"
Will the government be the only insurance company? (This is called "SINGLE PAYER")Will this force the private insurance companies out of business? President Obama has said that it will and that IS HIS INTENT. He has said it may take 10 or 15 years, but that's his plan. You can debate the result, but not what's on record. Watch the video here and watch another video here.
When the President keeps saying, "If you like your current health plan, you can keep it," that's a lie: No, you can't. And in his videos (paragraph above) he repeatedly gives his "vision."
If you're a Senior Citizen, note that the Bill will penalize hospitals for readmitting you (as often happens when you're being treated for several things when you're older). See Section 1151 REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS..
Medicare Advantage Insurance Options will be limited by the whims of one person appointed by the President. From Section 1162 (E): "(iv) AUTHORITY TO DISQUALIFY CERTAIN PLANS- In applying clauses (ii) and (iii), the Secretary may determine not to identify a Medicare Advantage plan if the Secretary has identified deficiencies in the plan's compliance with rules for such plans under this part." And President Obama confirmed his plan to STOP MEDICARE ADVANTAGE AS A "WASTE OF MONEY" DURING HIS TOWNHALL MEETING IN MONTANA: Obama says he can get savings of "about $177 billion over 10 years. That's how much we think we could save by eliminating subsidies to insurance companies that are offering what's called Medicare Advantage. It doesn't help seniors any more than regular Medicare does." (<-- you can click on the link, and the use control-F to search for the phrase 'medicare advantage' to find the quote) If you have a Health Savings Account (HSA), that will be illegal under the new plan. Why? Because they are not included in the definition of a'Qualified Health Plan.' BOTH Democrats and Republicans of good character tried to add that definition. It was denied. Does that seem like sneaky lawerly tricks to you? Yup, to us, too. Again, read the data and be an informed voter:"To protect the existing coverage of Americans who currently have these plans, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), and Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) offered an amendment that would include health benefits plans with HSAs in the bill's definition of a 'qualified health benefits plan.' The Committee majority defeated this amendment. In other words, Americans who wish to buy HSA plans would be stripped of their freedom to choose them."
Tort reform is not addressed in the current bill, but tax penalties for US citizens and exemptions from penalties for illegal immigrants are included: Sec. 59B, Pg. 170, Line 1 - "Any NONRESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes."
Still Reading? GREAT! Now let's look at the misleading AARP site(you can click on any of the images below to enlarge it and see the AARP site)

Myths? Ha! Unlike AARP, we use data to back up our claims. Does AARP refuse to use REAL DATA with citations from the BILL because they are lying, or lazy, or both?! Or do they just think you won't find out?!
The real myth is that we need to do something, anything before we've had time to discuss and debate it, make sure we can pay for it, and not throw away our current health system when it's the envy of the world!

REAL FACT: You'll get to keep your insurance for only 5 years (page 17), OR LESS if *anything* changes in your health plan, INCLUDING if you change jobs. Then, you MUST enroll in the US Gov't Health Plan (page 21+ ). You may get to choose your own doctor, but that is misleading because the doctor may not accept your insurance, or may have US Government guidance on what procedures to perform, etc. Read the bill, please! Do you think that healthcare bills that are 1,018 pages long are designed to make it hard for YOU to read and understand and be informed on what's going on?! Us, too! See what can you do.
REAL FACT: So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised, BUT: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. And once the bill takes effect in about 2 years, insurance companies are prohibited from writing new policies.

REAL FACT: We're only talking about the House Proposal, since the Senate's isn't public and the White House hasn't published anything (so much for leadership, or rather political deniability),or do you have special information, AARP? The Bill won't "stand between individuals and their doctors" but it will define what can be in medical plan (page 16) and while it will allow the "best possible care", it WILL DEFINE "what best care is possible"! (page 16)

REAL FACT: The White House looks like it's cutting temporary side-deal with the drug companies (in typical Chicago-thug fashion), so drug prices might not go up for now, but long term, it's a Faustian deal once the government's the only buyer.
REAL FACT: The Bill doesn't "prevent" hospital readmissions for seniors, it just reduces the payments to hospitals if they do so (See Section 1151 REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS). To us, AARP is telling the truth here, but is misleading you!

REAL FACT: The President's "commitments" have quadrupled our national debt in less than 6 months, and the CBO's cost estimate for the current Bill recently jumped from "only" $200 billion to now closer to $1-1.5 TRILLION over just the next 10 years, with deficits never stopping and the debt just increasing!

REAL FACT: No one is suggesting doing nothing, but doing the wrong thing is something we can't afford and may push us into losing our National debt rating resulting in higher interest rates and much worse economic times. Doing the right things (see above), and carefully improving our current system, are the right things to do.

REAL FACT: Again, misleading. The government cannot refuse to treat you, but it defines what care you must "choose" to receive. YOU still "choose" to accept what they offer, OR to die (not something you have much choice in, as we see it).
REAL FACT: The current plan Section 1233 spells out "end of life planning," Obama has suggested people get "a pain pill instead of surgery," and there will be healthcare recommended practices board (a "healthcare benefits advisory board"). But still, it will be your "choice" to live or die. Right.

OBAMA is a prisoner of the cult of neoliberalism

2009-08-12T01:57:00.006-04:00

Can Obama be deprogrammed?
The president is a prisoner of the cult of neoliberalism

Aug. 4, 2009 In my first foray into political life in the 1970s, I worked during college on the staff of a liberal Democrat in the Texas state Senate. Only a few years earlier, Patty Hearst had been kidnapped and brainwashed by the Symbionese Liberation Army, and a moral panic about cults seducing college kids was sweeping the nation. One result was the rise of a new, thankfully ephemeral profession: "deprogrammers" who for pay would kidnap a young person from a cult and break the spell, by means of isolation, interrogation and maybe reruns of "The Waltons."

A reactionary Republican state senator from the Houston area, who was heartily despised by my senator, introduced a bill granting parents the right to hire deprogrammers to kidnap adult children who belonged to what the parents regarded as cults and then confine them in motels for several weeks, subject to psychological coercion, without notifying the authorities. Needless to say, this deprogramming law was the greatest threat to the tradition of habeas corpus until another reactionary Texan was installed in the White House in 2001. The bill was laughed to death, when, during a hearing, the sponsor was asked if it could be used to deprogram young people who had joined a certain well-known cult. "Why, yes, Senator," the Republican replied, "it would apply to cults like the Unitarians."

Boy, do we need deprogrammers now, to liberate Barack Obama from the cult of neoliberalism.

By neoliberalism I mean the ideology that replaced New Deal liberalism as the dominant force in the Democratic Party between the Carter and Clinton presidencies. In the Clinton years, this was called the "Third Way." The term was misleading, because New Deal liberalism between 1932 and 1968 and its equivalents in social democratic Europe were considered the original "third way" between democratic socialism and libertarian capitalism, whose failure had caused the Depression. According to New Deal liberals, the United States was not a "capitalist society" or a "market democracy" but rather a democratic republic with a "mixed economy," in which the state provided both social insurance and infrastructure like electric grids, hydropower and highways, while the private sector engaged in mass production.

When it came to the private sector, the New Dealers, with some exceptions, approved of Big Business, Big Unions and Big Government, which formed the system of checks and balances that John Kenneth Galbraith called "countervailing power." But most New Dealers dreaded and distrusted bankers. They thought that finance should be strictly regulated and subordinated to the real economy of factories and home ownership. They were economic internationalists because they wanted to open foreign markets to U.S. factory products, not because they hoped that the Asian masses some day would pay high overdraft fees to U.S. multinational banks.

New Dealers approved of social insurance systems like Social Security and Medicare, which were rights (entitlements) not charity and which mostly redistributed income within the middle class, from workers to nonworkers (the retired and the temporarily unemployed). But contrary to conservative propaganda, New Deal liberals disliked means-tested antipoverty programs and despised what Franklin Roosevelt called "the dole." Roosevelt and his most important protégé, Lyndon Johnson, preferred workfare to welfare. They preferred a high-wage, low-welfare society to a low-wage, high-welfare society. To maintain the high-wage system that would minimize welfare payments to able-bodied adults, New Deal liberals did not hesitate to regulate the labor market, by means of pro-union legislation, a high minimum wage, and low levels of immigration (which were raised only at the end of the New Deal period, beginning in 1965). It was only in the 1960s that Democrats became identified with redistributionist welfarism -- and then only because of the influence of the New Left, which denounced the New Deal as "corporate liberalism."

Between the 1940s and the 1970s, the New Deal system -- large-scale public investment and R&D, regulated monopolies and oligopolies, the subordination of banking to productive industry, high wages and universal social insurance -- created the world's first mass middle class. The system was far from perfect. Southern segregationist Democrats crippled many of its progressive features and the industrial unions were afflicted by complacency and corruption. But for all its flaws, the New Deal era is still remembered as the Golden Age of the American economy.

And then America went downhill.

The "stagflation" of the 1970s had multiple sources, including the oil price shock following the Arab oil embargo in 1973 and the revival of German and Japanese industrial competition (China was still recovering from the damage done by Mao). During the previous generation, libertarian conservatives like Milton Friedman had been marginalized. But in the 1970s they gained a wider audience, blaming the New Deal model and claiming that the answer to every question (before the question was even asked) was "the market."

The free-market fundamentalists found an audience among Democrats as well as Republicans. A growing number of Democratic economists and economic policymakers were attracted to the revival of free-market economics, among them Obama's chief economic advisor Larry Summers, a professed admirer of Milton Friedman. These center-right Democrats agreed with the libertarians that the New Deal approach to the economy had been too interventionist. At the same time, they thought that government had a role in providing a safety net. The result was what came to be called "neoliberalism" in the 1980s and 1990s -- a synthesis of conservative free-market economics with "progressive" welfare-state redistribution for the losers. Its institutional base was the Democratic Leadership Council, headed by Bill Clinton and Al Gore, and the affiliated Progressive Policy Institute.

Beginning in the Carter years, the Democrats later called neoliberals supported the deregulation of infrastructure industries that the New Deal had regulated, like airlines, trucking and electricity, a sector in which deregulation resulted in California blackouts and the Enron scandal. Neoliberals teamed up with conservatives to persuade Bill Clinton to go along with the Republican Congress's dismantling of New Deal-era financial regulations, a move that contributed to the cancerous growth of Wall Street and the resulting global economic collapse. As Asian mercantilist nations like Japan and then China rigged their domestic markets while enjoying free access to the U.S. market, neoliberal Democrats either turned a blind eye to the foreign mercantilist assault on American manufacturing or claimed that it marked the beneficial transition from an industrial economy to a "knowledge economy." While Congress allowed inflation to slash the minimum wage and while corporations smashed unions, neoliberals chattered about sending everybody to college so they could work in the high-wage "knowledge jobs" of the future. Finally, many (not all) neoliberals agreed with conservatives that entitlements like Social Security were too expensive, and that it was more efficient to cut benefits for the middle class in order to expand benefits for the very poor.

The fact that Robert Rubin's son James helped select Obama's economic team may not be irrelevant.

The transition from New Deal liberalism to neoliberalism began with Carter, but it was not complete until the Clinton years. Clinton, like Carter, ran as a populist and was elected on the basis of his New Deal-ish "Putting People First" program, which emphasized public investment and a tough policy toward Japanese industrial mercantilism. But early in the first term, the Clinton administration was captured by neoliberals, of whom the most important was Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Under Rubin's influence, Clinton sacrificed public investment to the misguided goal of balancing the budget, a dubious accomplishment made possible only by the short-lived tech bubble. And Rubin helped to wreck American manufacturing, by pursuing a strong dollar policy that helped Wall Street but hurt American exporters and encouraged American companies to transfer production for the U.S. domestic market to China and other Asian countries that deliberately undervalued their currencies to help their exports.

By the time Barack Obama was inaugurated, the neoliberal capture of the presidential branch of the Democratic Party was complete. Instead of presiding over an administration with diverse economic views, Obama froze out progressives, except for Jared Bernstein in the vice-president's office, and surrounded himself with neoliberal protégés of Robert Rubin like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner. The fact that Robert Rubin's son James helped select Obama's economic team may not be irrelevant.

Instead of the updated Rooseveltonomics that America needs, Obama's team offers warmed-over Rubinomics from the 1990s. Consider the priorities of the Obama administration: the environment, healthcare and education. Why these priorities, as opposed to others, like employment, high wages and manufacturing? The answer is that these three goals co-opt the activist left while fitting neatly into a neoliberal narrative that could as easily have been told in 1999 as in 2009. The story is this: New Dealers and Keynesians are wrong to think that industrial capitalism is permanently and inherently prone to self-destruction, if left to itself. Except in hundred-year disasters, the market economy is basically sound and self-correcting. Government can, however, help the market indirectly, by providing these three public goods, which, thanks to "market failures," the private sector will not provide.

Healthcare? New Deal liberals favored a single-payer system like Social Security and Medicare. Obama, however, says that single payer is out of the question because the U.S. is not Canada. (Evidently the New Deal America of FDR and LBJ was too "Canadian.") The goal is not to provide universal healthcare, rather it is to provide universal health insurance, by means that, even if they include a shriveled "public option," don't upset the bloated American private health insurance industry.

Education? In the 1990s, the conventional wisdom of the neoliberal Democrats held that the "jobs of the future" were "knowledge jobs." America's workers would sit in offices with diplomas on the wall and design new products that would be made in third-world sweatshops. We could cede the brawn work and keep the brain work. Since then, we've learned that brain work follows brawn work overseas. R&D, finance and insurance jobs tend to follow the factories to Asia.

Education is also used by neoliberals to explain stagnant wages in the U.S. By claiming that American workers are insufficiently educated for the "knowledge economy," neoliberal Democrats divert attention from the real reasons for stagnant and declining wages -- the offshoring of manufacturing, the decline of labor unions, and, at the bottom of the labor market, a declining minimum wage and mass unskilled immigration. One study after another since the 1990s has refuted the theory that wage inequality results from skill-biased technical change. But the neoliberal cultists around Obama who write his economic speeches either don't know or don't care. Like Bill Clinton before him, Barack Obama continues to tell Americans that to get higher wages they need to go to college and improve their skills, as though there weren't a surplus of underemployed college grads already.

Environment? Here the differences between the New Deal Democrats and the Obama Democrats could not be wider. Their pro-industrial program did not prevent New Deal Democrats from being passionate about resource conservation and wilderness preservation. They did not hesitate to use regulations to shut down pollution. And their approach to energy was based on direct government R&D (the Manhattan Project) and direct public deployment (the TVA).

Contrast the straightforward New Deal approaches with the energy and environment policies of Obama and the Democratic leadership, which are at once too conservative and too radical. They are too conservative, because cap and trade relies on a system of market incentives that are not only indirect and feeble but likely to create a subprime market in carbon, enriching a few green profiteers. At the same time, they are too radical, because any serious attempt to shift the U.S. economy in a green direction by hiking the costs of non-renewable energy would accelerate the transfer of U.S. industry to Asia -- and with it not only industry-related "knowledge jobs" but also the manufacture of those overhyped icons of the "green economy," solar panels and windmills.

