Malachi Smith's Library tagged democrats → View Popular

Filter:
All
Annotated

25 Dec 09

Roger’s Rules » The Reid Bill: coercive and unconstitutional

Page 2

Harry-Reid Obamacare Reid-Bill Marxists Obama Democrats corrupt US-Senate US-Govt Americans comments Constitution taxes insurance-companies rationing

December 22nd, 2009
The Reid Bill: coercive and unconstitutional
41 more annotations...
- The boldface is mine. Pour yourself some eggnog, and don’t stint on the brandy. Then look at this:
- Furthermore, on the supply side of the market, all health-insurance companies will find themselves in an impossible dilemma.
- If they decide to offer their health-insurance plans outside the State Exchanges, they will be unable to compete for the subsidized consumers who are only able to spend their tax dollars within the framework of the State Exchanges. Their position will be worse because they shall continue to be subject to all present mandates and regulations that have an impact on their business.
- Insurers outside the Exchanges also face the likely prospect that they will still be further taxed and regulated to help finance the intolerable burdens that arise under the subsidized insurance supplied within the State Exchange system.
- This level of systemic coercion frames the debate about the constitutionality of the Reid Bill.
- Those parties that do not wish to suffer the Bill’s regulations in order to gain access to a subsidized consumer base are not free to compete in an unregulated market. Direct federal and state government regulation remains a fixed feature of their life.
- Government regulators at the state and federal levels have both the power and the motive to hit non-Exchange health insurance issuers with a range of taxes and regulations that could quickly make their economic position intolerable.
- The twin burdens of Professor Epstein’s essay are to show
- 1) the coercive nature of what he calls “the Reid bill” that is on the cusp of being passed by the Senate and
- 2) to show why, as a point of law, several aspects of the bill raise serious questions about its Constitutionality.
- I think Professor Epstein makes a powerful case, though I have my doubts about whether a Constitutional challenge would be successful.
- Still, it is worth understanding the case and it is worth reminding ourselves why the Constitution is important.
- The Constitution was framed in order to enshrine certain rights and to protect people from capricious interference from the state.
- The larger question we face, larger even than the fate of this obscene piece of legislation, is to what extent the state still respects the provisions of the Constitution that its servants have sworn to uphold. Richard Epstein has outlined a devastating case. What happens next?
- 82 Comments
- SoberHorseThief:
  
  Here’s a question: Does Nebraska’s “special arrangement” violate the equal protection clause? Maybe these sorts of cases have already gone to the Supremes — cases wherein for no justifiable reason more dollars or tax exemptions go to one state than another for the same purpose — but I don’t recall having heard of any.
  
  Even if I’m right, that would be a slim reed (har!) to hold on to in hopes of subduing this monstrosity.
  
  Dec 22, 2009 - 11:28 am
- Lee:
  
  Stuff like this always reminds me of Churchill who reminded us that in a democracy, the people get the government they DESERVE.
  
  Dec 22, 2009 - 2:11 pm
- J.J. Sefton:
  
  The sheer magnitude of this nightmare, and the fact that many of its central tenets (as well as the bribes it took to get the cloture votes) can even be considered as unconstitutional are alarming in and of themselves.
  
  Even more disturbing is the fact that the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution has been abrogated by this president and many of our elected representatives. That said, who will come to the defense of the Constitution?
  
  Thats where things can get a bit ugly.
  
  Dec 22, 2009 - 3:52 pm
- MochaLite:
  
  I would hope that governors, senators, and representatives of all the other states (the ones that dont get exemption from this bills mandates) will raise holy heck. I dont appreciate having to pay for Nebraskas medicare/medicaid patients!
  
  Dec 22, 2009 - 4:00 pm
- Jim:
  
  Lee (and Mr. Churchill) are on the money. As long as the voters chooses to pay closer attention to the little girl who was tragically murdered in Florida, the escapades of Tiger Woods and on-air talent shows, instead of the destruction of our country We will continue to get what we deserve. A republic cannot survive a lazy and uneducated electorate. When we lose focus (and we have) Obama happens!
  
  Dec 22, 2009 - 4:07 pm
- baal:
  
  Barry now not only owns the war, he owns the economy, and all outcomes thereof. There will be no more whining that its Bushs fault.
  
  There are no more excuses.
  
  There is no more suspension of disbelief.
  
  Dec 22, 2009 - 4:11 pm
- PM:
  
  I cant wait for November!
  
  Dec 22, 2009 - 4:23 pm
- Hyphenated American:
  
  As Lenin said, The worse the better. The behaviour of the leftists in America will make them unelectable for the next few decades. Their arrogance will be the end of them…
  
  On my blog, I wrote a few article on this very topic…
  
  About Obama jumping from the precipice…
  
  http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/2009/12/he-jumped-he-jumped.html
  
  And what republicans should do…
  
  http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-should-conservative-do-now.html
  
  http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/2009/12/never-let-good-crisis-go-to-waste.html
  
  Dec 22, 2009 - 4:31 pm
- ehunter:
  
  Well one thing positive about Harry Reid…he looks the part.
  
  A mix of gray humorless Soviet bureaucrat, Calvinist deacon, and
  
  small town undertaker.
  
  Dec 22, 2009 - 4:35 pm
- Dave M.:
  
  Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. . . .” One argument (of many) would be that this healthcare abomination does not treat all the states the same (i.e. all the other states get to pay for Nebraska’s Medicaid). Thus, it is not “uniform throughout the United States”.
  
  Dec 22, 2009 - 4:39 pm
- robert hawks:
  
  Direct Constitutional Challenge
  
  Most members of Congress are Attorneys, they are also political hacks, who merely flap their lips. As of this writing Obama HealthCare has not been enacted, nor are all of its provisions known as it has not been even published to read. There are portions that are known.
  
  Obama HealthCare has many issues repugnant to the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution is a “collective” document, meaning it was a grant of limited authority to create a central government for the States and the Citizens therein. There is no authority whatsoever for the Congress to legislate or tax non-uniformly. I realize they do this it all the time. Doing a thing without authority will not stop until someone raises the issue.
  
  There are others far more knowledgeable on the matter than I. The real issue is who will challenge. There are probably far more issues than listed here.
  
  The Congress is very limited as to its authority to even create HealthCare.
  
  Under what Constitutional authority is the HealthCare Bill created?
  
  I can only find 3.
- ARTICLE I, Sect. 8. Clause 1: Congress often claims it can tax for the “general welfare of the United States” but doing so under this mandate it goes on to clearly state, “but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
  
  1. The Congress is going to mandate the States to pay for part of this Obama HealthCare. It makes no difference what they call this funding – it is still a TAX, and a TAX imposed on the States. Not discounting the alleged “welfare” issues, how can this matter (as a TAX) be uniform if the Congress pays for life the tax of one State (Nebraska) and not others.
  