While we can't go back to the New Deal of the mid-20th century in its details, we need to re-create its spirit. But short of confining them in motel rooms and making them watch newsreels about the Hoover Dam, Glass-Steagall, the TVA and the Manhattan Project, is it possible to liberate President Obama and the Democratic leadership from the cult of neoliberalism?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/04/neoliberalism/index.html

CORRUPTION IN WASHINGTON ! THIS IS A VERY SICK GROUP !

Obama's healthcare horror,Heads should roll -- beginning with Nancy Pelosi's!

2009-08-12T01:11:00.004-04:00

Obama's healthcare horror
Heads should roll -- beginning with Nancy Pelosi's!
I must confess my dismay bordering on horror at the amateurism of the White House apparatus for domestic policy. When will heads start to roll? I was glad to see the White House counsel booted, as well as Michelle Obama's chief of staff, and hope it's a harbinger of things to come. Except for that wily fox, David Axelrod, who could charm gold threads out of moonbeams, Obama seems to be surrounded by juvenile tinhorns, bumbling mediocrities and crass bully boys.

Case in point: the administration's grotesque mishandling of healthcare reform, one of the most vital issues facing the nation. Ever since Hillary Clinton's megalomaniacal annihilation of our last best chance at reform in 1993 (all of which was suppressed by the mainstream media when she was running for president), Democrats have been longing for that happy day when this issue would once again be front and center.

I simply do not understand the drift of my party toward a soulless collectivism. This is in fact what Sarah Palin hit on in her shocking image of a "death panel" under Obamacare that would make irrevocable decisions about the disabled and elderly. When I first saw that phrase, headlined on the Drudge Report, I burst out laughing. It seemed so over the top! But on reflection, I realized that Palin's shrewdly timed metaphor spoke directly to the electorate's unease with the prospect of shadowy, unelected government figures controlling our lives. A death panel not only has the power of life and death but is itself a symptom of a Kafkaesque brave new world where authority has become remote, arbitrary and spectral. And as in the Spanish Inquisition, dissidence is heresy, persecuted and punished.

Surely, the basic rule in comprehensive legislation should be: First, do no harm. The present proposals are full of noble aims, but the biggest danger always comes from unforeseen and unintended consequences. Example: the American incursion into Iraq, which destabilized the region by neutralizing Iran's rival and thus enormously enhancing Iran's power and nuclear ambitions.

What was needed for reform was an in-depth analysis, buttressed by documentary evidence, of waste, fraud and profiteering in the healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Instead what we've gotten is a series of facile, vulgar innuendos about how doctors conduct their practice, as if their primary motive is money. Quite frankly, the president gives little sense of direct knowledge of medical protocols; it's as if his views are a tissue of hearsay and scattershot worst-case scenarios.

Of course, it didn't help matters that, just when he needed maximum momentum on healthcare, Obama made the terrible gaffe of declaring that, even without his knowing the full facts, Cambridge, Mass., police had acted "stupidly" in arresting a friend of his, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. Obama's automatic identification with the pampered Harvard elite (wildly unpopular with most sensible people), as well as his insulting condescension toward an officer doing his often dangerous duty, did serious and perhaps irreparable damage to the president's standing. The strained, prissy beer summit in the White House garden afterward didn't help. Is that the Obama notion of hospitality? Another staff breakdown.

Both Gates and Obama mistakenly assumed that the original incident at Gates' house was about race, when it was about class. It was the wealthy, lordly Gates who committed the first offense by instantly and evidently hysterically defaming the character of the officer who arrived at his door to investigate the report of a break-in. There was no excuse for Gates' loud and cheap charges of racism, which he should have immediately apologized for the next day, instead of threatening lawsuits and self-aggrandizing television exposés. On the other hand, given that Cambridge is virtually a company town, perhaps police headquarters should have dispatched a moderator to the tumultuous scene before a small, disabled Harvard professor was clapped in handcuffs and marched off to jail. But why should an Ivy League panjandrum be treated any differently from the rest of us hoi polloi?

Class rarely receives honest attention in the American media, as demonstrated by the reporting on a June incident at a swimming pool in the Philadelphia suburbs. When the director of the Valley Swim Club in Montgomery County cancelled its agreement with several urban day camps to use its private pool, the controversy was portrayed entirely in racial terms. There were uninvestigated allegations of remarks about "black kids" made by white mothers who ordered their children out of the pool, and the racial theme was intensified by the director's inept description of the "complexion" of the pool having been changed -- which may simply have been a whopper of a Freudian slip.

TAKE AMERICA BACK FROM THE THUGS IN WASHINGTON DC

2009-08-12T00:56:00.002-04:00

A Direct Report TO Congress
Uncle Sam's Tavern ^ 8/7/09 April Clark

Posted on Monday, August 10, 2009 10:42:00 PM by Anejo

There are some things you folks in Washington need to know about the "mobs" that are "storming" your town hall meetings. I proudly count myself among their number, and would like to take this opportunity to explain a few things. I hope you're listening.

Listening. So much would be different if you were better at that particular skill. For years we have written to you, respectfully voicing our concerns and opinions. In response, we get form letters, telling us what you, in your infinite wisdom, plan to do - regardless of our desires or opinions. I have gotten form letters from my representative that pertained to an entirely different subject than the one about which I had written. Clerical error? Sure, but also entirely indicative of just how much you care about satisfying those who hired you and pay your salaries. I have written, I have called, and I know dozens of others who have done the same. On cap and trade, I heard that the calls were 200 to 1 against the legislation - you passed it anyway. Do you know how that makes us feel? Do you have any idea what a slam that is?

You see, we, the people, still believe in the Constitution. We believe that this country is supposed to be all about us, not a few hundred disconnected, power hungry, pompous and self-righteous elected officials in Washington who long ago forgot what it's like to be a real American. We, the people, do not approve of your scorn and contempt for our opinions. We, the people, have spoken out every way we can, often and loudly, and you have brushed us aside. We, the people, will not be silenced.

For years you ignored our phone calls and letters, so we began gathering around the country to express our grievances. Our signs told the story clearly, but you, and your shills in the media, chose not to read them. You laughed at us and dismissed us as "tea baggers." All very amusing. We, the people, are not amused. Had you read the signs and given us five minutes of real consideration, you might have understood and stopped it all then. Instead you slapped us with your rhetoric.

Here is one more chance for you to get the message. This is not about taxes, at least not currently assessed taxes. This is about liberty. This is about your belief that you know better than we how to manage our lives. You do not. This is about a federal government that has spent more than two centuries making laws - layers upon layers upon layers of laws - and almost never repealing any law. This is about a federal government that has vastly overstepped its bounds as explicitly stated in the Constitution of this great nation. This is about the few seeking to control, manage and mandate the many.

We are Americans. Do you remember what that means? Do you even have a clue? Let me explain.

An American is free. Free to pursue his chosen course in life, free to succeed beyond his wildest dreams, and, importantly, free to fail.

An American is strong. Strong enough to work hard for what he wants out of life, and to fight and die, if necessary, to retain that right.

An American is proud. Proud of the accomplishments of his nation through the decades, and the millions of people in other lands who are free because of the efforts of this nation. Proud of our personal productivity and ingenuity, proud of our children and determined to leave them a country that affords them the same chances we ourselves were given.

An American is loyal. There is nothing we will not do for those we count among our own, and nothing we will not do to defend against those who would harm our people or our nation.

An American is self-sufficient. We do not wish to be taken care of by our government - we ask only for government to get out of our way and let us do what comes naturally: produce.

We are the most productive people in history. We have done more to improve the lives of people in every other nation than any people in history. Our innovations, our ingenuity, our generosity to those in need, are all unsurpassed in recorded time. We, the people, are the shining city on a hill. Our spirit is what has made this nation the envy of the world, the destination of the most immigrants, the engine that keeps the global economy humming along. All we ask is that we be allowed to keep some of what we produce. That is our incentive, and that is what you would take from us with your grand schemes of a utopian society where everyone is equal and poverty is no more.

Your intervention has done nothing to better our nation. Your entitlement programs are a curse to their recipients - when a person is handed a means of existence without having to expend any effort, he is stripped of any incentive to better himself. Hunger is a wonderful motivator.

We, the people, know how to live on a budget. Of course we want more than we have - that is the beauty of our system. If we want something badly enough, we will work, save and scrimp to obtain it. We can no longer tolerate your unwillingness to conduct yourselves likewise. You are running up ever larger debts, printing money, borrowing from questionable nations like China, mortgaging our futures and our children's futures for generations to come - all to enact legislation that goes against everything we, the people, stand for and believe in. Just think about that for a minute. Imagine someone telling you that they were taking out a loan in your name, a loan so large that there is no possible way you, personally, will ever be able to repay it, and the obligation will fall to your children when they are grown. You cannot refuse this debt, and you have no say in how the money will be spent. If you refuse to pay, you will go to jail. Is that liberty? Is that justice? Is that, in any way, logical, fair or reasonable? We believe it is not.

We have been in that exact situation since the day we were born. Each and every one of us has inherited debts owed by our ancestors, and those debts continue to grow, never to shrink, no matter how much we are taxed. The programs grow ever more numerous, the handouts ever more generous, the disregard for the impact of all of these programs on the productive ever more blatant. We have had enough.

We want only to live our lives unimpeded. We do not enjoy painting signs and taking time away from our jobs and our families to go to protests. We do not relish the thought of shouting down our elected representatives in government at town hall meetings. We are not right-wing extremists, potential terrorists, thugs or swastika carrying mobs. We are the American people, and we want our country back.

Each time you ignore us, we will have no choice but to escalate our attempts to communicate. The letters and phone calls led to tea parties. The tea parties led to noisy confrontations at town hall meetings. Those confrontations, rather than making you listen, are apparently being met by a mustering of troops to confront us and shout us down, by union thugs and ACORN members being called out to suppress our voices. Their presence is already resulting in minor violence at these formerly peaceful gatherings. What is your goal? Do you seek riots in the streets?

Hear me now: NO MORE!

You and your thugs will never silence the American people. We will continue to speak out, with our voices and our votes, until we purge our government of those who violate our Constitution. We seek only to return our country to its former greatness. We do not wish violence, but, rather than silence us, it will only make us more determined to prevail. You are gravely mistaken if you think that this is manufactured anger, or some kind of passing trend. We are not shills for any political party or special interest - that is your world, not ours. We have watched in silence for far too long as you have perverted everything that is great about this country. We will not be silent again. Hear us now or hear us later - but with each passing day the anger at your audacity grows. With each passing day our numbers grow and our conviction solidifies. Ignore us at your peril.

Sorry to inform you idiots that keep hollering racism. It is not racism at all.
I am sure Obama is a good family man. He is just "not" Presidential Material.
He has chosen all these scum bags from Chicago to be in his cabinet and all these other idiots from environmental groups, Unions, AARP, and it goes on and on and on that he feels he owes a debt of gratitude to for helping to get him elected. That is no way to run a country.
All these groups of people have their own agenda's and it sure as hell aint for the good of the country and the American people that reside in this country.
He has no clue on how to run a country and has turned it all over to all of these fools and the fools in congress and the senate and they have had agendas for years. I mean look at ALL THE PORK they put in the stimulus bill. That was not stimulus. It was all their little pet projects they have wanted for years.
All the pork needs to stop. These people in congress need to run on their own merits of helping all Americans and America as a whole to become a better country...Not promises of what kind of pork projects we as Americans pay for with our tax dollars for things that don't even concern us. We don't live in those communities. If they need things done let them lobby there state congress for these things. If the state congress votes for it let the states sell bonds to pay for it. There is a better way. Our congress is out of control and they do not care what WE THE PEOPLE think of them.
If real Americans with a brain sit around and do nothing about these people running and ruining our country right now then YOU will be the ones to blame when things become so screwed up that everyone will suffer.
Get off your duff and when you have a few send letters to your representatives and senators. Write your local newspapers, do something.
I do not see Mr.Obama being re-elected in 2012. He just does not have what it takes.He is an appeaser and has been form DAY 1 !
People that voted for him did not really realize what he had in mind when he said change.
If it aint broke don't fix it.
Our healthcare system is not in dire straits. It may need a few tweaks here and there and the insurance companies need to be scolded and more fair to who they insure but the whole system does not need an overhaul. They need to scrap the bill and start over.
All this BS about cutting medicare and medicaid is disgusting. You can't hardly find a Dr. now that will take it because of how little they pay the Dr.'s. It will get even worse if it is all turned over to the government.
Do you hate Dr's that went to medical school for years and years just to be a Dr. and all they want to do now is make a living. They spent a lot of money and time going to school to learn and the government treats them like crap.
Drugs companies spends billions on research and development for the drugs you take to help you and you hate drugs companies ?
Everyone takes everything for granted and never even thinks about what it takes to be a DR. or what went into the making of drugs or machinery that do those MRI'S and such.
They never think about how much it cost to run a hospital. LIGHTS GAS, WATER, PHONE, MEALS, INSURANCE ON THE BUILDING, TAXES ON THE BUILDING,PAYMENT ON THE BUILDING, EMERGENCY ROOMS, OPERATINGS ROOMS, NURSES, MAIDS, DRS. It goes on and on.
These people that are complaining about having no health care think it is mandatory that they have health insurance. Get damn job.
There are programs in place for the poor. It is proven that they do not apply for it. Who's fault is that ? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.
Maybe Obama can send his troops out to pick all these folks up and take them to the Dr. every month, week, or whenever and sign them up.
It's like all these crazy folks on Obamas wagon, that want a government run system just want a new mommy and daddy. They are pathetic.
THERE IS A BETTER WAY TO TACKLE THIS. The current one is wrong !!
Some of the crap in that bill is down right evil just like SARAH said.
GOD BLESS AMERICA !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk&feature=player_embedded

SARAH PALIN IS AN AWESOME LADY ! GOD BLESS HER !

2009-08-12T00:05:00.003-04:00

Sarah Palin's Official PAC Dedicated to building America's future, supporting fresh ideas and candidates who share our vision for reform and innovation. SarahPAC believes America's best days are ahead. Our country, founded on conservative principles and the fight for freedom, must confront the challenges of the 21st century with integrity, innovation, and determination.

SarahPAC believes energy independence is a cornerstone of the economic security and progress that every American family wants and deserves.
SarahPAC believes the Republican Party is at the threshold of an historic renaissance that will build a better future for all. Health care, education, and reform of government are among our key goals. Join us today!Please note: There are many websites claiming to support Sarah Palin. SarahPAC.com is the ONLY political action committee authorized by Sarah Palin.
News Update: Palin Announces No Second Term Read More.
Visit The Alaska Fund Trust at http://www.thealaskafundtrust.com/, the official legal defense fund for Governor Sarah Palin and family.
http://www.sarahpac.com/

Are We Paying Tax money to Defame Sarah Palin?

2009-08-11T22:39:00.002-04:00

Check out the post below. Your tax dollars may very well be responsible for the slander of Sarah Palin.