  If all the other States and the Citizens therein must pick up the TAX on Nebraska, how can it be said to be uniform.
  
  ARTICLE I, Sect. 8, Clause 3 [the Commerce Clause]
  
  2. It is said the Congress is mandating all citizens to buy Health Insurance or face fine and or imprisonment. Congress has the authority to “regulate” commerce, it does not have the authority to mandate commerce, the type of commerce much less the authority to compel the buying of anything. Buying mandatory auto insurance to use the roads is a far cry from what they are doing here, and generally done by the States. What we are discussing is Federal Constitutional authority. No Court has ever upheld Congress’s authority in this respect or context.
  
  ARTICLE I, Sect. 8., Clause 18 [necessary and proper]
  
  3. If they lack authority above then there can be nothing [necessary and proper], then again what are the limits to anything [necessary and proper].
  
  Authority:
  
  To the United States Supreme Court;
  
  Article III. Judiciary
  
  Sect. 2. *Jurisdiction*
- [Cl. 1.]; The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States, between a State and citizens of another State, between citizens of different States, between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States, and between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.
  
  [Cl. 2.]; In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
  
  ARTICLE I, Sect. 8. -The Congress shall have power:
  
  [CL. 1. - TAXATION ]; To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
  
  [CL. 3. - COMMERCE ]; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
  
  [CL. 18. - MAKE ALL LAWS ]; To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
  
  ARTICLE I, Sect. 9. – LIMITATION OF POWER
  
  [CL. 4. - DIRECT TAXES ]; No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
- Bill of Rights
  
  9th Amendment
  
  The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
  
  10th Amendment
  
  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States receptively, or to the People.
  
  Dec 22, 2009 - 5:36 pm
- David:
  
  Right now would be a good time to start making copies of any and all reports, statistics, and any other US public health data. There’s going to be a concerted effort in the next few years to convince people that this disaster is an “improvement” when health care in this country deteriorates to the level of the UK and the rest of Europe, or worse. As Orwell said, he who controls the past controls the future.
  
  Dec 22, 2009 - 6:06 pm
- Harry Schell:
  
  Of course this bill is unconstitutional, in fact and in spirit. It will be a matter that will have to go to the courts, however, as a Senate vote does not make something constitutional or not. Given the average intellect and moral framework of senators, I wouldn’t expect them to make an informed, objective decision anyway. Everything is just a race to photo ops or sell/solicit favors, P. J. O’Rourke’s Parliament of Whores at work, with the cleverest and most venal being the “winners”. At the time, I found that appellation amusing. No more.
  
  Each new day brings a new source of disgust to me.
  
  Dec 22, 2009 - 6:20 pm
- Old conservative:
  
  With all due respect to many of you, crosses my mind that a lot of this discussion seems to be taking place in the context that the ‘rules’ remain the same and this is just another conservative low like the 70’s (which I remember well). In my considerably long life, I have never seen anything in the U.S. like what is going on with the Marxists now in power. And, make no mistake, they ARE Marxists, and they will do anything to further their fanatical (religious) vision of a temporal utopia.
- As a formal student of history and traveler in the former USSR and Eastern bloc, who knew and still knows party members there, and who was in my youth a Marxist, I believe that Obama and company are EXACTLY these people. Some of his followers may not completely realize this, but many definitely understand perfectly well. It was my familiarization with the implementation of Marxism ‘on the ground’ that led to a huge shift in my political perspective.
- So, given that, I think that too many people are still talking about this situation without grasping its gravity. And too many conservatives are so comfortable they would not know how to take action that may be required to preserve their liberty, especially if the action threatened their comfort zone. If the situation were reversed, the left would be in the streets… not just a Tea Party here and there, but filling the streets until ’something happened’. I fear we on the right, despite our words, don’t have that committment. These people don’t care what you think.
  
  Until you are willing to stand up, prepared to physically stop them, they will proceed with their agenda without a care for what you think. And at some point you will be unable to break out of the controls that they put on every aspect of your life. We in a death spiral, and most of us don’t even understand what’s happening.
  
  Dec 22, 2009 - 6:22 pm
- artknarf:
  
  Sorry but the bill is constitutional under the commerce clause and the ability to tax and regulate for the general welfare.
  
  Dec 22, 2009 - 7:01 pm
- Palin Was Right. Again. : Redundapundit:
  
  [...] – who wish to give us Death Panels in this mess of a health care “reform” bill that’s unconstitutional. Rationing for all, and end-of-life “consultations” for the elderly. Read [...]
  
  Dec 22, 2009 - 8:07 pm
- ahem:
  
  “I think that too many people are still talking about this situation without grasping its gravity.”
  
  Absolutely. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE. Get that through your skulls. THIS BILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE.
  
  Discussing the fine points of the issue such as its “unconstitutionality”, costs, and features is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic: THE SHIP IS GOING DOWN.
  
  This is a takeover of the government. Repeat: THE MARXISTS ARE TAKING OVER THE GOVERNMENT. WE WILL NEVER BE FREE AGAIN.
  
  The issue is not health care, the issue is preserving the republic and our freedoms. It is the most important issue America has ever faced.
  
  This bill MUST be stopped. Failure is not an option.
- devan:
  
  Just tell me the location of the prison which I am to report as my motto is: if they pass it I will not obey and if they tax it I will not pay. And then there’s that whole “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor” thing.
  
  Dec 22, 2009 - 8:15 pm
- Kersplat:
  
  +1000 Old Conservative; well said. Interestingly, even those on the left don’t seem to understand the strategy of one of their own.
  
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/leadership-obama-style-an_b_398813.html
  
  But it all makes sense if one understands Alinsky, who, unlike many on the left, was a realist as opposed to an idealist. 2010 is going to be interesting.
  
  Dec 22, 2009 - 8:21 pm
- Kate:
  
  From Jack Whyte’s novel, The Eagle.
  
  “A man who cannot laugh at himself can never see the humor in anyone or anything else, and that is a tragic flaw, no matter who it may involve. For in the lack of humor lie all the seeds of evil and destruction. People who see themselves as being worthy of admiration, and who cannot conceive of themselves as ever being a cause for laughter, are far too serious for their own good, and even worse, they generally believe they have a calling to impress the importance of their beliefs on others. God save us all from humorless men, for they are also merciless and implacable.”
  
  Dec 22, 2009 - 8:57 pm
- ManekiNeko:
  
  #17, A tax on doing nothing, i.e., a breathing tax, appears to be a direct tax (a capitation), which must be apportioned. The 16th Amendment exempted the income tax from apportionment (some forms of income tax were consider to be direct), but a tax on doing nothing is hardly an income tax, even if the Internal Revenue Service is drafted to enforce the “mandate.” Other than direct taxes, all other taxes have to be uniform throughout the US.
  
  Mandatory auto insurance is an inapposite example, because states have always had a general police power, whereas the Federal Government does not and never has. Also, notice that even in the case of auto insurance, you have to insure against injury to others, not to yourself, and you don’t have to obtain insurance to do nothing, i.e, to not drive. An analogy to the mandate would be a requirement to have auto insurance to just stay in your home.
  
  Dec 22, 2009 - 9:00 pm

Roger’s Rules » The Reid Bill: coercive and unconstitutional

December 22nd, 2009
The Reid Bill: coercive and unconstitutional
29 more annotations...
- A few years ago, Hilton Kramer and I commissioned a series of essays for The New Criterion on the illiberal underside of liberalism.
- We later published revised versions of the essays under the title The Betrayal of Liberalism: How the Disciples of Freedom and Equality Helped Foster the Illiberal Politics of Coercion and Control.
- I mention this now not only to help readers out with their last-minute Christmas shopping but also to highlight the message of our subtitle: “How the Disciples of Freedom and Equality Helped Foster the Illiberal Politics of Coercion and Control.”
- It is one of the underappreciated ironies of our age, I believe, that many who call themselves “liberals” habitually support policies that are distinctly illiberal — often, indeed, are downright coercive — in their effect.
- It might start with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose deficient sense of the reality of other people could never compete with the satisfaction he took in contemplating his own virtue.
- A proper anatomy of this phenomenon would take a book.
- Of course, the people touting the bill say — perhaps they even believe — that it will be good for Americans and that it will save money.
- And it might end with the revolutionary health care bill now wending its way through the U.S. Congress.
- Critics (of whom I am one) say that it will be a catastrophically expensive suite of legislation that will limit choice, impede medical innovation, and degrade the quality and timely delivery of medical care.
- Like any ambitious piece of legislation, however, the bill to restructure American health care raises issues that go far beyond its primary purpose. The President touched on this obliquely in his “precipice” gaffe: we are, he said, “on the precipice of achievement . . . that will touch the lives of nearly every American.”
- “Precipice,” “threshold,” whatever: he is right, anyway, that if the current bill becomes law it “will touch the lives of nearly every American.”
- Colloquially, first of all, as when we speak of “touching” someone for money. (What easy touches we have all turned out to be!)
- How will it “touch” us? Let me count the ways.
- To appreciate one central way in which the bill will touch our lives, consider “Impermissible Ratemaking in Health-Insurance Reform: Why the Reid Bill is Unconstitutional,” the somber essay the eminent legal scholar Richard Epstein has written.
- But it will touch us in other ways as well.
- (It appears on the web site of PointofLaw.com, but like so much important commentary these days, I came across it here, at Instapundit.)
- If you read nothing else this holiday season, read this. It is not cheering, exactly, but it is, after its fashion, bracing.
- For it not only makes good on its subtitle, explaining “Why the Reid Bill is Unconstitutional,” it also lays bare the coercive heart of the bill.
- Really, the whole essay is worth reading, but here are a couple of snippets to set your heart beating:
- On the one hand, the Reid Bill depends on a combination of huge general tax increases, which is coupled with special levies on industries such as medical-device and pharmaceutical companies.
- These tax revenues are then used to fund subsidies for large segments of the population in order to allow them to purchase qualified health-care plans that are sold through a set of State Exchanges that the Reid Bill creates.
- In order to prevent these subsidies from flowing through to the various health-insurance issuers, the Reid Bill imposes extensive obligations on any health-insurance issuer or health-plan provider that wishes to participate within the system in order to keep them from capturing subsidies meant for others.
- The effect of the subsidies is to increase the level of health care that will be demanded in the United States.
- The effect of the regulations is likely to be to impose huge costs on various health-insurance companies as they struggle to meet the influx of demand when they are at the outer limit of their capacity.
- My view is that it will prove ruinous on all three fronts. The general public tax increases will be so sharp that it is unlikely that they will generate additional revenues.
- There are at this point enormous uncertainties about how this entire scheme will play out.
- The subsidies will be so large that the demand for medical services will be left largely unsatisfied, so two consequences are likely.
- First, an increased queuing for various health care services is to be expected.
- Second, there will be increased pressure to exclude large groups of people from the system, on the lines of Massachusetts’s recent decision to cut from its system 31,000 legal immigrant aliens (who pay taxes but do not vote).

Obamacare sparking 10th Amendment rebellion, action in seven states | Washington Examiner

Obamacare sparking 10th Amendment rebellion, action in seven states
By: Mark Tapscott

Editorial Page Editor

12/22/09 6:01 PM EST
17 more annotations...
- Looks like the steadily growing list of constitutional, ethical and political outrages that constitute the Harry Reid version of Obamacare is sparking a rebellion in the states, as AP reports South Carolina's attorney general plans to investigate the vote-buying that surrounded the proposal in the Senate majority leader's office.
- According to AP, South Carolina's Henry McMaster is being joined by the attorneys general of Michigan and Washington state in a suit to determine the constitutionality of the Obamacare proposal.
- Their initiative was prompted by a request from South Carolina's two senators, Lindsay Graham and Jim DeMint, both Republicans.
- Attorneys-general in at least four other states are also considering joining McMasters, according to AP.
- A move by a group of states to challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare could reinvigorate the efficacy of the 10th Amendment, which reserves to the states or the people all rights not specifically granted to the federal government.
- Graham has been all over cable news today visibly angry about the vote-buying by Reid that secured the votes of Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, as well as possibly other senators as yet unknown.
- DeMint has also been active, especially on the issue of the Reid amendment's provision seeking to bar future congresses from changing even a single word of Section 3403 on the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB).
- The IMAB will become the federal health care ground zero under Obamacare if it becomes law.
- Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has a link to DeMint's floor speech on the issue and additional information, analyses, and links.
- Nelson's deal with Reid has attracted the most attention because it exempts Nebraska from paying its share of Medicaid expenses in perpetuity.
- Medicaid expenditures are among the most expensive federal mandates on state governments, and the Obamacare bill will significantly increase costs for all other states that don't somehow wangle a similar deal.
- It also raises a constitutional issue, which McMasters explained in a statement issued earlier today:
- "The Nelson provision is unusual in that there is not cut off date or phase out. Many provisions in federal law have a sunset date -- say 2, 5, 10, or even 20 years-- but this provision will continue in perpetuity.
- Quite obviously, this issue raises very serious concerns about equity, tax fairness as well as the constitutionality of having federal tax levies and mandates that treat one state differently from all the others.
- "If the Nelson provision is not unprecedented, I feel comfortable in saying it is an exceptionally rare occurrence. States generally are treated in a similar manner. In this case, Nebraska will be treated in a widely divergent manner than any other state.
- "Beginning today, I have instructed my attorneys to begin looking into the constitutionality of this provision and exploring the options that may be available to South Carolina and other states to defend taxpayers should this provision ultimately become law."
- My colleague David Freddoso wonders what might happen if the governors of states bordering Nebraska - Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, Iowa, and Missouri - announce that they are no longer funding their Medicaid programs and encourage those needing Medicaid services to visit the Cornhusker state.