What a damn crooked government we have. I never dreamed they would stoop this low.
GO TO THE LINK BELOW..GOOD READ
Are We Paying to Defame Palin?

Shared via AddThis

The Alinsky Way Vs. the American Way~JUST SAY NO

2009-08-11T22:31:00.002-04:00

Obama from the land of Chicago Mobsters, Crooks and liars just does not get it ! Many that voted for him are all wondering what the hell they did when they voted for him. I don't see him winning in 2012 for a second term. No way. I think people are waking up and coming down off the Kool Aid high they have been on. Go to link and read it. A good read.

The Alinsky Way Vs. the American Way

Shared via AddThis

Saul Alinsky and DNC Corruption
Diane Alden
Jan. 7, 2003

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

Saul Alinsky died in 1972. He was a Marxist grassroots organizer who spent much of his life organizing rent strikes and protesting conditions of the poor in Chicago in the 1930s. However, unlike Christian socialist and activist for the poor Dorothy Day, Alinsky's real claim to fame was as strategist for anti-establishment '60s radicals and revolutionaries.

Indeed, Alinsky wrote the rule book for '60s radicals like Bill and Hillary Clinton, George Miller and Nancy Pelosi. He considered Hillary Rodham to be one of his better students and asked her to join him in his efforts as an organizer of radical leftist causes. But Hillary had other fish to fry on her climb to national prominence.

Alinsky had a true genius for formulating tactical battle plans for the radical left. He wrote two books outlining his organizational principles and strategies: "Reveille for Radicals" (1946) and "Rules for Radicals" (1971).

"Rules for Radicals" begins with an unusual tribute: "From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer."

The devil challenged authority and got his own kingdom, and that goes to the heart of what left is really about. That of course is to get power any way you can, including lying, cheating and stealing. The ultimate rule is that the ends justify the means.

Alinsky asserted that he was more concerned with the acquisition of power than anything else: "My aim here is to suggest how to organize for power: how to get it and how to use it." This is not to be done with assistance to the poor, nor even by organizing the poor to demand assistance: "[E]ven if all the low-income parts of our population were organized ... it would not be powerful enough to get significant, basic, needed changes."

Alinsky advises his followers that the poor have no power and that the real target is the middle class: "Organization for action will now and in the decade ahead center upon America's white middle class. That is where the power is. ... Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the middle class majority."

But that didn't stop Alinsky and his followers from using the middle class for their own purposes. They counted on the guilt and shame of the white middle class to get what they wanted. In order to take over institutions and get power, the middle class had to be convinced that they were somehow lucky winners in "life's lottery."

Alinsky's radicals found a perfect vehicle for their destruction of the American system and more particularly for taking and maintaining power. That instrument was the Democratic Party.

Transition and Transaction

The transition of the old Democratic Party to what exists today should not surprise or confound conservatives. Nor should Alinsky's tactics seem foreign. After all, for nearly 40 years, Republicans and the conservative agenda have been getting hammered by the left through the successful use of Alinsky tactics.

In that cause, radicals and the liberal-left gravitated toward the print and electronic media, toward the university professorate and the law. The left, consciously or unconsciously, adopted Alinsky's rules. The impact changed the nature of the Democratic Party and the direction of the United States. Increasingly, the left is succeeding in changing the nature of the Republican Party as well.

Suffice to say the greatest change has taken place in the relationship between the state and the individual. America is rapidly descending from a representative Constitutional Republic to a collectivist empire controlled by elites of one sort or another.

Alinsky's influence on the modern Democratic Party indicates that the ends do indeed justify the means. As Alinsky states in "Rules for Radicals" it was foolish to believe that means are just as important as the ends. He states that "to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles ... the practical revolutionary will understand ... [that] in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind."

Sadly, not enough Republicans and conservatives learned Alinsky's rules until late in the game. A sign of hope is the fact that the new media, including talk radio and the Internet, are changing all that. One can hope it is not too late.

In any event, Alinsky's rules include:

"Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat."

"Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."

"The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself."

"In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt."

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." (Think Gingrich, Lott and the success of name-calling used by the likes of Bill Clinton, Paul Begala, James Carville, Maxine Waters and others against conservatives and Republicans. Think of how Clinton "enemies" like Paula Jones or Linda Tripp were treated.)

"One of the criteria for picking the target is the target's vulnerability ... the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract." (Trent Lott comes to mind. Meanwhile, a former Klansman by the name of Sen. Robert Byrd got away with saying "nigger" on Fox News at least three times, and he still maintains his Senate seat and power.)

"The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength." For instance, Democrats imply conservatives are racists or that Republicans want to kill senior citizens by limiting the growth of the Medicare system, they imply Republicans want to deny kids lunch money without offering real proof. These red-herring tactics work.
Of course, Republicans reaction to all this is to immediately go on the defensive. Seldom do they unleash their pit bull orators or strategists. Rather than use the immense amount of data available to prove the conservative case, Republicans tug their forelocks, say "yes sir," and hope the accusations and name calling will go away.
Why is it that Republicans consistently fail to point out the monumental failures of the new Democrats? Failures such as the massive disaster that is the "war on poverty." On that topic alone Republicans should be drilling the public in every media venue and at every opportunity. Then and only then should Republicans offer alternatives to the failed policies of the Democratic left.

Republicans should pound relentlessly on the fact that the Democratic Party was hijacked by leftist reactionaries way back in the early '70s. The reactionary left is the obstructionist left. They do nothing but defend and cling to the failures of the past. That fact makes them reactionaries rather than radicals or progressives.

Unfortunately, Republicans still pretend that nothing has changed regarding the basic philosophy of the political parties. They refuse to understand the horrendous notion that Democrats tell us the U.S. Constitution is flexible. That means the rule of law is flexible. If that is the case the law and the Constitution mean nothing. It means that the law and Constitution are twisted by the whims and fancies of the moment.

In fact, in the 2000 election Al Gore maintained the Constitution could and should be manipulated because it was "flexible." Whatever happened to the amendment process?

Bill Clinton used executive orders to circumvent Congress and the Constitution. He used the agencies of the federal government against his enemies. Clinton set an extremely dangerous precedent. Alinsky would have loved it. It is a perfect example of the use of the Rules for Radicals – ends justify the means.

Hillary and Bill Clinton and other powerful former '60s radicals learned from Saul Alinsky. It is about time that a few more Republicans and/or conservatives did as well.

Alinsky in South Dakota

Remember that Alinsky's advice was that the ends justify the means. Think of Florida in 2000 and the manipulation of military ballots. Think of Milwaukee and unattended polling places, which allowed leftist college students to take handfuls of ballots to check off. Think of a million immigrants in the 1996 election granted instant voting rights by the Clinton administration.

More importantly, think of South Dakota in November of 2002, or Nevada in 1998 or 2002.

In a brilliant bit of investigative reporting, National Review's Byron York gave us a grand overview of the corrupt and unpleasant outline of how Alinsky's rules work during election season. Republicans, once again asleep at the switch, live in the land of euphoria. They still believe that their Democratic counterparts are among the angels on God's right.

Considering that Alinsky expresses admiration for Lucifer, they are looking in the wrong place to find many modern Democrats. Republicans still assume that the modern Democratic Party, its media sycophants, its operatives during national or state elections, will play fair. It is hard to say which is worse, Republican naïveté' or Democratic cheating and law breaking.

When Democrats cheat, especially under Bill Clinton's and Terry McAuliffe's watch, they whine when they discover they didn't cheat enough to win. When they are caught in the big lies, they expect Republicans to ignore it and give them a pass. The last election in South Dakota is a case in point.

In the primaries and election of 2002, lawyers from Washington started showing up at polling places in the hinterlands of South Dakota. The Republican leadership and the establishment should have seen it coming but they didn't.

As Byron York relates in "Badlands, Bad Votes": "On Election Day, Noma Sazama knew something unusual was going on the moment she arrived at her polling place, the St. Thomas Parish Hall in Mission, South Dakota. Sazama, a member of the local election board, noticed several strangers in the room – an unusual sight in Mission, population 904, where most people know one another. It turned out the strangers were all lawyers, Democrats who had come to town to serve as poll watchers for the race between incumbent Democratic senator Tim Johnson and Republican John Thune. One was from Washington, D.C., another was from New York City, and a third was from California. 'There were no locals, and I've never seen that happen before,' says Sazama, who has lived in the area for 73 years."

Furthermore, York maintains, "The Democratic team of lawyers confiscated the Parish Hall kitchen only a few feet from the balloting tables."

Witnesses swore in affidavits that party hacks had rented dozens of vans and hired drivers to bring voters to the polls. Lawyers from elsewhere made the Parish Hall their headquarters. Seventy-three-year-old Ms. Sazama stated, "They had the names and time-of-pickup and whether someone voted on them, and from those he would contact the drivers."

Finally she understood that the influx of outside Democrats were going to use the polling place as their headquarters, an action which is against the laws of South Dakota.

The lawyers tied up the phones, which meant that the poll watchers and election officials could not make needed phone calls. York quotes the election supervisor: "They were on the phone using it to call I don't know where, and I needed to call because we had some new districting. They were always talking on it."

When Wanless, the election supervisor, protested, she got a chilly reaction from the out-of-towners. "I felt like they were trying to intimidate me," she recalls.

In fact, all this is against South Dakota law, which states: "No person may, in any polling place or within or on any building in which a polling place is located or within one hundred feet from any entrance leading into a polling place, maintain an office or communications center. ..."

There were no Republican lawyers or authorities around to inform election officials that it was against the law for the Democrats to be running their campaign from a polling place. That was bad enough, but ever since November Republicans have failed dismally to make it a BIG national issue.

There was also complete failure to understand Alinsky's second basic rule: "Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat." The DNC counted on the locals being intimidated by a gang of high-priced lawyers – and of course they were.

Another Alinsky rule used in the November elections in South Dakota: "In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt." In other words, what you do is count on the failure of will by your opponent to call a foul. The opponent usually believes it is easier to do nothing, it is always easier to do nothing, and so Republicans "move on."

That is the kind of apathy Hitler's forces counted on in the Weimar Republic. The end-justifies-the-means cabal figures that even good people find it easier to do nothing.

In South Dakota, lawyers from diverse places were part of a brigade that the DNC uses to "ensure voters' rights are protected." But as York relates, "According to the testimony of dozens of South Dakotans who worked at the polls, the out-of-state attorneys engaged in illegal electioneering, pressured poll workers to accept questionable ballots, and forced polling places in a heavily Democratic area to stay open for an hour past their previously-announced closing time. In addition, the testimony contains evidence of people being allowed to vote with little or no identification, of incorrectly marked ballots being counted as Democratic votes, of absentee ballots being counted without proper signatures, and, most serious of all, of voters who were paid to cast their ballots for Sen. Johnson."

According to some witnesses, Democrats were also running car pools out of polling places on the Indian reservations, where investigators are discovering that the dead Indian vote had a major impact on the slim, last- minute, 524-vote Tim Johnson victory over John Thune.

Affidavits from South Dakotans also indicate that money probably changed hands in crucial areas in the boonies. It was not gas money for van drivers either, but paying per head per vote – shades of Tammany Hall and the elections in Boston wards. Nonetheless, Republicans have decided to "move on."

To get the entire story, including affidavits sworn to by South Dakota residents, read York's November article in National Review Online.

Alinsky Does Nevada

When I worked at Nevada Policy Institute in Nevada several years ago, the Post-election analysis of the 1998 election uncovered the fact that family pets received absentee ballots in crucial districts. Dead people were counted as well.

Democratic Senator Harry Reid's slim, 428-vote win against Republican John Ensign raised eyebrows and the juices of some who understand how the modern DNC and its phalanx of wheelers and dealers, lawyers and opportunists really work.

A part of the tactic includes breaking the law when you can and where you can get away with it. Remember, in the minds of the hijacked Democratic Party the ends do indeed justify the Luciferian means.

In Nevada on Dec. 24, 2002, the FBI seized ballots cast in primary and general elections. Said Daron Borst, FBI special agent in Las Vegas, "There is an ongoing investigation into election fraud, but I can't go into any details due to the nature of the investigation."

Ballots were taken after a complaint was lodged that 85 voters in tiny Eureka county did not live in that county or were long dead. The Eureka County probe marked the second time this year the FBI has become involved in a county election in Nevada.

As in South Dakota, it is much easier to get away with election fraud where people don't know the law or will not enforce the law or they are intimidated by the chutzpah and law breaking of crooks in Armani suits holding credentials from the Democratic National Committee.

Unfortunately, when Republicans don't pay attention to the corruption and allow themselves to get screwed time and again, they are also in league with the devil. By this failure of will, the sins of omission are as evil as sins of commission.

Voting fraud was rampant in 2000 and again in 2002 and it will be more so in 2004. Why aren't Republican lawmakers and the RNC making sure this does not happen again? In 2002, Terry McAuliffe told the world that Democratic lawyers would be out in the states keeping an eye on things. They did more than that and it was against the law.

The failure of Republicans to impose the rule of law on the cheaters, liars and manipulators allows those who use Alinsky's corrupt system to win. That fact tells us that the voting process means as little to our elites as does the Constitution.

Because of that fact, Republicans will lose future elections. More importantly, the people of the United States will lose.

The RNC and the GOP leadership just don't get it. Otherwise they would care enough to do something about it.

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

Diane Alden is a graduate of the University of Minnesota with degrees in political science, economics and history. Dubbed the "prairie pontificator," she also has grad work in international economics and international political movements, plus extensive work in the psychology of behavior in disordered children, women's issues in Third World countries, creative writing, and marketing. With a sideline in American Indian studies and independence and secession movements worldwide, she is also working on upcoming changes in Canadian politics and the flux in the political landscape of North America.
See her full bio

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

TYSK Note: Learn more about the Alinsky Method, the Delphi Technique and "facilitators". If you work for a major corporation or a school district, you are sure to have come face-to-face with this method of group manipulation or, group mind control under the guise of using the "team" approach to problem solving. Click on this link for a short overview article. Once enlightened you are sure to want to know more. Do a Google search on either the Alinsky Method or the Delphi Technique. You will not only learn of its insidiousness, but also see how many groups proudly claim to use these methods to obtain results!
http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/dnc_corruption.htm

Obama's radical mentor Saul Alinksky
OBAMA, RADICAL MENTOR SAUL ALINSKY, AND MARXIST LIBERATION THEOLOGY

There is quite a connection between Obama and the Industrial Areas Foundation, a radical organization located in Chicago (Obama’s turf) and the ideological heir of Saul Alinsky, a notorious revolutionary who dedicated his mail work (Rules for Rebels) to Satan.

Obama’s mentor Saul Alinsky began his book Rules for Radicals:

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

All you need to do is enter in Google first, “Obama”, then “IAF”. Check around and you will be surprised.

The radical Marxist, Saul Alinsky, was the mentor of both, Hillary and Obama and his book, “Rules for Radicals” is the bible for radicals as the “Mein Kampf ‘ was for the Nazis. As a matter of fact, Hillary based her graduation thesis on Alinsky’s works.

Pope Benedict XVI, who as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith , spearheaded the fight of Pope John Paul II against the infiltration of the Church by the Marxists through the so called “Liberation Theology”, writing in “ Truth and Tolerance” of the fall of the Soviet Union stated clearly his stand on the “Liberation Theology”:

“...where the Marxist ideology of liberation had been consistently applied, a total lack of freedom had developed, whose horrors were now laid bare before the eyes of the entire world. Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.”

For Alinsky and his disciples:

“ There are no rules for revolution any more than there are rules for love or rules for happiness, but there are rules for radicals who want to change their world”

“ Whatever Obama’s concrete plans are, they ought to aligned with his political mentor, Saul Alinsky, and his spiritual mentor and liberation theology specialist, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.”

“ All this is in addition to Obama’s long-term membership in an exclusively African-American church, affiliated with the United Church of Christ, founded on the teachings of Black Liberation Theology, a Marxist ideology that incorporates racist concepts.”

“ Based on his record, we could expect most of the following:

-More funding of Planned Parenthood.
-Socialist medicine including abortion, pills for teens, etc., for free!
-More explicit ------------- ed in high school. Eventually in junior high!!
-ACLU-type removal of evidences of America’s Christian heritage.
-Same ------------- marriage. Pressure put on more companies and churches either to stop opposing homosexuality, or to actively support or endorse it.
-Socialist equalizing of people’s incomes—or at least lots of little attempts to move things even more in that direction.
-Screws turned on home schools, Christian schools and private schools in general.
-Jihadists around the world will see his election as a green light to pick up their tempo. (This may be the least likely outcome of any on the list. But still fairly likely.)”
“ If that sounds extreme, consider that not only did Obama and Clinton oppose Alito—pretty much all the Dems did—but he also opposed Roberts and filibustered Alito. So even a mild judicial conservative, which is what Alito and Roberts are, is intolerable to Obama. He only wants judges who will continue the court-led deconstruction of American society!”

There is need for someone with the right skills and time to work on uncovering what is really behind Obama who, for all we know, might become President of the United States. At least our people have the right to know who they are voting for.

Note: Some quotes are from “Obama’s Politics of Collective Redemption”

Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Waxman, ARE UN-AMERICAN NAZIS !

2009-08-11T09:51:00.008-04:00

Hey, Nancy,Steny Hoyer,Henry Waxman,You want Swastika's, I will give you a Swastika. You communist pigs. The only UN-AMERICANS I SEE ARE "YOU" AND ALL YOUR DAMN CRONIES IN CONGRESS.
People will not stop expressing themselves, THIS IS A FREE COUNTRY, AND WE HAVE THE FREEDOM ON SPEECH TO EXPRESS OURSELVES.
You will nto take that away ! Not now, not ever ! You forget who you work for !!! America does not belong to you glorified creeps In Washington DC. American belongs to US...THE PEOPLE !

Nancy, YOU need to resign and take all your croonies with you.
You are slime. You do not care about America or its people. You are a sick indiviual, an old hippie with burned out brain cells from smoking too much pot and taking too many drugs. I bet you are on Prozac now ! WITH ALL THAT BOTOX IN YOUR UGLY FACE THAT WE THE TAXPAYERS HAVE PAID FOR IT'S NOT WONDER YOU NEED PROZAC.

You are obcessed with bringing down AMERICA ! WHY ????
You are 70 years old and it time for you to retire and get out of our lives.
You are the sorriest speaker America has ever had ! Obama is bad enough but YOU Nancy take the cake.
If you think for one minute that WE THE PEOPLE are going to sit back and let 535 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Take over our lives then you have another thought coming women !! Americans are speaking out. And...it sure as hell not in favor of you.

This country is for the people, and by the people, and of the people, not for the congress and by the congress. You only represent us as citizens and if you cannot represent what the people want from their government and only what YOU want.
Get the hell out of government as you do not belong there.
YOU ARE SCUM !!!!

DINGEL'S TOWN HALL MEETING~THUGS THREATENED MANS LIFE !

2009-08-10T20:03:00.005-04:00

SEE VIDEO BELOW. APPALLING. GOD BLESS THIS MAN !
Protester: My family was threatened after I spoke up at Dingell town hall
posted at 5:05 pm on August 10, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook
That’s what you get for being un-American, pal. Someone in the comments to our Headlines item on Pelosi’s and Hoyer’s op-ed this morning suggested it was part of a wink-wink-nudge-nudge scheme by Democrats to legitimize violence against protesters.
I won’t go that far — questioning her opponents’ patriotism is actually par for the course for Madam Speaker — but it truly is amazing to think how many “climate of hate” pieces have been written about the right’s rhetorical excesses vis-a-vis the near total pass the left’s gotten over the past week.
We’ve had congressmen screeching about “political terrorists,” “brown shirts,” and “rabid animals,” Senators denouncing “un-American” activities, the DNC running ads about “angry mobs,” the president himself telling his opponents to shut up and get out of the way, and the Democratic brain trust now setting up a “war room” to respond to health-care “attacks.”
Glenn Beck’s said repeatedly on his show that he supports nonviolent resistance only, but a fat lot of good that’s done him with liberals more interested in the “subtext” of his messaging; pray tell, what “subtext” should we glean from the dehumanizing venom being spit by the Democratic leadership over the past 10 days?
Be happy, I guess, that they’ve finally found a war they can support unequivocally, where for once there’s no need to ponder the “root causes” that alienated the other side.

OBAMA AND DEAD FISH EMANUEL'S BROTHER DR. DEATH HATES OLD PEOPLE

2009-08-10T19:50:00.002-04:00

Emanuel: Believes in withholding care from elderly for greater good.

DEADLY DOCTORS
OBAMA ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE

THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

The bills being rushed through Congress will be paid for largely by a $500 billion-plus cut in Medicare over 10 years. Knowing how unpopular the cuts will be, the president's budget director, Peter Orszag, urged Congress this week to delegate its own authority over Medicare to a new, presidentially-appointed bureaucracy that wouldn't be accountable to the public.

Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors' lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.

Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, agrees. He recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending.

Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're "associated with longer waits" and "reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices" (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it "debatable" whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you'll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)

Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of health-information technology, a job that involves making sure doctors obey electronically deivered guidelines about what care the government deems appropriate and cost effective.

In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted that many doctors would resist "embedded clinical decision support" -- a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.

Americans need to know what the president's health advisers have in mind for them. Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms" (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

No one has leveled with the public about these dangerous views. Nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."

Do we want a "reform" that empowers people like this to decide for us?

Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infec tion Deaths and a former New York lieutenant governor.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm?page=0
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

Dr.Obama's Death panels? What death panels? Oh, those death panels

2009-08-10T02:17:00.002-04:00

Sarah Palin’s warning about the effects of Obamacare on the elderly and infirm have been met with derision and ridicule. William Jacobson has a good round-up.
Meanwhile, the effects of socialized medicine in Britain — engineered by government-run cost-cutting panels on which Obamacare would be modeled — continue to wreak havoc on the elderly and infirm:
*Elderly left at risk by NHS bidding wars to find cheapest care with reverse auctions
*Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections
*Elderly suffer in care shambles
*Twisted priorities that let the elderly suffer
*NHS neglects elderly depression.
*NHS failure on Down’s screening kills healthy babies
*‘I said to the nurse, please feed her:’ Pauline Pringle’s mother went into hospital for a hip operation and came out close to starvation. And as Blake Morrison reports, hers is not an isolated case
Last year, my mother-in-law fell off her Stannah and broke a hip. If that sounds like the cue for a Les Dawson joke (”I was hoping it would be her neck”), it isn’t: I’m fond of my mother-in-law and the result of her little accident, not funny in the least, was that she nearly died. After a belated but successful operation, she developed c diff (clostridium difficile, the nation’s favourite hospital killer bug after MRSA), and three courses of antibiotics failed to clear the infection.
Suddenly a robust, cheerful woman of 79, whose only mobility problem had been climbing stairs, began to talk of never leaving hospital again but of being “laid out on a marble slab” - and when the hospital asked for our permission not to resuscitate her should she lose consciousness, we realised this was no paranoid fantasy.
Thanks to the efforts of her five children, who travelled long distances to see her, brought food, pleaded with staff not to write her off and eventually - because the pleas were falling on deaf ears - moved her to another (I’m afraid, private) hospital, my mother-in-law is still around, less active than she used to be, but alive to see in another new year. She was lucky. We were lucky. But as I’m beginning to discover, many people with elderly relatives are not.
Pauline Pringle wasn’t lucky. Her mother Sarah Ingham died around the same time and in similar circumstances, on January 6 last year: a badly dislocated hip was missed and after the operation that eventually followed, Sarah spent 12 weeks in Tameside hospital, Manchester, failing to shake off a post-operative infection and - denied a proper diet - losing three and a half stone in weight. She was then sent home, where the local GP knew nothing of her discharge and didn’t recognise her as the same woman he’d seen three months earlier. She died within a fortnight. At the inquest the coroner, John Pollard, said that he would be writing to the hospital to demand an explanation for Sarah’s malnourishment: “It is totally unsatisfactory in a major city in a western democracy that families have to bring food into a hospital because their loved ones are not being fed properly by staff.”
…One much quoted figure suggests that up to half a million elderly people in the UK are being abused at any one time. Unlike child abuse, elder abuse is rarely reported beyond local newspapers, and those who inflict it are less likely to be held to account.
When a House of Commons health committee produced its report, Elder Abuse, in 2004, it suggested that “abuse in domiciliary settings is the commonest type”. Overall, though, whereas the old are more likely to be robbed of money or possessions by their nearest and dearest, they’re more likely to starve to death in a hospital or care home. Dr Adrian Treloar, a specialist in geriatric psychiatry, caused a furore in 1999 when he applied the phrase “involuntary euthanasia” to the way in which elderly patients in NHS hospitals were being deprived of food and water and “left at the bottom of the pile”.
*Shame on the doctors prejudiced against Down Syndrome
[D]espite all the progress which children with Down Syndrome are now making in schools and homes up and down the country, the medical profession in general still has a visceral bias in favour of eugenic termination, which its practitioners are often startlingly crude in expressing. This is not based on a realistic and up-to-date assessment of the possibilities open to those with Down Syndrome, still less of the happiness which such people can and do bring to families and even communities as a whole: it is a function of the fact – which is undeniable – that people with Down Syndrome are likely to cost the NHS more in subsequent medical treatment than a child without any disabilities.
Yesterday the BBC News website ran a selection of comments on this issue by members of the public. One in particular, by Heather of Livingston, Scotland, is worth reproducing in full here: “I was told that my daughter had Down’s when I was about 12 weeks pregnant and every doctor, gynaecologist I saw tried to convince me a termination was the best option. I was still offered this at 26 weeks! One reason given to me by a cold-hearted consultant was that ‘these babies put a strain on the NHS’. My daughter was stillborn and when pregnant again, I refused all tests apart from a scan. It’s not society who are looking for the ‘perfect baby’, it’s the medical profession.”
Death panels? What death panels? Oh, yeah, those death panels.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/09/death-panels-what-death-panels-oh-those-death-panels/

Anatomy of Nancy Pelo-cchio’s Astroturf brigade

2009-08-10T02:07:00.001-04:00

Anatomy of Nancy Pelo-cchio’s Astroturf brigade
By Michelle Malkin • August 7, 2009 11:43 PM
Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi (affectionately known as Nancy Pelo-cchio among us “political terrorists” on the Right) snuck into a Denver health care clinic today, where she was greeted by 200 grass-roots protesters against socialized medicine — and a handful of Obama-bots and union members carrying identical HCAN signs.
I already noted this morning how one of the Obamacare activists yanked an anti-Pelosi sign out of a protester’s hands. Brown shirt, anyone?
There’s much more.
Denver photojournalist El Marco was at the event and has an amazing pictorial essay detailing how Pelo-cchio’s Astroturf brigade had to be coached by professional organizers — including several day laborers who didn’t speak English and couldn’t tell what the signs they were holding read. And they accuse Tea Party folks of being puppets?!

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/07/nancy-pelo-cchios-astroturf-brigade/

Cash for Clunkers~We pay you drive~

2009-08-10T01:52:00.005-04:00

Cash For Clunkers Bust

Why do things like this happen? A government plan to take older cars off the road, now thanks to them, Americans shopping for a used car (read NOT the rich) get to pay higher prices for whatever they buy, or buy less car. Who knows, maybe they go without that new used car. Just great. And it happens because a bunch of meddling politicians with a feel good plan have no experience with, or appreciation for how markets work.

You think this is bad? Wait until they finish meddling with GM and the Financial Industry, we'll all be lucky if we aren't broke. This is not new people. It is not a rare event. It happens every time the government takes our money and meddles in the private sector. And that just points to the double nature of this hit, which makes it all the more insulting.

They take our money through taxes, then maybe take a little more so they can buy up old cars, or to service the debt on what they borrowed to buy them in the first place. And what do taxpayers get in return? Higher prices for used cars.

That's called sticking it to you coming and going. Usually people who do that are called crooks, or scam artists and end up in jail. These crooks end up in government cars also paid for by our dime. And when they want to take the family on vacation? They schedule a junket overseas that just happens to hit on the hot spots where the well-heeled like to play. We don't get to go, we just get to pay. And with Obama and the Dems, all we can expect is more, more, more for them, them, them. Isn't it time people stood up together to this craziness and said, hey, what about me for a change? See here for the rest of this miserable tale.

Bleech!!

The much ballyhooed Cash for Clunkers program has had the unintended consequences of driving up the cost of new and used vehicles and used auto parts, according to independent studies of the auto markets. The Cash for Clunkers program demonstrates the danger of government trying to micro-manage supply and demand, and is a warning as to the dangers of Democratic plans for health care restructuring and a cap-and-trade system.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers-bust.html

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c1db69e20120a533cde1970c

OBAMA'S DEATH BILL~JUST SAY NO TO OBAMA AND HIS CRONIES

2009-08-09T11:51:00.003-04:00

This health care bill sux ! It is totally disgusting that people in congress put such shit together like this. Unreal.
Obama and his cronies are heartless scum.
Rationing and more. CALL IT THE DEATH BILL !

READ THE BILL. READ THE BILL. SEE LINK BELOW.

Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!

Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!

Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.

Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.

Page 167: Any individual who doesn’t have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.

• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.

Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?

• Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.

Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.

Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.

Thus far, the proposed legislation makes no mention of "Soylent Green", but congress still has some tinkering to do before the final product is ready

READ THE ENTIRE BILL THUS FAR HERE: Read it ! AND WEEP.
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Democrats US Rep David Scott Forgets Who He Works for and Screams at his Constituents

2009-08-09T02:37:00.002-04:00

"DAVID SCOTT IS A RACIST BIGOT !"
http://scaredmonkeys.com/2009/08/08/whos-hijacking-healthcare-democrats-us-rep-david-scott-forgets-who-he-works-for-and-screams-at-his-constituents/

Who’s Hijacking Healthcare? Democrats US Rep David Scott Forgets Who He Works for and Screams at his Constituents

The question that needs to be answered by Barack Obama and Democrats is … “WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO HIJACK HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA!!!”