24 Dec 09

YouTube - Ray Stevens - We The People - RayStevens.com

www.youtube.com/watch - Preview

Ray-Stevens video Democrats Americans Patriots satire Health-Care entertainment Congress Death-Panels euthanasia USA voters election-2010

Ray Stevens - We The People - RayStevens.com
2 more annotations...
- raystevensmusic
  
  December 11, 2009
- The latest from Ray Stevens, We the People is spreading like fire! visit RayStevens.com

Cliff Kincaid -- Blame the Bishops

www.newswithviews.com/...cliff377.htm - Preview

Health-Care Democrats Roman-Catholic-Church USA Progressives Catholic-Bishops diversions Amnesty abortion Roman-Church Cardinal-McCarrick Stupak-Amendment

BLAME
THE BISHOPS
By Cliff Kincaid

December 24, 2009

NewsWithViews.com
43 more annotations...
- A lot
  is being said and written about why national health care legislation is
  becoming a reality.
- The simple fact, available for all to see, is that
  the U.S. Catholic Bishops ensured passage of the bill in the House, enabling
  the Senate to move forward with its version.
- Like
  “progressive” strategist Robert B. Creamer, the Bishops believe
  that health care is a right to be guaranteed by government.
- This position
  has driven the debate and has rarely been challenged by Republicans.
- The
  debate over abortion has been mostly a diversion. Perhaps it has been
  planned that way
- As we
  were the first to disclose,
  Creamer, an ex-con and husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, emphasized using
  “the faith community” to mobilize support for universal health
  care by highlighting the morality of providing medical care to people
  in need.
- His book, Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win,
  emphasized that
- “We must create a national consensus that health
  care is a right, not a commodity; and that government must guarantee that
  right.”
- Now
  compare this to what the Bishops have said.
- “Our
  approach to health care is shaped by a simple but fundamental principle:
  ‘Every person has a right to adequate health care,’”
  they
  say.
- They go on, “For three quarters of a century, the Catholic
  bishops of the United States have called for national action to assure
  decent health care for all Americans. We seek to bring a moral perspective
  in an intensely political debate; we offer an ethical framework in an
  arena dominated by powerful economic interests.”
- Reform,
  the Bishops said, would “require concerted action by federal and
  other levels of government and by the diverse providers and consumers
  of health care. We believe government, an instrument of our common purpose
  called to pursue the common good, has an essential role to play in assuring
  that the rights of all people to adequate health care are respected.”
- Also
  this: “For three quarters of a century, the Catholic bishops of
  the United States have called for national action to assure decent health
  care for all Americans.”
- The
  only real chance of defeating the health care legislation came when the
  bill was lacking a majority of votes for passage in the House. That’s
  when the first deal was made.
- This was the deal that made all other deals
  possible. Acting at the behest of Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick
  and the Catholic Bishops, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to a vote
  on the pro-life amendment introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak. It passed and
  then the bill itself was approved.
- But
  why did Republicans vote for the Stupak amendment if they opposed the
  basic premise of the bill?
- House Republican Leader Rep. John Boehner got
  his marching orders as well.
- He
  was told by Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference
  of Catholic Bishops, that the Republicans shouldn’t scuttle the
  Stupak amendment.
- The
  Senate then proceeded to pass its own version of the legislation, without
  the Stupak language. Predictably, Stupak is complaining about that.
- But
  he–and the Democrats and Republicans who voted for his amendment–only
  have themselves to blame.
- At least five lobbyists for the Bishops worked
  with Pelosi and Stupak on the deal that is now also predictably falling
  apart.
- Clearly, the pro-life deal was a ploy designed to keep the legislation
  alive.
- It has
  become apparent to some observers that the Bishops want the legislation
  to pass, with or without abortion language, because of its perceived impact
  on 600 Catholic hospitals.
- As they say in their own document, “Catholic
  dioceses, parishes, schools, agencies, and hospitals are major purchasers
  of insurance and health care. The rapidly escalating costs of coverage
  are impacting almost every diocese, agency, parish, and school.”
- In other
  words, the Bishops see national health care legislation as a way to reduce
  their own costs.
- In addition, by expanding federally-subsidized health
  care to as many as 30 million people, many of whom might normally depend
  on Catholic hospitals for inexpensive or free care, the Catholic Bishops
  could save even more money.
- Andrew
  P. Napolitano, the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel, has
  written a very revealing article about what has been missing in the debate
  over health care.
- He
  writes, “In the continually harsh public discourse over the
  President’s proposals for federally-managed healthcare, the Big
  Government progressives in both the Democratic and the Republican parties
  have been trying to trick us.
- These folks, who really want the government
  to care for us from cradle to grave, have been promoting the idea that
  health care is a right. In promoting that false premise, they have succeeded
  in moving the debate from WHETHER the feds should micro-manage health
  care to HOW the feds should micro-manage health care. This is a false
  premise, and we should reject it. Health care is not a right; it is a
  good, like food, like shelter, and like clothing.”
- Rights
  come from God, not government, Napolitano points out.
- It would
  have been nice if it had been pointed out on Fox News and elsewhere that
  the Catholic Bishops who claim to be offering a “moral perspective”
  on this controversy have bought into the false premise.
- But they didn’t
  believe it to be false, and that is the critical point.
- In short,
  the Catholic Bishops have merged as a major “progressive”
  force in the United States, determined to saddle the country with a socialized
  medicine scheme.
  - SEE: Duduman's site "Hand of Help Ministires" for the role of the Roman Catholic Church in America's and Christians' futures - on 2009-12-24
  Add Sticky Note
- The disagreements over abortion among the “Big
  Government progressives” should not distract our attention from
  this basic fact. The Bishops also favor “climate change” legislation
  and amnesty for illegal aliens.
- In addition
  to the lobbyists who were working on Capitol Hill, the bishops have a
  staff of 350 in Washington, D.C. and operate on a budget that was estimated
  back in 2002 at $131 million a year.
- By contrast, the George Soros-funded
  Center for American Progress operates on about $48 million a year.
- Ironically,
  we have also discovered that Soros, an atheist, is putting big
  money into various Catholic organizations, such as Catholics in Alliance
  for the Common Good.
- Not surprisingly, it is backing the health care legislation.
- “Sadly,
  the bishops have misunderstood the entire process, and now we will all
  pay,” one conservative Catholic blogger points
  out.
- “They thought they could influence our lawmakers to provide
  us a ‘clean’ government takeover of the nation’s health
  care system, ‘clean’ in the sense they hoped this ‘reform’
  would include strong conscience protections while defunding abortion,
  without objecting to the basic premise of unprecedented government growth.”
- It is
  interesting and newsworthy that, as the nation prepares to celebrate Christmas,
  we are witnesses to the passage of legislation promoted in part by elements
  of the “faith community” who have put most of their faith
  in the federal government and its mammon.
- ©
  2009 Cliff Kincaid - All Rights Reserved
- Cliff Kincaid,
  a veteran journalist and media critic, Cliff concentrated in journalism
  and communications at the University of Toledo, where he graduated with
  a Bachelor of Arts degree.
  