The Democratic Congress have truly forgot what Democracy is. They have forgot who they work for and that political dissent is the foundation of Democracy. Obamacare is so unpopular that instead of answering questions from their own constituents, they yell at them, call them plants and accuse them of hijacking political events.

A note to you fools who have been stupidly elected … You represent “We the People” and work for us, not the other way around.

So the Democratic definition of hijacking an even is asking a politician a question? Americans actually taking time out of their busy schedules to attend an event as opposed to staying home and watching reality TV are demonized. So now the “Nazi mob” also includes physicians who are democrat constituents who dare ask a question about Obamacare.

Watch the VIDEO at Hot Air
or here.

Hot Air has the video of the outrageous behavior of Democratic US Representative David Scott from Georgia(GA, D-13th). At no point during the questions by a Georgia physician was he disrespectful; however, the same could not be said for US Rep David Scott.

From 11–Alive, NBC affiliate from Atlanta, GA

“Don’t come and take advantage of what these individuals have done!” Rep. Scott admonished a man in the audience in a loud voice. “You want a meeting with me on healthcare? I’ll give it to you!”

Dr. Brian Hill is the one who asked the question. He says he’s neither a plant nor a Republican.

“I did not go to the meeting to cause any problems,” said Dr. Hill. “I went to the meeting to ask a question that was very, very important for my patients.”

NewsBusters points out the fair and balanced reporting of 11–Alive in actually bothering to interview the GA doctor who was accused of not being a constituent of the 13th district and a plant.

VOTE DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA OUT OF OFFICE SEND HIM PACKING~A PIECE OF TRASH ! SCUM !

2009-08-09T02:31:00.002-04:00

Congressman David Scott of Georgia loses it when one of his constituents asks him a question about ObamaCare. WHAT A PIECE OF CRAP THIS MAN IS. HE CAN SAY BYE BYE TO HIS JOB SOON !!!

Meltdown: Democratic Congressman David Scott of Georgia Goes Berserk at Town Hall~WHAT A SCUMBAG JERK OFF !!!

2009-08-09T02:26:00.004-04:00

Congressman David Scott of Georgia loses it when one of his constituents asks him a question about ObamaCare. WHAT A PIECE OF CRAP THIS MAN IS. HE CAN SAY BYE BYE TO HIS JOB SOON !!!

OBAMA AND The Obsolete Man: Refusing To Let The Soul Of America Die

2009-08-08T18:05:00.001-04:00

No Sheeples Here: The Obsolete Man: Refusing To Let The Soul Of America Die

We are witnessing a transformation—an insidious alteration of the greatest nation on Earth—the United States of America. President Obama and his minions seek to change the political landscape of our beloved country and take our hard-fought freedoms away from us all. I need not enumerate his radical ideas here—you are already familiar with them.

The demagoguery of the left in recent days reminded me of a portentous parable by Rod Sterling called The Obsolete Man.

The story begins:

“You walk into this room at your own risk, because it leads to the future; not a future that will be, but one that might be. This is not a new world: It is simply an extension of what began in the old one. It has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history since the beginning of time. It has refinements, technological advancements, and a more sophisticated approach to the destruction of human freedom. But like every one of the super states that preceded it, it has one iron rule: Logic is an enemy, and truth is a menace.”
America was founded by brave men and women who sought freedom from the oppression of tyranny and were willing to die for that freedom. Their refusal to yield to tyranny launched the American War for Independence in 1775. Thirteen tiny colonies waged war against a mighty enemy and Patrick Henry dared to proclaim:

"They tell us Sir, that we are weak—unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature has placed in our power.”
Thomas Paine sounded the call to arms with, “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”

Elie Wiesel, who survived Auschwitz, Buna, Buchenwald and Gleiwitz and dedicated his life to ensuring that none of us forget what happened to the Jews during Hitler’s reign of terror, gives notice that,

“It may well be that our means are fairly limited and our possibilities restricted when it comes to applying pressure on our government. But is this a reason to do nothing? Despair is not an answer. Neither is resignation. Resignation only leads to indifference, which is not merely a sin but a punishment.”
In town hall meetings all across this great nation, Americans have begun challenging their Senators and Congressmen on ObamaCare. Evocative of history’s failed dictators, the White House, the Democratic Party and their union hoods have locked citizens out of public meetings because logic is an enemy and truth is a menace.

The American citizenry is not stupid. It is not comprised of extremists and it is not Nazi-like. Mock us at your peril.

Looming in the not too distant future are the elections of 2010. The left’s belief that they are “better than us” will come with a heavy price at the ballot box. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of man, that state is obsolete.

The Twilight Zone episode with Burgess Meredith playing a character who defies a totalitarian government.
A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.
Henry David Thoreau
Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.
Henry David Thoreau
As if you could kill time without injuring eternity.
Henry David Thoreau
Be true to your work, your word, and your friend.
Henry David Thoreau
Books are the carriers of civilization. Without books, history is silent, literature dumb, science crippled, thought and speculation at a standstill. I think that there is nothing, not even crime, more opposed to poetry, to philosophy, ay, to life itself than this incessant business.
Henry David Thoreau

OBAMA HAS CALLED ON HIS THUGS TO GO TO TOWNHALL MEETINGS NOW~WHAT A JERKOFF !

2009-08-06T23:20:00.004-04:00

You all need to follow the link to this post. Obama has sent out a email to all his cronny Kool aide drinking followers instructions about going to town hall meetings to defend his HEALTH/DEATH POLICY.
This is unreal what he has had his staff send out to all on his email list. UN BELIEVEABLE !! DAMN...THESE PEOPLE ARE VERY VERY SICK.
TAKE AMERICA BACK FORM THESE THUGS AND MOBSTERS. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY. Be afraid be very afraid.

HCAN Playbook For Thwarting Town Hall Protesters

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/08/hcan-playbook-for-thwarting-town-hall-protesters.php?page=1

THE AARP MEETING IN DALLAS~AARP IS A SCUMBAG ORGANIZATION ! LIARS

2009-08-06T23:09:00.003-04:00

Revolt against AARP in Dallas: “Do you work for us or do we work for you?”

By Michelle Malkin • August 6, 2009 02:21 PM

Watch the senior citizen “hooligans” and “civic vigilantes” in Dallas question a condescending AARP representative about Obamacare. Dues-paying members are speaking up about the organization’s sellout of its members — and the AARP brass is not happy. Yes, the winds of real hope and change are blowing:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/06/revolt-against-aarp-in-dallas-do-you-work-for-us-or-do-we-work-for-you/

RAY LAHOOD IS A LIAR !! ANOTHER OBAMA CROONIE !

2009-08-06T16:57:00.003-04:00

Did Secretary LaHood lie to Congress? (Updated with better audio)
By: David Freddoso
Commentary Staff Writer
08/05/09 8:08 AM EDT

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking member on the Government Oversight Committee, has written White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel requesting information about whether Emanuel coordinated a political multi-agency response to Republican criticisms of the stimulus.

Specifically, the question is whether he put four cabinet secretaries up to writing bullying letters to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, R. The letters asked whether Arizona wanted its stimulus funds cut off, shortly after Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., suggested repealing the stimulus package. In this Politico story by Jonathan Martin, two administration officials have confirmed Emanuel's involvement in demanding that the secretaries write the letters.

[A]fter seeing [Sen. Jon] Kyl [R-Ariz.] and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) again paint the legislation as a failure on Sunday talk shows, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel directed that the letters from the Cabinet secretaries be sent to Brewer, according to two administration officials.

If this is true, then Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood lied to Congress two weeks ago, during testimony before the House Budget Committee. LaHood, who wrote one of the letters to Brewer, had to be asked seven times in a July 24 budget hearing whether anyone in the White House had encouraged him or put him up to writing Brewer.

Unsatisfied with LaHood's evasive and repeated answer that he "needed no encouragement" to write the letter, Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., finally complained to the chairman: "Mr. Chairman, would the witness please answer the question?" (The committee's audio and video are of poor quality, but you can hear the whole exchange between Garrett and LaHood here.

LaHood, a former Republican congressman from Illinois, finally answered "No." But if Martin's reporting is correct, then LaHood was lying.

OBAMA AND HIS TIES WITH AARP..CROOKS AND CROONIES~AARP SUX !

2009-08-06T16:40:00.003-04:00

Mark Tapscott: Tripping up AARP's dance with Pelosi and the Democrats
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
August 6, 2009 Washington Wink-Winks were flying fast Monday when a memo surfaced from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi describing the Democrats' plan to "partner" with AARP, SEIU and others in an August recess PR blitz for Obamacare and against Republicans who oppose it.

Triple Ws are the lame excuses Washington elitists like Pelosi and AARP activists hide behind whenever they are caught red-handed. Then they deny what is obvious to everybody else while winking reassurance to their momentarily puzzled supporters that they don't really mean the denials.

Here's how it came down Monday. Connie Hair of Human Events reported on the Pelosi memo, including this key graph:

"The Leadership is working in close coordination with the White House and outside groups (including but not limited to HCAN, Families USA, AFSCME, SEIU, AARP, etc.) to ensure complementary efforts during August. The President, Secretary Sebelius and other principals in the reform debate will be working throughout the month to hold events, promote the message in the press and move the reform effort forward."

Nothing unusual there. Congressional leaders always launch PR blitzes at opponents during the August recess, right? Working with activist allies is part of the game: They ask the leaders' planted questions at constituent forums and town halls, help generate favorable home-town press from like-minded journalists, and issue "reports" full of glowing praise for favored lawmakers.

But Hair's story caught my eye because it flatly contradicted a Friday declaration in The Washington Examiner by AARP CEO Barry Rand that "AARP has not endorsed any of the bills currently being debated in the Congress."

The WWWs started coming thick and fast as soon as I asked AARP about the Pelosi memo. The 40 million-member group's vice president, Drew Nannis, immediately got on the phone with Pelosi's staff, and within a few minutes came back with the claim that the memo Hair published was just a "draft" composed by an "over-zealous staffer."

Nannis also said AARP would just be "answering our members questions" and - here's the clever clincher - "AARP is participating in AARP's campaign." He even kindly secured a copy of the "final" Pelosi memo, from which the offending paragraph magically disappeared.

It was all I could do not to ROFL at this display by multiple specimens of the rapidly proliferating breed constantly seen and heard going to and fro in the nation's capitol, the Boobus Liberal Extremis Elitum Politico (BLEEP).

Washington BLEEPs come with either brilliant blue or fading red markings, but all of them think gullible tax-paying Joe Six Packs believe them when they toss out lines like the "over-zealous staffer" bit to explain away a memo describing what everybody else in town with a pulse and brain waves already knows.

Of course AARP is helping Democrats confront hordes of outraged constituents. Many of those shouting the loudest are seniors who now see that they've been had by politicians and organizations they once trusted.

Remember, AARP has more than a billion dollars in assets and nearly a billion in annual revenues from membership dues, profits on insurance sales and endorsements, seminars, and other money-making ventures tirelessly aimed at every American age 50 or older. And it spends more lobbying than any other non-corporate Washington special interest.

Most seniors oppose Obamacare, yet the Washington AARP staff is a major employment center for Democratic activists, policy wonks, campaign contributors, and propagandists. The group's lavish Washington headquarters is a BLEEP hot house.

That's why I doubt that anybody reading this column can name one bill in Congress that AARP has supported in the past decade to freeze or cap any federal entitlement. To the contrary, more than 50 pages are needed on its official disclosure report to list all the issues on which AARP lobbies to keep government growing.

The AARP guys weren't the only BLEEPs rolling out the Triple Ws Monday. When I asked Brendan Daly, Pelosi's spokesman, why the "over-zealous staffer" included the graph mentioning AARP in the memo in the first place, his response was: "It shouldn't have been."

Shrewd BLEEPS know some questions from Joe Sixpack are best ignored, no matter how foolish it makes the Washington guy look.

Mark Tapscott is editorial page editor of The Washington Examiner and proprietor of Tapscott's Copy Desk blog on Mark Tapscott is editorial page editor of The Washington Examiner and proprietor of Tapscott's Copy Desk blog on washingtonexaminer.com.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Tripping-up-AARP_s-dance-with-Pelosi-and-the-Democrats-8068565-52520252.html

OBAMA THE LAME DUCK PRESIDENT AFTER ONLY 6 MONTHS IN OFFICE~BOOT HIM OUT NOW, WHY WAIT ?

2009-08-06T16:34:00.004-04:00

Is the American public getting steamrolled by a lame duck president?
By: J.P. Freire
Associate Commentary Editor
08/04/09 12:57 PM EDT
While every president gets a honeymoon in his first hundred days to push legislation he deems important, no one told that to President Obama who's been pushing a wide variety of unpopular measures in the hopes he can get away with it. It seems that every initiative he's taken up has either soured in the public's mind or meets with public indifference. At this rate, Obama may become a lame duck mere months into his presidency.

Here are a few examples:

Just today a new Rasmussen poll finds that 54 percent of Americans oppose giving more money for the "Cash for Clunkers" program, while only 33 percent support it. The additional funding was approved by Congress on Friday.

In June, Gallup found that the majority of Americans did not want to shut down Guantanamo Bay, despite it being one of Obama's main campaign promises.

In mid-July, most Americans felt that cap-and-trade would hurt the economy, contrary to a fierce push by Obama and Democrats in Congress. In fact, Democrats needed to grease the wheel among their own party to get support for the bill. In an all-too-weird coincidence, yes-voters wound up getting a nice bit of campaign cash in the days prior to the vote.

Gallup's Frank Newport writes that Obama's efforts to push a health care fix are met with skepticism by most voters because they don't see it as that great a crisis, though they do recognize that costs are a problem. Part of the problem? The American public is very concerned with fiscal restraint. "The push for healthcare reform is occurring in an environment characterized by high levels of concern about fiscal responsibility, government spending, and the growing federal deficit. Americans are being asked to approve major new healthcare expenditures at a time when they are not yet convinced that the last massive outlay of government money -- the stimulus -- has made an impact."

Another poll shows that 41 percent of Americans expect their taxes to go up under Obama, despite Obama's consistent promises not to hike them. That may be because Obama has already raised taxes -- on cigarettes -- and just this past weekend, both his own Treasury Secretary and economic adviser refused to go on record ruling out a tax hike.

People are so frustrated with bailouts that 46 percent of Americans said they'd be more likely to buy Ford because it didn't get a bailout.

Public support for the stimulus is tepid, given that, according to Rasmussen, 25 percent say it has helped the economy while 31 percent think it has hurt. Gallup finds a similar problem, though it chalks many of these issues up to partisanship: "Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to say the stimulus has made and will make both the economy and their family's financial situation worse, and Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say the opposite. Independents are evenly divided about the economic stimulus' effect on the economy, for better or for worse, to date or in the future. They are slightly more negative than positive about its effect on their own families." So much for the post-partisan presidency.
How is it that every item on the President's agenda has met either strong disapproval or sheer indifference from the American public, when this was the presidency glorified as a realigning moment? Heck, when Obama came into office, CBS/NYTimes ran a poll showing that most Americans were happy to see government grow. Now, even the rabidly Pro-Obama bloggers at FireDogLake are wondering what went wrong:

President Obama is not very new anymore. We have all seen him operate, and he has so far not produced legislation that is “change we can believe in." But, rather, legislation that seems to reinforce the trend away from democracy and towards plutocracy. So, how can folks trust him to deliver this kind of change with health care reform?

Better question: How can folks trust him to deliver any kind of change whatsoever?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Is-the-American-public-getting-steamrolled-by-a-lame-duck-president-52442432.html

OBAMA & HIS SCUMMY CRONKIES ARE SPYING ON US ALL NOW. FISHY ???? OUTRAGEOUS !

2009-08-06T16:15:00.005-04:00

REPORT THIS...FISHY ????!! OBAMA AND HIS CROONIES ARE SPYING ON US ALL NOW THAT DO NOT AGREE WITH HIM ON HIS HEALTHCARE BS.....MAKE MY DAY...REPORT THIS. LOL

Imagine telling an old person that they are not worthy of life and their treatment is too expensive. Go home and take a pain pill. What a frigging idiot jerk off creep.

Obama's dissident database could be secret -- and permanent
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
08/06/09 4:47 AM EDT
The White House request that members of the public report anyone who is spreading "disinformation" about the proposed national health care makeover could lead to a White House database of political opponents that will be both secret and permanent, according to Republican lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee who are examining the plan's possible implementation.

On Monday, White House director of new media Macon Phillips posted a note on the White House web site complaining of "disinformation about health insurance reform." "These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation," Phillips wrote. "Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

In a letter to Obama Tuesday, Republican Sen. John Cornyn wrote that, given Phillips' request, "it is inevitable that the names, email address, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported to the White House." Cornyn warned the president that "these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program."

"I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House," Cornyn continued. "I urge you to cease this program immediately."

Senate Judiciary Committee lawyers studying the proposal say that although there is no absolutely settled law on the matter, the White House plan is likely not covered by the Privacy Act, which prohibits government agencies from keeping any records "describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained." Therefore, it appears the White House can legally keep records of the emails and other communications it receives in response to Phillips' request.

Those lawyers also point out that the White House is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, which means it would not have to release any information on the plan to members of the public who make a request.

In addition, the lawyers say the collected emails likely will be covered by the Presidential Records Act, which requires the White House to preserve and maintain its records for permanent storage in a government database. Phillips' request suggests that whatever information the White House receives on health-care reform "disinformation" will be used to further the goal of passing a national health-care makeover, which is, of course, one of the president's main policy initiatives. Such material, and whatever the White House does with it, would qualify as presidential records. Only after more than a decade would such records be publicly available.

"So the White House, whether by design or accident, has requested information from the public that will become 'records' under the Presidential Records Act, yet would be impermissible for any government to otherwise collect under the Privacy Act," writes one Judiciary Committee source. "Where were the lawyers in all of this? What is their legal basis for authorizing the collection of these records?"

Linda Douglass, head of communications for the White House Office of Health Reform, says the White House is "not compiling lists or sources of information" on opponents of health care reform. But if "fishy" information is indeed collected, as Phillips' request suggested, the laws involved mean that the information obtained by the White House could not only be secret but permanent. A dissident database, in whatever precise form it ultimately takes, could be around for a long time to come.

-Byron York

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamas-dissident-database-could-be-secret----and-permanent-52571822.html

OBAMA HATES OLD PEOPLE~WE WILL ALL BE OLD ONE DAY !

2009-08-06T02:42:00.003-04:00

Obama Says We Shouldn't Treat Old Folks to Save Money And the Media Goes Deaf

I am wondering when the euthanasia folks are going to start touting this one? I mean, it sure seemed to me as if the most caring, most civil, most intelligent president evah just said that healthcare could be cheaper if we don't give old folks and the infirm the full measure of care they now get. It appeared that Obama said we should just let them die or suffer because they aren't worth the effort. Imagine if Bush had said something like this? The left wouldn't have hesitated to call him any manner of names. Oddly, though, the Old Media have not had so much as a raised eyebrow over his statements on Wednesday.

Obama said during the ABC Special on Wednesday night that a way to save healthcare costs is to abandon the sort of care that "evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve" the patient's health. He went on to say that he had personal familiarity with such a situation when his grandmother broke her hip after she was diagnosed with terminal cancer.

Obama offered a question on the efficacy of further care for his grandmother saying, "and the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough they were not sure how long she would last?"

But who is it that will present the "evidence" that will "show" that further care is futile? Are we to believe that Obama expects individual doctors will make that decision in his bold new government controlled healthcare future? If he is trying to make that claim it is a flat out untruth and he knows it.

Does your homebuilder negotiate with your city hall over whether you get a building permit, or does the permit get levied no matter what? Does a cop decide if you really broke the law, or does he simply arrest you and let the courts hash it out? Does your tax preparer negotiate with the IRS or is he supposed to just calculate your tax bill on their terms and have you pay the required amount?

Government does not work by negotiation. Government does not work from the bottom up. It works from the top down. This singular fact means that no doctor will be deciding if you are too old or infirm to get medical care. It will be a medically untrained bureaucrat that sets a national rule that everyone will have to obey. There won't be any room for your grandma to have a different outcome than anyone else's.

So, what will it be then? Who will decide when medical care is just too expensive to bother with? Who will be left to perish because they just aren't worth the lifesaving effort? Well, for sure it won't be any members of Congress or anyone that works for the federal government because they won't be expected to suffer under the nationally socialized plan. It also won't be Obama's buddies in the unions who are about to be similarly exempted from the national plan, at least if Senator Max Baucus has his way.

Ah, but we are told that Obama's ideas on healthcare are "evolving," dontcha know? During the recent campaign for president (that was only 7 months ago, if you'll recall) Obama insisted that he would never tax your healthcare benefits from work. He even ridiculed McCain for proposing such a plan. Lately, however, he's "evolved" toward saying that such a new tax is on the table. What about his stance against fining people and businesses that don't join his UberPlan? He was against that sort of coerciveness before. Now he's "evolved."

Originally, he said it was "healthcare for all," but as of Wednesday night, it seems he's "evolved" to say that only those worth the bother should get healthcare. The rest should be left to died and/or suffer. If he does any more "evolving" we'll all be finding just who is "worth" what as far as he and his Democrats are concerned. Somehow I'd guess that many of you reading this today won't quite be worth as much as certain others!

Let's hope none of us are ever in a position to find out if Obamacare deems our grandmothers worth saving.

And what ever happened to the left's mantra that healthcare is a "right" and that money should never enter into a life or death decision? Now The One is saying it's just too darn expensive to save the old and infirm? Will our friends on the left now disown Obama the "murderer"?

Even worse, why has the media remained mum on the possibility that President Spock, Doctor of life, just said that old folks are too expensive to treat? Hello, CNN, NBC, New York Times... anyone?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/06/26/obama-says-we-shouldnt-treat-old-folks-save-money-media-goes-dea

Health Care ‘Change’ You Shouldn’t Believe In

2009-08-06T00:53:00.000-04:00

Health Care ‘Change’ You Shouldn’t Believe In

While running for President, Barack Obama used the word “change” as his mantra. A lot of people thought he meant that in a good way.

They’re finding out they were wrong.

To put it in Hollywood terms, Obama campaigned like he was the Music Man, and he’s turned out to be Kaiser Soze. Recently, President Obama said one of the ways we (aka: the government) can cut back on health care costs is by denying medical care to old people. If you think that was heartless, check out the thoughts of Obama’s science czar. Apparently he’s for “forced abortions, mass sterilization, and a ‘Planetary Regime’ with the power of life and death over American citizens.”

Sounds like he fits right in.

This administration made a lot of promises it has broken. But it’s determined to force socialized medicine on us through the false promise of a government insurance plan that would effectively kill off all private medical insurance companies, leaving Americans with a single-payer system that will be insanely costly and inefficient. It will also effectively kill off medical innovations in America because there will be no more incentive to develop them.

When the government health care plans we already have are set to run out of money in a few years, there is no reason to assume this one would be any more efficient. Especially considering what a spendthrift Obama has been already.

When the government has people dependent on a medical system it starts to treat them like property and tells them how to live. It also makes decisions on whether they live or die by telling them whether or not they will get an operation.

The change Obama wants for America is fundamentally inhumane and dangerous. Real change begins next November when we clean house and start sending politicians home. Take away those who vote for his bills and he becomes a paper tiger with the words “One-Termer” on his forehead.

OBAMA IS AN ARROGANT JERK OFF ! SAY NO TO HIS HEALTH CARE BS

2009-08-06T00:34:00.003-04:00

IF OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE PLAN IS PASSED WE ARE ALL DOOMED.
He wants to play God now and his cronies in the WHITEHOUSE AND CONGRESS will decide who lives and who dies and who gets care and who does not. SCREW THESE PEOPLE. WHO THE HELL DO THEY THINK THEY ARE ??? THEY CAN ALL GO TO HELL FOR ALL I CARE.

Care Versus Control on Healthcare ~Contact your Representative~say Hell no!

2009-08-06T00:28:00.002-04:00

August 5, 2009 12:00 AM

Care Versus Control
If this new medical scheme is so wonderful, why can’t it stand the light of day?

By Thomas Sowell

As someone who was once rushed to a hospital in the middle of the night, because of taking a medication that millions of people take every day without the slightest problem, I have a special horror of life-and-death medical decisions being made by bureaucrats in Washington about patients they have never laid eyes on.

On another occasion, I was told by a doctor that I would have died if I had not gotten to him in time, after an allergic reaction to eating one of the most healthful foods around. On still another occasion, I was treated with a medication that causes many people big problems and was urged to come back to the hospital immediately if I had a really bad reaction. But I had no reaction at all, went home, felt fine, and slept soundly through the night.

My point is that everybody is different. Millions of children eat peanut-butter sandwiches every day but some children can die from eating peanut butter. Some vaccines and medications that save many lives can also kill some people.

Are decisions made by doctors who have treated the same patient for years to be overruled by bureaucrats sitting in front of computer screens in Washington, following guidelines drawn up with the idea of “bringing down the cost of medical care”?

The idea is even more absurd than the idea that you can add millions of people to a government medical-care plan without increasing the costs. It is also more dangerous.

What is both dangerous and mindless is rushing a massive new medical-care scheme through Congress so fast that lawmakers do not even have time to read it before voting on it. Legislation that is far less sweeping in its effects can get months of hearings before congressional committees, followed by debates in the Senate and the House of Representatives, with all sorts of people voicing their views in the media and in letters to Congress, while ads from people on both sides of the issue appear in newspapers and on television.

If this new medical scheme is so wonderful, why can’t it stand the light of day or a little time to think about it?

The obvious answer is that the administration doesn’t want us to know what it is all about or else we would not go along with it. Far better to say that we can’t wait, that things are just too urgent. This tactic worked with whizzing the “stimulus” package through Congress, even though the stimulus package itself has not worked.

Any serious discussion of government-run medical care would have to look at other countries where there is government-run medical care. As someone who has done some research on this for my book, Applied Economics, I can tell you that the actual consequences of government-controlled medical care are not a pretty picture, however inspiring the rhetoric that accompanies it.

Thirty-thousand Canadians are passing up free medical care at home to go to some other country where they have to pay for it. People don’t do that without a reason.

But Canadians are better off than people in some other countries with government-controlled medical care, because they have the United States right next door, in case their medical problems get too serious to rely on their own system.

But where are Americans to turn if we become like Canada? Where are we to go when we need better medical treatment than Washington bureaucrats will let us have? Mexico? The Caribbean?

Many people do not understand that it is not just a question of whether government bureaucrats will agree to pay for particular medical treatments. The same government-control mindset that decides what should and should not be paid for can also decide that the medical technology or pharmaceutical drugs that they control should not be for sale to those who are willing to pay their own money.

Right now, medications or treatments that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration are medications or treatments that you are not allowed to buy with your own money, no matter how desperate your medical condition, and no matter how many years these medications or treatments may have been used without dire effects in other countries.

The crucial word is not “care” but “control.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDM3YmQ3OTMyZWQyNmMxNTM4Y2I5ZjM3NTMxZTI1YWY=

The Obama Resistance Grows and grows and grows~JUST SAY NO~HELL NO

2009-08-06T00:03:00.003-04:00

The Obama Resistance Grows

Shared via AddThis
The Obama Resistance Grows
By Lee Cary
Spontaneous, uncoordinated, passionate -- citizen resistance to Obama socialism grows by the day.

America is no stranger to resistance. The nation was born from citizen resistance that had mixed support among the colonists. About one in five was loyal to the King. Some of the bitterest fighting in the American Revolution was between Loyalists and Patriots. And all of it was between Americans in the Civil War. We know how to resist.

There was a spontaneous resistance after December 7, 1941. It shook America out of its flirtation with isolationism. In that case, it was largely Republican politicians who were slow to see the danger from international tyrants. Edwin Bodley of East Chicago, Indiana was a junior in engineering at Purdue University when he joined the students who, upon hearing the news of Pearl Harbor, spilled out of their dormitories in a spontaneous demonstration of resistance. The next day Edwin enlisted in the Air Force. After flying 56 missions over the "Hump," he volunteered to go back to the war and rescue downed flyers in the Pacific. Lieutenant Bodley died on August 13, 1945, hours before the war ended, the navigator on the last US crew aircraft lost to hostile action in World War II. The resistance never died in him. His name was Legion for there were many like him in those days.

So we Americans understand resistance. We don't hunger to engage in it. We can be slow to respond to the non-violent circumstances that provoke it. But once it begins, it takes its own course among us. Like water pulled by gravity seeking its own level. It's happening now.

The internet has shortened the gestation period for resistance. Nearly every day a new video surfaces on the web showing an angry crowd of ordinary citizens talking back to their member of Congress, or to some Cabinet person, as the pol morphs from confident and officious to stunned and stupefied. (Obama's czars, on the other hand, like their Russian predecessors, never face public scrutiny. They butterfly float in an ether world of inbreed wonkishness in search of purpose, doing who knows what. Hopefully, little.)

The April 15th Tea Parties, belittled by the legacy media, were collectively the coming-out event of a new American resistance. The cause then was out-of-control government spending. Today, it's shifted to a wider focus on Obama's brand of socialism for America. When the cover of the February 16, 2009 issue of Newsweek proclaimed "We Are All Socialists Now," it was a barely visible comet streaking across a news cycle. Not now. "Like hell we are!" is the rising antiphonal response today as a litany of proposed socialist legislation lines up in Congress.

Barack, Nancy, Harry, Rahm, Barney, Waxman et al have been cattle-driving a legislative cramdown since the TARP bill passed in George W. Bush's final days. They mistook victory against a tepid Republican presidential candidate for a mandate to reconstitute the United States of America. Slow to awaken, her citizens now grow angrier. It's not the loss of land and lives they fear, but of freedoms. Accustomed to trusting any new president, they're quickly losing confidence in this one. Seduced by his artful use of the spoken word, they're growing attuned to the nuances within his words. When he begins a sentence with "Let me be clear about this," our listening becomes acute, for it's not clarity that often follows, but evasiveness through circuitous parsing.