  Cliff has written or co-authored
  nine books on media and cultural affairs and foreign policy issues. One
  of Cliff's books, "Global
  Bondage: The UN Plan to Rule the World" is still awailable.
  
  Cliff has appeared on Hannity &
  Colmes, The O’Reilly Factor, Crossfire and has been published in the Washington
  Post, Washington Times, Chronicles, Human Events and Insight.
  
  Web Site: www.AIM.org
  
  E-Mail: cliff.kincaid@aim.org

Senate changes 'rules' to protect 'death panels'

www.wnd.com/index.php - Preview

Demoncrats Democrats DeMint Healrh-Care-bill US-Senate Chicago-Mafia subversives crooks death-panels eugenicists health-care US-Govt procedure

Senate changes 'rules' to protect 'death panels'
Fine print would require 67 votes to consider amendments
25 more annotations...
- Posted: December 22, 2009
  10:41 pm Eastern
  
  By Bob Unruh
  
  
  
  
  © 2009 WorldNetDaily
- Majority Democrats in the U.S. Senate pushing for President Obama's vision of a government takeover of health care have inserted in the fine print of the 2,000-plus page legislation a provision that it would take a supermajority of 67 votes in the Senate for future legislative bodies to even consider amendments to its provisions for "death panels."
- The revelation comes from the RedState.com blog, which analyzed the provisions and cited a challenge to the plan from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.
- After being told by Democrats that the provision changing a standing Senate rule didn't actually change the rule but was just a change in the procedure of the rule, DeMint was frustrated:
- DeMint: "And so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it's a procedure change?"
  
  Presiding officer: "That is correct."
  
  DeMint: "Then I guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can redefine them."
- RedState's blogger wrote, "If ever the people of the United States rise up and fight over passage of Obamacare, Harry Reid must be remembered as the man who sacrificed the dignity of his office for a few pieces of silver. The rules of fair play that have kept the basic integrity of the Republic alive have died."
- Specifically, the provision in the legislation forbids considering amendments or changes to the regulations that would be imposed on Americans by the bill's Medical Advisory Boards, panels set up to make decisions about provisions for medical care.
- Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin at one point famously called them "death panels" because among the decisions they could make would be to withhold life-saving treatments from patients.
- The provision comes in Section 3403 of Reid's "manager's amendment" to the health care takeover plan that is facing yet another vote in the Senate this week.
- The bill that would mandate abortion funding nationwide.
- The bill states, "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
- That subsection addresses rules and regulations that doctors would be ordered to follow by the "Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels," RedState reported.
- The section also orders, "Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (a) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3)."
- "In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule," RedState's analysis by Erick Erickson said.
- DeMint jumped into action, questioning whether the current vote should require a two-thirds supermajority because it changes rules.
  
  "I know that there have been amendments to bills that we required two-thirds because they include rule changes," he said.
  
  Democrats, however, said the rule change wasn't really a "rule change."
- DeMint argued his point.
  "As the chair has confirmed, rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. Let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of the Senate… Clearly a rule change.
- "This is not legislation. It's not law. This is a rule change. It's a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. I'm not even sure that it's constitutional," he continued.
- According to the transcript, the "rule change," however, was determined by majority Democrats to be a "procedural" change instead.
- "We have included rules changes in this legislation yet we're ignoring a rule that requires a two-thirds cloture vote to pass it. I believe that it's unconstitutional. It subverts the princples that … we've operated under and it's very obvious to everyone that it does change a rule," DeMint continued.
- "It's clear that our rules mean nothing if we can redefine the words that we use in them."
- On the blog's forum, one participant said, "Power may shift back to the right in 2010 and 2012. But Fedzilla and its appetite for power grows none-the-less. It is not by accident."
- Added another, "Aren't they saying that the words mean whatever they say they mean?"
- One even asked for an exemption to the "no profanity" rule on the blog.
- "We're being steamrolled by this Congress. The worst part about this story is that the average voter will pay no attention to any story about Senate rules and procedures and the media won't cover it because, well, they're the media."
- DeMint, in an earlier commentary, raised even more fundamental questions about the health care socialization plans.
  
  "There's not a word in the Constitution about the government deciding what medical tests private health insurers should pay for. Nothing about the government deciding how much executives on Wall Street should earn, or what kind of light bulbs and cars we should buy. … There's nothing about these or many other things in the Constitution because they have nothing to do with the proper role of a federal government in a free society," he said.

20 Dec 09

China warns Obama deficit spending must stop

www.wnd.com/index.php - Preview

China Obama US-Govt Beijing bankrolling-deficit trade Zhu-Min Democrats Congress Health-Care deficit-spending USA warning The-Anointed-One dollar Peoples-Bank Washington-DC

China warns Obama deficit spending must stop
Beijing reluctant to keep bankrolling president's belt-buster budget
18 more annotations...
- Posted: December 19, 2009
  11:30 pm Eastern
  
  By Jerome R. Corsi
  
  
  
  
  © 2009 WorldNetDaily
- One day after the Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao snubbed President Obama at the United Nation's Copenhagen Climate Summit, the Chinese warned the United States that China's ability to continue buying U.S. Treasury debt was limited.
- Zhu Min, the deputy governor of the People's Republic of China, told the Shanghai Daily that it is getting harder for the People's Bank of China to buy U.S. Treasuries because the shrinking U.S. current account is reducing the supplies overseas.
- This was dire news for the Obama administration that in 2010 and for the foreseeable future will be dependent on China to buy U.S. Treasury debt in order to fund the trillion-dollar federal budget deficits projected over the next decade.
- The Shanghai Daily reported that Zhu told an academic audience that it was inevitable the value of the dollar would fall in value given the increasing reliance of the Obama administration on issuing U.S. Treasury debt to finance deficit spending.
- "The United States cannot force foreign governments to increase their holdings of Treasuries," Zhu said. "Double the holdings? It is definitely impossible."
- Zhu's warning was clear.
  