As members of Congress go home for recess it won't be to playground games. Some will hide from their constituents, not wanting to face them. Why bother? They plan to vote as Rahm and their party leaders tell them anyway, for their only ideology is to remain in power. Others will think, "The people have short memories; soon they'll be back watching reruns of Law & Order." They'll underestimate the resistance. Meanwhile, the legacy media will attribute it to right-wingers and belligerent extremists incited by their demonized arch enemies, conservative talk show hosts. They don't get it either.

Others, the bolder pols, will face their constituents and be so foolish as to presume to tell them what they, the voters, should think. Tell them what's good for them, whether they know it or not. This will be a mistake. Unless they represent the uniformly like-minded, these members of Congress will face spirited resistance. More of it than most will have encountered in their political careers. When it comes, their faces will assume fault lines of shock-and-awe in the face of citizen audacity. Some will paper over it with thin smiles and louder talk. That won't work.

Vocal opposition from their constituents differs from what they're accustomed to hearing from colleagues on the floor of the House or Senate. There it's, "I respectfully take exception to the position expressed by the honorable member from the state of bla bla bla." The ruling class speaks the language of the ruling class when citizens might be watching on C-SPAN. But in the public forum, people speak plainly, in a language with which some members of Congress are not used to being addressed. The resistance doesn't speak Beltway.

Regardless of the decibel-level of the opposition to Obamacare and Cap & Tax that Congress hears back home, many will return to their Safe Zone inside the Capital and vote against the wishes of their constituents. They are, after all, wiser and more knowledgeable in these matters than the voters. They may chose not to give us the government we want, but the government they think we should want. And would want, if we knew what was good for us. Such is the timeless arrogance of power.

If that happens, stand-by. For the American resistance will continue to mount, and soon begin to register on the Richter scale.

Illustrations by Big Fur Hat. No actual Obama posters were harmed in the preparation of these graphics.

HEALTHCARE ? Harry and Louise SUX !! WHAT IDIOTS IN THE TANK WITH OBAMA !

2009-08-05T23:49:00.004-04:00

TALK ABOUT BEING IN THE TANK WITH OBAMA....
WHO THE HELL IS WE ?
If you think for one damn minute that people in this country are going to sit back and let the 535 crooks and liars and scumbags decide in thier bills they write who will live and who will die in their healthcare bill they have another thought coming.
We will all be old someday. Is this what you want ?? Take a pain pill you don't need that hip replacement or knee replacement, you are too old. You don't have long left anyway and you are retired and don't pay taxes anymore so you are DENIED !!
SCREW THAT ! SCREW OBAMA AND HIS CRONIES IN THE WHITEHOUSE AND CONGRESS. WHO THE HELL DO THESE SCUM THINK THEY ARE ? "GOD" ?

Citizen Informants wanted by Obama to show and tell~GASP !

2009-08-05T23:09:00.003-04:00

Citizen Informants

Shared via AddThis

TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS....

In 1930's Germany, the new socialist government of Adolf Hitler (NAZI National Socialist Workers' Party) began indoctrinating children in the quasi-military organization, the Hitler Youth, to inform on their parents should they overhear discussions subversive to the policies of the Leader. As the noose was tightened, local community organizers were appointed to watch their neighbors and were told to report subversive comments to the bureaucrats above them. Neighbors informed on neighbors, some for reasons of patriotism or loyalty, some from fear. A modern inquisition ensued; a terror to free thought and expression. Increasingly harsh penalties were meted out to those who dared to dissent.

The socialist governments of the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy, N. Korea, Cuba, Yugoslavia, and the People's Republic of China employed the same citizen informer techniques. Citizens of those societies were reduced to either silence or whispered discussion only among those they trusted the most. Of course none of those things would ever occur here in the land of the free. But wait...

Now on the White House website posted by Macon Phillips comes an eerily similar request for citizens to inform on their neighbors. It states,

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to the end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

Read this again carefully. The government of the United States is openly asking citizens to report rumors, the contents of casual conversation, and the contents of emails. They decry the fact that they are unable to "keep track" of the communication between citizens effectively and are asking for help from informers. Of course forwarded emails would contain the electronic addresses of the sender.

Does this sound like the country you know (knew)? Are these the words of people who think of themselves as public servants, or is this something darker? Does a constitutional government tasked with protecting the rights of its citizens ask them to inform on each other to the White House?

Are we now like one of those totalitarian states? No. But we have become more collectivist. Is the move toward appointing unaccountable Czars with enormous authority, the takeover of multiple industries (corporatism), the restructuring of the economy on a socialist-command model, and the request for citizens to inform on their fellows a step closer to that ugly place? Unquestionably, the answer has to be yes. We must be concerned with the direction in which we are headed as well as the breathtaking speed.

Forty years ago, a philosopher named Leonard Peikoff wrote a book (still in print) called The Ominous Parallels. In it he shows the parallels (then scarcely noticeable) between the rise of Hitler's socialism and the trends in the United States. At the time, the book could have been dismissed as the ranting of an over-zealous, though erudite and articulate, conspiracy nut. In retrospect, Peikoff appears to have been quite prescient. Reading it today, it appears like a roadmap of the last half century and how we got to this point. The implications are clear. If the direction of the nation and the philosophic perspective of the populace isn't brought back to the founding principles, the end point is predetermined. Unfortunately, the premises underlying the agenda are shared by both major parties. The opposition party is neutered in that it has accepted the premises of the socialists, a strategy doomed to failure.

My father and several uncles risked their lives in World War II to bring down the socialist threat of the German and Italian Axis powers. They survived. Many of their buddies were maimed or killed in that struggle. That generation successfully destroyed the military threat, but their efforts were blunted by the persistence of the altruist-collectivist philosophical virus which animated those socialists and which has infected the USA. Aside from the anti-Semitism of that time, both Western Europe and the USA are thoroughly imbued with the language and programs of the National Socialist program including its major platforms of National Health care, National Retirement benefits, National business plans, National agricultural plans, social safety nets, politically correct expression expectations, national ministers or Czars who answer only to the Leader, and the endless "we" talk so characteristic of collectivist societies.

Our forebears sacrificed so much to pass on the blessings of liberty. The least that we can do in the shadow of those heroes is to exercise our right to speak, and to do so out loud, not in whispers fearing that someone will forward our thoughts to the Watchers. These intimidating tactics must end.

Time to Inform on Ourselves That Obama & company sux !

2009-08-05T18:02:00.002-04:00

Time to Inform on Ourselves

Shared via AddThis
August 05, 2009
Time to Inform on Ourselves
Lee Cary

The White House wants us to inform on those who are disseminating (what they consider as) misinformation about Obamacare. Let's accommodate them.

Many of us have, no doubt, spoken with friends and neighbors about it the healthcare bill pending in the House. Invariably, some of those conversations have assumed a negative tone concerning the proposal to nationalize healthcare.

So, in the spirit of civic responsibility and patriotism, let's inform on ourselves. We'll feel better if we do - I know I did.

All one need do is send an email to flag@whitehouse.gov (I don't know what flag that refers to but am pretty sure it's not the Stars & Stripes) and turn oneself in. Confession is good for the soul, it's been said. (Did Obama say that?)

Erin Bonsteel has captured the mood:

OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST AND HATES OLD PEOPLE

2009-08-05T03:28:00.002-04:00

OBAMA AND AARP LIES TO OLD PEOPLE

2009-08-05T03:24:00.001-04:00

Obama says we’re not proposing cuts to Medicareposted at 4:20 pm on July 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

During Monday’s AARP ->(IN THE TANK WITH OBAMA AND LIES AS BAD AS HE DOES) town hall meeting on health care reform, Barack Obama tried to allay the fears of senior citizens by insisting that he would not cut Medicare benefits as part of his reforms. “No one is talking” about cuts to Medicare benefits, Obama insisted:

Well, no one is talking about it … except Barack Obama, apparently. Just a few weeks ago, Obama outlined cuts to Medicare that add up to over $300 billion in reductions. Obama claims that he meant to trim waste, but how exactly did he define waste, anyway?
President Barack Obama Saturday proposed an additional $313 billion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other programs to pay for health care reforms expected to cost about $1 trillion over the next decade. …
About $110 billion of the new cuts would come from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments. That would encourage health care providers to increase productivity, White House budget director Peter Orszag told reporters.
Obama also proposed cutting payments to hospitals to treat uninsured patients by $106 billion on the assumption those ranks would decline as health care reforms phase in.
An additional $75 billion would come from “better pricing of Medicare drugs,” Orszag said, adding the White House was in talks with stakeholders over the best way to do that.
The remaining $22 billion in proposed cuts would come from smaller reforms, such as adjusting payment rates for physician imaging services and cutting waste, fraud and abuse.
I’m not sure which school of economics Orszag and Obama attended, but cutting payments to providers won’t incentivize them to “increase productivity.” It will push them to take fewer Medicare patients. If they don’t get paid enough to provide the services, which is what the AMA has steadfastly argued and why more providers refuse to take Medicare patients, reducing the existing payments means that fewer Medicare patients can access care and will have their choices reduced.
Those who participate in the Medicare Advantage program, and who pay premiums to join, would normally have better options for seeking care, as the public-private partnership works to coordinate benefits and get better and more reliable payments to providers. Unfortunately, the millions of people in MA will also be out of luck. Obama’s message to seniors who use the program to get some rational coverage is this: choose between Medicare and private insurance, but you can’t have both. And good luck in finding an insurer who will replace Medicare for seniors and the disabled, pal!
It’s a shockingly dishonest performance, and a good look into the ObamaCare future for America’s seniors and the middle-aged voters who will join them soon.

OBAMA HATES OLD PEOPLE AND WANTS THEM TO REPORT TO HOSPICE

2009-08-05T03:08:00.001-04:00

In His Own Words: Barack Obama’s Healthcare Lies

Warner Todd Huston Bio
Email Article

By Warner Todd Huston Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The most shocking part of this whole healthcare debate is the lies coming from the left — the leading liar being the president himself — that the “public option” or the government plan isn’t meant to destroy insurance companies and eliminate private heatlhcare plans.

Barack Obama himself has repeatedly said over the years that he wants to see a universal healthcare plan replace all private plans, one administered through government and not employers. Since 2004 Obama has been heard saying that he wants to replace all healthcare with a government run system… until, that is, he became president.

Then, all of a sudden he has eschewed his prior rhetoric claiming that he wants a government run system and decided instead to tell the nation that “nobody is saying” that a government take over of healthcare is the goal with Obamacare.

Of course, he is saying this because he knows that his nefarious, destructive plans will not get past the voters unless he pretends that he doesn’t want to destroy our current healthcare system replaced with a single payer, government only option.

So, he lies.

I wish that there were another way to say this. But this simple fact of the matter is that Barack Obama is a straight up liar about what his plans for healthcare are.

Don’t believe me? Then watch him lie and listen to is own words on the issue…

And now the other part of this situation that simply amazes for its audacity. The Old Media simply refuse to call this liar on his own words. We have video and sound of this president making himself a liar. Were this a Republican president, this tape would be played 24/7 on TV and radio both.

But since it is Barack Obama, The One, their Obamessiah, they refuse to air it. If more Americans saw this man lie in his own words, his healthcare machinations would be easily defeated. But the Old Media want so badly to protect Barack Obama that they are willing to cover up his bald-faced lies.

We are not only witnessing the most socialist president in American history, but we are seeing a supplication by the Old Media establishment that beggers the mind.

AARP IN THE TANK WITH OBAMA~CANCEL YOUR AARP NOW !! JUST SAY NO !

2009-08-05T02:31:00.005-04:00

YOU PEOPLE HAD BETTER WAKE UP AND LOOK AT WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON ALL AROUND YOU....IF YOU DON'T YOU WILL ONLY HAVE YOURSELVES TO BLAME FOR NOT SPEAKING UP. JUST SAY NO TO ALL THIS CRAP. SAY HELL NO!

OBAMA AND AARP HATE OLD PEOPLE. TAKE A PILL AND GO HOME AND BE COMFORTABLE UNTIL YOU DIE. WE WILL SEND HOSPICE TO YOUR HOME TO CHECK ON YOU UNTIL YOU KICK THE BUCKET.
YOU HAVE LIVED YOUR LIFE AND DON'T WORK ANYMORE AND ALL THAT MONEY WE "THE GOVERNMENT" TOOK FROM YOU FOR YEARS THAT YOU PAID INTO SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE EVERY PAYDAY, WELL....YOU ARE NOT WORTHY OF RECEIVING QUALITY HEALTH CARE OR YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY. Hurry up and die, you are a burden to the government !! You don't work anymore now, and you don't pay taxes anymore...so we have no use for you....
THAT MY FRIENDS IS THE OBAMA WAY. You can believe it or not, I do nto care, but if you care about your mother father, or yourself (as you wil be old one day) you will get out and speak upabout this healthcare crap they are trying to shove down our throats.
If you have extra insurance with AARP or the medigap plan with AAPR THEN YOU NEED TO DITCH IT. AARP IS IN THE TANK WITH OBAMA.

You know Everytime he (that one) Obama...opens his mouth another lie comes out. Under his care the seniors will be denied care. In a socialized society the seniors are expendable and the sooner they realize it the better off they will be. AARP is one of the most liberal organizations in the country. All they care about is the almighty dollar.

Is the AARP Lying to us? ~YOU ARE DAMN RIGHT THEY ARE !!!~

After the truth about the elimination of Senior’s healthcare rights in GL (“great leader”) Obama’s and the Democrats’ anti-Stimulus Bill was exposed, the leftist AARP issued a statement saying it really isn’t that bad. For years many of us have attempted to warn the public about Socialist AARP—an organization that once stood for ‘American Association of Retired Persons’.

Now, it stands solely as another money-making arm of the Democrat Party. And with its inaccurate description of the Democrats’ virtual genocide of seniors’ provision of the purposefully wrongly named Stimulus Bill, it has now announced that seniors—who built its organization—are both pesky and irrelevant. As former Democrat Senator Tom Daschle says in his book “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis” seniors “should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age” and just go away to die. That is, all seniors EXCEPT those in the elite class. Daschle is one of these elites.

Writing for Bloomberg.com, in her 9 February article Betsy McCaughey speaks to the healthcare provisions clandestinely shoved into the now over Trillion Dollar Obama bill: “…the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (pps. 442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.” Note: This philosophically genocidal bent now strongly appears to include the AARP.

One thing that has become increasingly clear, of late, is that ALL of the Socialist (AKA Communist) Democrat organizations are now preaching—in unison—from the same tyrannical pulpit. The Socialists/Communists protect their own against the working proletariat. And like lords of old and current secular messiah elites, the proletariat (working class) now produces for this elite class of beings. In other words, we are the serfs to Obama and Company’s King, lords and ladies—or, more appropriately for this current comparison, we are the workers compared to a resuscitated Stalin and his male and female adherents and lackeys. And Obama’s attitude and words include ‘I won and you can’t stop me!’ Tragically, I am now beginning to believe that nothing will stop the USA’s new ruling class—which no longer pays any attention to its one-time constituencies—except another American revolution.