  "The world does not have so much money to buy more U.S. Treasuries," he said.
- China's warnings portend that the Obama administration's determination to expand the U.S. social welfare state will necessarily meet a limit when foreign nations lack the U.S. dollar foreign exchange reserves needed to purchase increasing amounts of U.S. Treasury debt.
- Zhu's comments were a warning to the Obama administration that China does not approve of the large and continuing deficits the U.S. is projecting into the future.
- The current account is a measure of a country's current surplus or deficit in international trade, plus international borrowing and lending, plus transfer payments such as foreign aid.
- The largest component in a nation's current account is typically the balance of trade account.
- Specifically Zhu Min was referencing the diminishing magnitude of the continuing U.S. balance of trade with China brought on by reduced demand for consumer goods in the United States.
- According to the U.S. Census Bureau, foreign trade division, the U.S. balance of trade with China for the last decade is as follows:
- By comparison, in 1990, the U.S. negative balance of trade with China was only $10,431,000; in 1985, the U.S. negative balance of trade with China was only $6,000,000.
- This year may end up being the first year in over a decade where the U.S. negative balance of trade with China has been smaller than the negative balance of trade in the previous year.
- Thus, while China's foreign exchange reserves have gained dramatically over time, reaching a current level of $2.3 trillion at the end of September – the largest amount of foreign exchange reserves any nation has ever accumulated in the history of international trade – the rate at which China is accumulating foreign exchange reserves has slowed,
- reflecting a reduction in the United States' purchasing of goods from China during the current global economic downturn.
- According to the U.S. Treasury, China is the largest holder of U.S. Treasury debt, amounting to $798.9 billion in October 2009, with Japan second on the list at $746.5 billion.

13 Dec 09

C.J. Graham -- Macroeconomic Equalibria, Globalist Agenda, and You

www.newswithviews.com/...cj120.htm - Preview

CJ-Graham America Globalists US-Govt Socialists Democrats RHINOs 2010-election NWO USA American-Patriots

It is the epitome of the
globalists’ socialist agenda in its world view and lack of American
focused ideology.
The
Inter American Democratic charter
98 more annotations...
- (Excerpts)
  
  Article
  12
- [Poverty,
  illiteracy, and low levels of human development are factors that adversely
  affect the consolidation of democracy.
- The OAS member
  states are committed to adopting and implementing all those actions
  required to generate productive employment, reduce poverty, and eradicate
  extreme poverty, taking into account the different economic realities
  and conditions of the countries of the Hemisphere.
- This shared commitment
  regarding the problems associated with development and poverty also
  underscores the importance of maintaining macroeconomic
  equilibria and the obligation to strengthen social cohesion
  and democracy.]
- The
  following excerpt was written to explain the profound signing of the
  Inter American Democratic Charter.
- In reading the excerpts below, one
  begins to understand the why the globalist mindset works in direct contradiction
  to the ideas of our founding fathers and our beloved Constitution.
- The
  Magna Carta of the Americas
- Written
  by John W. Graham
  