But, the American people seem to be accepting of this new stripping of their liberties and removal of safety provisions from an increasingly hostile government. When the American people finally—if ever—decide to do anything about it, there will most likely be Obama’s domestic military in place. No dissention will be allowed.

As leftist NY Senator Chuck Schumer commented recently ‘the American people don’t really care’. Former Senator and now Duke Schumer actually calls We-the-People the “Chattering Class!” So our rulers who are now engaged in the most severe power grab in the history of the USA can and will do as they please. And the AARP is one of their mouthpieces.

Is the AARP lying to us? After reading the bill’s anti-healthcare inclusions, you make your own decision.

Obama at AARP:
No 'socialized medicine'
USA Today, by David Jackson

Original Article

Posted By:GaGardener, 7/29/2009 12:23:45 PM

President Obama sought to re-assure senior citizens today they won't lose anything under his version of health care reform, and that his plans do not amount to "socialized medicine" or "government-run" health care. (Snip) He told the seniors group that "nobody is talking about cutting Medicare benefits," adding that the White House has received a lot of letters on this topic.

OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI LIES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON HEALTH CARE

2009-07-22T11:51:00.003-04:00

I am sitting here and suddenly on my TV appears a Live shot of the LIAR "Nancy Pelosi on TV talking about the health care reform bill now before congress. Both houses.

Obama will be on TV tonight talking about healthcare.

Neither Obama or our entire congress have no clue about health care.
Obama has no clue what the 535 jerk offs in congress have even put in this bill they are trying shove down our throats. What does the bill have it. Obama has no clue , he has not read it. Who reads any of the bills they sign into law. No one.

They had some women talking about her cervical cancer. She has no clue about what the Nelasta shot was for. SHE LIED...SHE SAID IT WAS FOR Nausea. It is actually to keep your white blood cells from getting to low because chemo does that to your blood and you don't have the ability to fight off infection. It is "not" for Nausea.

She said a Nelasta shot after you have Chemo cost 6,000.00. That is a blantent LIE. The shot cost around 3,000.00. I had the shot. My insurance did not want to pay for it either, and I was going to have to take a different shot everyday for 6 days in a row that was cheaper that required me to have to go to the hospital everyday and get it. When you do chemo you feel weak and terrible and you are nto able to get up everyday and go and get this cheaper series of shots. I call the company that makes the drug. I was approved for the drug and the company sends the Dr. a vile of replacement for their inventory when they give it to you. You only have to have the Neulasta shot on time the day after your chemo.
I know. Been there done that.

http://www.neulasta.com/?wt.srch=1

If the government takes over the healtcare in this country then we will all be screwed.

SPACE SHUTTLE ENDEAVOR LIFTS OFF TODAY JULY 15TH, 009 @6:03PM

2009-07-15T23:14:00.003-04:00

AFTER 5 SCRUBS SINCE JUNE SPACE SHUTTLE ENDEAVOR LIFTS OFF TODAY, 7-15-2009, @6:03 WITHOUT A HITCH. ENJOY THE VIDEO.
GOD SPEED TO OUR ASTRONAUTS.

SO NO TO THE HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL PRESENTED TODAY, OVER 1,000 PAGES

2009-07-14T20:10:00.007-04:00

I am not oppossed to people who are legal residents of the United States that cannot afford Health Care being able to get it someway, but, why should the RICH pay for it and why should the burden be shifted to the states ?
The rest of this countries states will end up like CALIFORNIA. BROKE AND BUSTED.
There is a way that Health Care for the poor that are not on medicare or medicare can be helped to get coverage.

The government needs help all the time sending out things to folks in the mail and a lot of other things. Let these people that need health care stuff envelopes for Uncle Sam. That will help pay for the healthcare.
I am sure that our socialist left congress can come up with a better plan that what they have concocked this time around.

The bill they have on the floor now that is over 1,000 pages long that none of us will probably have the chance to read it? It is all the small things in the bill that people do not read. Those are the items of interest that is always missed.

CALL YOUR HOUSE OF REPRESENTAVE AND TELL THEM NO TO THIS BILL. NO NO NO ! DO YOU REALLY WANT NANCY AND HER GANG TELLING YOU THAT YOUR GRANDMOTHER HAS NTO GOT LONG TO LIVE AND TO JUST LET HER DIE. I DON'T THINK SO. !q!

Health Care Overhaul Threatens States

Even as California struggles with a catastrophic fiscal crisis and other states scramble to avoid the same fate, Democrats in Washington are proposing health care measures that would add hundreds of billions of dollars of spending to state budgets.

Thus far, very little of the debate surrounding the push to overhaul the nation’s health care system has focused on the federalism concerns raised by several provisions within legislation pending in Congress. Taken together, the measures will impose a raft of new financial and regulatory obligations on individual states.

Most directly, Democratic plans to extend health care coverage to all Americans are contingent on a massive expansion of Medicaid. The program, which covers about 40 million people now, would gain 15 million to 20 million new beneficiaries if Democrats get their way.

The Congressional Budget Office pegged the cost of such an expansion at $500 billion over 10 years, but the total cost is likely higher because the estimate only counts the projected burden on the federal government. Under the current arrangement, Washington picks up about 57 percent of the cost of Medicaid and states pay for 43 percent. While the latest draft of the bill by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee has the federal government subsidizing the Medicaid expansion for the first five years, after that, the burden will gradually shift back to the states.

“There’s an air of unreality here,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, a member of the HELP committee. “The language is, ‘we’ll shift it back to the states’ as if the states had the money or a printing press. But this isn’t just a little increase. This is a bankrupting increase for most states.”

Alexander, who had to balance a state budget when he served as governor of Tennessee, quipped, “Any Senator that votes to expand Medicaid the way it is currently being proposed in Democratic bills ought to be sent home to serve as governor for eight years and try to manage the program.”

He said that financing this Medicaid increase would require Tennessee to introduce a new 10 percent state income tax. He also noted that as it is, the economic stimulus package passed in February already expanded Medicaid by $85 billion over two years, imposing costs on the states thereafter.

Ray Scheppach, executive director of the National Governors Association, testified before the committee last month that the state executives were concerned about the proposed expansion.

“Governors oppose changes to the Medicaid program that will result in an unfunded mandate imposed on the states,” Scheppach said. “Any increase in the mandatory minimum eligibility threshold will cost states tens of billions of dollars per year.”

Another problem posed by the Medicaid expansion involves access. If Congress approves lower payments to doctors to cut the cost of the program, it means that more providers will stop accepting Medicaid patients and thus reduce the quality of available care.

Alexander proposed an amendment to the HELP bill (also known as the “Kennedy bill” after the committee’s chairman, Sen. Ted Kennedy) that would have prevented any Medicaid expansion from adding to the financial burden of the states. But Democrats struck it down, leaving the issue to be resolved in the Finance Committee, which oversees the program.

But Medicaid is only one of many areas in which Democrats seek to use the power of the federal government to impose their health care vision on states.

The Kennedy bill would also create health insurance exchanges called “Gateways” in every state, allowing individuals to use government subsidies to purchase a private health care plan or a new government-run plan. While the legislation claims to offer flexibility in how states set up the exchanges, any state that refuses to establish an exchange within four years will have one imposed from Washington.

Among the hundreds of new powers the unelected Secretary of Health and Human Services would be granted by the legislation is the authority to “establish and operate a Gateway” in a state that does not create one on its own. And once this happens, all of the new insurance regulations created by the legislation “shall become effective in such State, notwithstanding any contrary provision of State law.”

Every individual in the state would be required to purchase “qualifying” health insurance and employers would be forced to provide insurance or pay a tax. And once again, the HHS Secretary (currently Kathleen Sebelius) would be tasked with “establish(ing) criteria” to define “qualifying” coverage.

Michael Greve, an American Enterprise Institute scholar who focuses on federalism, said that any state that accepts Medicaid money would have to go along with any conditions the federal government attaches to it. “The central problem is the temptation by the states,” he said.

However, he said that the imposition of health insurance exchanges on the states raises much more complex legal issues involving the hotly contested concept of “conditional preemption,” which is when the federal government tells states to enact a given regulation or else have the federal government do it for them. Greve said his hunch is that the current U.S. Supreme Court would find such a provision unconstitutional.

As legislation moves through Congress, at least one state is trying to protect its citizens against federal overreach. Last month, the Arizona state legislature voted to include a referendum on the 2010 ballot that would amend the state constitution to prevent anybody in the state from being forced to participate in any health care system. Practically speaking, the provision would mean that people and businesses in Arizona would be exempt from insurance coverage mandates.

“This is an effort to create a federalism shield to protect the rights of Arizonans,” said Clint Bolick, a director at the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, who supports the measure.

In 2008, Arizona voters narrowly rejected a similar proposal by less than 9,000 votes out of more than 2.1 million cast after then Gov. Janet Napolitano campaigned vigorously against it. But Bolick said that the 2010 proposition has different language that prevents opponents from arguing that it would affect existing state programs.

The legislation would not seek to address the issue created by the imposition of an insurance exchange on the state, but Bolick said such a provision could be challenged under the “anti-commandeering” principle. This applies when “the federal government enlists the state as if it were an agent of the federal government,” he said. “That raises constitutional alarm bells.”

Christie Herrera of the American Legislative Exchange Council, which boasts 1,800 conservative state legislators as members, said that efforts are already underway in five other states (Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Wyoming) to imitate the Arizona example if it succeeds next year.

Health care has already been the subject of several failed state experiments. In 1994, Tennessee expanded Medicaid coverage, but by 2003 its health care system was deemed “not financially viable” and Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen was forced to rein in the program.

In 2006, then-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney signed health care legislation in which the state government forced individuals to obtain coverage and offered them subsidies to purchase government-designed plans on a government-run exchange. The result has been skyrocketing costs and longer waits in doctors’ offices. A Rasmussen poll taken last month found that just 26 percent of voters in the overwhelmingly liberal state said the effort was a success.

Instead of learning from these failed experiments, Democrats in Washington are planning to use federal power to muscle all states into replicating them.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/14/health-care-overhaul-threatens

OLD FOLKS NEED TO HURRY UP AND DIE, SO OBAMACARE CAN HELP YOUNGER FOLKS, SAYS NEW YORK TIMES

2009-07-14T09:39:00.006-04:00

Is NYT Encouraging Old Folks to Give up and Die to Help Pay for Obamacare?

Hey, grandma, hurry up and die so that Obamacare can pay for healthcare for more worthy, younger folks. That seems to be the message that The New York Times is selling in order to smooth the waters for the nationalized healthcare system that president Obama is trying to peddle to us all.

The Times is running a series titled "Months to Live" in order to help spread the sort of end of life issues that are helpful to Obama's healthcare agenda, one of which seems to be the idea that elderly should forgo any sort of heroic measures to keep them alive so as not to waste those resources that might be able to go to younger, more vital patients.

In a July 8 article reporting on the end of life care afforded Catholic Nuns in Pittsford, New York, the Times hailed the "dignified" way that nuns end life there with particular emphasis on how many of them refuse extraordinary efforts to keep themselves alive. Apparently, the Times thinks we should emulate the nuns and just let ourselves die without trying too hard to keep on living.

But, even in its first few paragraphs the Times displayed several conflicting talking points one being that the nun that serves as the article's initial subject may be uninterested in life saving procedures, but her sister is definitely not of that same opinion. This tends to show that not everyone wants to just wither way and die without fighting to stay alive as the Times seems to be suggesting we should be.

The Times also tries to make a point on how many elderly people "are often overmedicated" and showcases how this nun refused most of the "23 medications not essential for her heart condition," but then adds that these medications were winnowed by a geriatrician. So, was she prescribed these medications or not? It isn't quite clear. This makes a poor case for the claim of overmedication and seems more like an assertion by the writer that is not germane to the case.

The Times goes on to describe how the sisters and several priests along with the church pay for this hospice-like care of those at the end of their lives, the story making it all seem like the perfect system. But one cannot help but realize that we are talking about a system built to serve a small handful of people with the support of the church behind them. How this financial burden can be translated to 300 millions of citizens is never addressed.

Misleadingly, the Times also tries to make it seem as if the church system being described quells any talk of both rationing of care and euthanasia of the elderly.

Laura L. Carstensen, the director of the Center on Longevity at Stanford University, says the convent setting calms the tendency for public policy discussion about end-of-life treatment “to devolve into a debate about euthanasia or rationing health care based on age.”

“Every time I speak to a group about the need to improve the dying process, somebody raises their hand and says, ‘You’re talking about killing old people,’ ” Dr. Carstensen said. “But nobody would accuse Roman Catholic sisters of that. They could be a beacon in talking about this without it turning into that American black-and-white way of thinking: Either we have to throw everything we’ve got at keeping people alive or leave them on the sidewalk to die.”

The problem with this rhetoric is that it denies the simple fact that should these concepts become federalized in a national healthcare system, then the patient's choice in the matter will be summarily dispensed with as rules and regulations prescribing procedures will take over.

In short, the second these ideas become the norm, government MUST by necessity of control begin to determine which citizens are "worth" saving and which aren't worth the efforts and should be denied services. And from there it won't be long before prescriptions of euthanasia for those "not worth" the costs of government largess will become de rigueur everywhere.

So, while the process of dying practiced by these nuns described in the Times might have something going for it, translating it to a nationalized healthcare system is fraught with eugenics styled evils.

But, if it soothes suspicions about Obamacare, why the Times is happy to oblige.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/07/13/nyt-encouraging-old-folks-give-die

HEALTHCARE OBAMA STYLE~OBAMA HATES OLD PEOPLE,LET THEM DIE HE SAYS

2009-07-14T09:07:00.006-04:00

NANCY PELOSI AND HARRY REID NEED TO "GET A ROOM" !

2009-07-12T19:55:00.010-04:00

THESE TWO SCUMBAGS NEED TO GET A ROOM. NANCY AND HARRY SUX !
DID YOU PUT YOUR TOUNGE IN HER EAR ? LMAO. WHY DON'T YOU TWO GET A REAL JOB ! ? QUIT TRYING TO TAKE CONTROL OF ALL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND TELL US WHAT TO EAT, WHAT TO DRINK, WHAT COLOR OUR ROOFS SHOULD BE, WHAT OUR THERMOSTATS SHOULD BE SET AT, WHAT KIND OF CAR WE SHOULD DRIVE AND ON AND ON. WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE ? GET A DAMN LIFE. DEFEAT THESE TWO NEXT TIME THEY COME UP FOR ELECTION. WHAT A BUNCH OF LOW LIFES WE HAVING RUNNING OUR COUNTRY NOW.

YOU ARE DAMNED RIGHT SHE IS LIAR. SHE IS A LOW LIFE SCUMBAG.