  (Excerpts)
- [John
  W. Graham is the Chair of FOCAL’s Board of Directors. He was the
  first head of the Unit for Promotion of Democracy in the Organization
  of American States (OAS) and in that capacity led a number of OAS election
  observer missions in Latin America, participated in OAS mediation in
  Guatemala and was the principal international mediator in the Dominican
  Republic post-election crisis of 1994…]
- INTRODUCTION
- [The
  terrorist catastrophes in New York and Washington swept away media comment
  on other global events taking place on September 11, 2001.
- Virtually
  obscured was the historic agreement reached that day in Lima by the
  foreign ministers of the Organization of American States (OAS) on the
  Inter-American Democratic Charter.
- The OAS foreign ministers met scarcely an hour after the terrorist attacks.
- As they gathered in Lima the previous evening, there was apprehension
  that one or more of them might introduce wording that would blunt some
  of the Charter’s teeth.
- By the time the meeting was underway,
  it was clear that then terrorist attacks had removed that concern.
- Instead of departing immediately for the airport, Secretary of State
  Colin Powell delayed his return flight to Washington for several hours
  in the hope that he could leave with a strong and unanimously approved
  Charter
- While
  giant TV screens outside the hotel replayed the tumbling towers, the
  Charter was adopted by acclamation and Powell left for the airport.
- He had rightly judged the impact that his decision to remain even briefly
  at the meeting would have on the other foreign ministers.
- On the first day of the terrorist crisis, Powell had given priority
  to multilateralism. ]
- Our
  nation was under attack and Secretary Powell’s priority was multilateralism.
- What John Graham wrote with apparent admiration, I read with utter dismay.
- It has been difficult, these past months, to watch the continued destruction
  of our treasured nation at the hands of scoundrels,
- but beautiful to
  watch American citizens begin the process of restoring our Republic,
  bravely speaking out and assembling peacefully, to voice their legitimate
  concerns.
- I
  watched the inspired gatherings of energized, determined, patriotic
  Americans defending our nation, our constitution and our tradition.
- coming to understand they must be the patriots of
  today and ensure a new destiny for a nation under socialist siege.
- The
  behavior of some elected ‘representatives’ has been truly
  disgraceful.
- The rising sleaze in Washington DC continued to ooze into
  the heartland with vile contempt for anything Americana.
- Elitists
  made no pretense of their distaste for the peasant class.
- Senate Majority
  leader Harry Reid, at the opening ceremony of the Capitol Visitor Center,
  which Americans taxpayers funded, remarked shamelessly, that you can
  “smell
  the tourists coming into the Capitol.”
- That’s how they
  see the American people, as interlopers to their rightful throne.
- Nancy
  Pelosi called decent Americans Astro-turf
  and worked to invalidate their sincere efforts,
- She labeled Americans
  who are righteously indignant as if they
  are dangerous, this rhetoric from a woman who praised supporters
  of illegal immigration as patriotic.
- Jimmy
  Carter broad brushed the anti socialist movement as racist and his
  race baiting was validated but refined by our first black president,
  Bill
  ‘the cigar’ Clinton.
- A Non-descript ‘so called’
  actress
  called tea party participants racist redneck tea baggers (a sexual slur-recognized
  and practiced, I am sure, by many Hollywood, leftwing, American-hating
  Elite).
- I was shocked at the level of incompetence, lack of integrity,
  or any attempt at moral fair play displayed by our pathetic excuse for
  a media.
- They followed the lead of their DC masters and painted town hall participants
  as angry mobs.
- Such
  a lack of basic understanding of the American public betrays their globalist
  identity, their lack of respect for our Republic and our democratic
  process.
- How upside down things have become when those who would destroy
  are portrayed as enlightened, while those who protect and defend become
  ridiculed as extremists.
- Globalists,
  shocked by the outpouring of patriotism they thought long extinguished,
  dropped any pretense of civility and unleashed reprehensible rhetoric.
- Race baiting, class warfare, religious ridicule, media manipulation
  and pretended indifference from leadership unleashed on the public,
  proved ineffective.
- Americans, aware they were in a
  fight for the very soul of America, have stood in unity undaunted.
- All
  races, political leanings, religious and non religious, all manner of
  financial means smelled a giant rat and began the process of true democracy
  in a Representative Republic.
- Globalists
  underestimate the American spirit.
- We will sacrifice much but will
  not allow the theft of our liberty; we will not stand silently while
  the future of our nation is left in tatters for future generations.
- When this occurs it has been corrected. That correction is happening
  again now.
- To
  the globalist, American quality of life and success is an embarrassment
  which must be corrected.
- Our wealth, that which has not already been
  drained away, enables many of our citizens to live above the poverty
  level while most of the rest of our hemisphere falls far short.
- Simply
  put, it is not possible to bring the rest of the world, including third
  world economies, up to our standard of living, thus we must lower the
  standards of the United States to be more equal to the rest of the world
  to compete in the global economy.
- To
  do this, the global elite must turn us from productive independent people
  into a serving class of dependents reliant on social programs and government
  charity, taxpayer funded of course.
- Such
  drastic change is brought by flooding our nation with under-educated
  illegal aliens without means to support or defend themselves.
- Corporations
  seeking cheap labor take jobs from Americans and hire cheaper and more
  compliant slaves.
- Identity theft is a non issue for our leadership.
- Illegal aliens and a new welfare class of Americans use and abuse social
  services causing shortages in low income housing.
- Lack of funding for
  hospitals, forced to care for the uninsured, have closed all over the
  country leaving Americans at risk.
- Greedy
  banks and greedy politicians betrayed the American spirit by allowing
  undocumented, underemployed home buyers to get in over their heads causing
  a flood of foreclosures by people and causing a domino effect.
- When
  the bubble collapsed millions lost their homes and investments.
- They
  were rewarded with bailouts.
- Overburdened shelters became filled with
  homeless and desperate people and food banks, already hurting from low
  donation levels, have lines around the block and are in dire straits.
- Without
  an ability to manufacture, to produce food, to trade with fair agreements,
  and to control our border, without hope for a returning economy, and
  with DC determined to bankrupt our nation with social justice programs
  meant to further increase dependency, Americans watch in horror as Congress
  further indebt our children to the Communist Chinese, exporting jobs
  and importing tainted goods while allowing an unending supply of cheaper
  workers to come into the country under work visa provisions.
- Our
  government’s answer to this tragedy is bailouts for Wall Street,
  Stimulus for social agenda driven programs, Health Care reform, Job
  killing Cap and Trade and Amnesty.
- How can their intentions not be perfectly
  obvious?
- I
  believe this disastrous chain of events to be treasonous and intentional.
- This is not time to be diplomatic; it is time for truth.
- Americans must
  put aside our proclivity to speak gently; call a rat the rodent that
  it is and save political correctness for those who value silence.
- Globalists
  detest the American dream.
- They scoff at patriotism. They deride tradition.
  They laugh at our refusal to relinquish our Constitution and they are
  ashamed of our founding fathers.
- In their tortured world view, we are
  not citizens, but customers and workers and if we will not behave, we
  can be replaced, easily.
- The
  religion they preach is consumerism; their pulpits are our Universities,
  our Capitols and our Media.
- They have loyalty to no nation or people.
- In a perfect globalist world, there would be no borders, no nations,
  and no citizens. In their bleak world, there would be no culture, no
  tradition, no God, just bleak grey days followed by bleak dark nights
  interrupted only by flashing neon signs declaring that we must buy and
  pay taxes to be patriotic.
- It is a cancer to our nation and our people.
- Globalism
  is a sickness of the soul.
- It is a cancer to the world and all of her people.
- Globalism is tyranny,
  for it takes everything and allows nothing.
- America has been the refuge from tyranny. Where will the oppressed go
  when there is no more America?
- Our leadership may wish to commit national
  suicide but our citizens have other ideas.
- That is not to say that we cannot participate in the world, of course,
  that is in our best interest and we have much to offer other peoples
  as they have to offer us but what globalists deride as protectionism,
  Americans call self preservation.
- Survival depends on taking care of
  home first.
- Once home is secured, one can look farther and help where
  it is needed and desired. In America today, home is not secured. It
  is in great jeopardy.
- Our citizens understand their attention must be American focused first
  and foremost. We have every right to demand the same from our Representatives.
- While diplomats pronounce arrogantly around the world the need to spread
  democracy, our American election process is under attack to allow non
  citizens and illegal aliens representation through the Censes and to
  vote through mass registration.
- Groups such as ACORN, at taxpayers’
  expense, pervert the system; voting systems are flawed and rife with
  fraud.
- When
  the next ‘selection’ cycle begins, we must ask the right
  questions and demand the complete answers.
- Globalists won’t understand
  the distinctions. American focused future representatives will.
- Americans
  know what the short sighted elites fail to acknowledge. We will no longer
  support globalists of any political party.
- As Americans, our loyalty
  is to our nation and not a political party.
- We must insist on American focused candidates and settle on nothing
  less.
- Democrats should fear the coming elections as the Obama’s ‘Hope
  and Change’ tour runs aground.
- Republicans should not assume they
  will be voted in because we are upset with the current administration.
- Fox
  news has already decided who our choices will be in the next election.
- They poll asking which candidate people support for President in 2012
  and list a handful of past losers and globalists as options.
- Never do
  they include ‘none of the above’.
- We are being setup once
  again to pick from a selection of Democratic globalists or Republican
  globalists.
- Citizens
  are on to the game and must seek out and support American focused candidates
  or lose everything we have ever aspired to, as a nation and a people.
- We must be silent no more while our Republic is reshaped, restructured,
  and devoured by the very socialist agenda our ancestors shed blood to
  defeat.
- When a globalists comes knocking on your door at election time,
  recognize him for the wolf that he is and be wary.
- "CJ"
  Graham is a Veteran and the proud wife of a retired USAF Veteran. She
  is a dedicated mother, activist, conservative, independent, who's allegiance
  is to her country and not to a particular political party. She is a firm
  believer in the power of the Citizen of the United States of America to
  whom she writes with a empowering and encouraging spirit. She knows that
  the Citizen of the USA can make a difference through peaceful, focused,
  knowledge empowered, activism working within the system and with media
  and legislators to effect change. As an author, she writes from the heart
  but backs up her work with facts.
- E-Mail: cjgraham2008@gmail.com

09 Dec 09

EDITORIAL: Obama's risky-sex czar - Washington Times

www.washingtontimes.com/...obamas-risky-sex-czar - Preview

Dept-Education Obama Obama-Administration Democrats American-teens children Homosexuals Gay-agenda education Kevin-Jennings

Wednesday, December 9, 2009
EDITORIAL: Obama's risky-sex czar
26 more annotations...
- Education official involved in teaching 14-year-olds strange sex techniques
- By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
- WARNING: This editorial includes discussion of topics that are sexually graphic. Under usual circumstances, we would never entertain these subjects or the rancid language involved. In this case, however, a very unusual exception must be made because the issues are central to the background of a senior presidential appointee at the U.S. Department of Education who is in a position to influence how and what our children are taught in our nation's schools. Thus far, out of fear or squeamishness, there has been public hesitance to examine closely the beliefs of this individual because many are afraid even to touch the risky content. Our scruples cannot be used against us when traditional moral precepts need to be defended. Simply, the deep level of depravity involved in this subject cannot be portrayed without providing a couple of examples to illustrate the inappropriate content. Please do not read any further if you will be offended by sexually graphic language.
- The Obama administration is stonewalling serious inquiries about sexual filth propagated by a senior presidential appointee who is responsible for promoting and implementing federal education policy.
- Democrats clearly are terrified of ruffling the feathers of their activist homosexual supporters, who are an influential part of the Democratic party's base.
- This scandal, however, is not merely about homosexual behavior; it is about promoting sex between children and adults -
- and it's time for President Obama to make clear that abetting such illegal perversion has no place in his administration.
- It is curious why White House officials and Education Secretary Arne Duncan believe it's worth it politically to continue taking arrows for defending Kevin Jennings, who is Mr. Obama's controversial "safe schools czar."
- The evidence suggesting he is unfit to serve as a senior presidential appointee is startling and plentiful.
- It was revealed this week that Mr. Jennings was involved in promoting a reading list for children 13 years old or older that made the most explicit sex between children and adults seem normal and acceptable.
- This brought up anew Mr. Jennings' past controversies, such as his seeming encouragement of sex between one of his high school students and a much older man as well as his praise for Harry Hay, a notorious supporter of the North American Man Boy Love Association.
- There are shocking new revelations this week of tape recordings from a youth conference involving 14-year-old students.
- But there is more.
- The conference, billed as a forum to encourage tolerance of homosexuality, was sponsored by Mr. Jennings' organization and was held at Tufts University in March 2000.
- Mr. Jennings was executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) from its founding in 1995 until August 2008.
- The conference sessions appear to have had less to do with promoting tolerance and more to do with teaching children how to engage in sex.
- Describing the subject matter as smut would be putting it lightly.
- Andrew Breitbart's Biggovernment.com provides tapes of some of the sessions.
- The conference discussions were very graphic and cannot be relayed in full detail in a family newspaper.
- A few examples are sufficient to describe the depravity of the subject matter.
- During one session about oral sex, a presenter asked the 14-year-old students: "Spit or swallow? Is it rude?"
- In another session, the 14-year-olds are taught about a gross practice called "fisting," in which "the man leading the discussion position[ed] his hand and show[ed] 14-year-olds how to insert their entire hand into the rectum of their sex partner."
- Teaching children sexual techniques is simply not appropriate.
  - In any other scenario; among any other group, this would be cause for arrest, indictment, conviction and sentencing.. - on 2009-12-09
  Add Sticky Note
- Unfortunately, it is part of a consistent pattern by some homosexual activists to promote underage homosexuality while pretending that their mission is simply to promote tolerance for so-called alternative lifestyles.
- It is outrageous that someone involved in this scandal is being paid by the taxpayers to serve in a high-powered position at the Education Department, of all places.
- At some point, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Jennings, Obama administration spokesmen and the president himself are going to have to start answering questions about all this. Refusing to do so won't make the issue go away.

Climate treaty endangers U.S. | CapeCodOnline.com

www.capecodonline.com/...article - Preview

UN United-Nations Climate-Change-Treaty USA subversion Obama Democrats US-Govt Congress NWO American-citizens Third-World tyranny one-world-despots climate ploy

Climate treaty endangers U.S.
By PATRICIA STEBBINS

December 08, 2009
29 more annotations...
- Hanging over our freedom and sovereignty is a document called the“United Nations Climate ChangeTreaty.”
- So what, you may say?
  
  Here’s what.
- The plan is to have signatories from all countries –Third World, radical leftist nations, and us. Unless we forbid President Obama to sign up America, we’ll be caught in this awful net.
- Here’s what it says: 1. Create a world government with power over every nation signing; 2.Transfer wealth from the West to theThird World; 3. Enforce these measures.
- Now let’s explore what these measures mean to us.
- The first one creates a socialist world government, something our president appears to advocate.The wording provides the U.N. with power over our country, over our Constitution.
- Yes, this world government will have power over our government, imposing its will on our energy use, resources and jobs.
  Can you live with that?
- The second will force American taxpayers to support and subsidizeThird World nations – unstable countries, with no economies nor the capacity to rule themselves without dictators.
- If you think the economy and unemployment are bad now, just wait until this treaty goes into effect – IF we allow our president to sign it!
- In effect, this is redistribution of wealth, reducing the U.S. to Third World status and impoverishing our citizens.
- The third goal of the treaty is the most ominous.
- Stated in the document is the proviso that once a nation has signed, it may not cancel its membership without the approval of all the other member nations.
- Let that sink in.
- No future president, no elected Congress or Senate can vote to take us out of the agreement. And why would they agree to let us out – we will be the biggest cash cow they’ve ever had!
- Recently, theTimes printed an ominous article, quoting agencies of the U.N. and other governmental entities, including alarming statistics about the impending doom of the alleged global warming. Coincidentally, all these groups are dedicated to a one-world government controlling all energy and economies.
- Yet multitudes of prestigious independent scientists are loudly saying global warming is a hoax and effort to control nations
- I invite readers to check out the following sites and decide for yourselves: http://online.wsj.com/ article/SB100014240527487 035746045745005802856790 74.html?mod=googlenews_ wsj#printMode http://www.climatescienceinternational.
- Their voices go unheard by the media.
- Something dreadful is happening to our country.
- Our Democrat president and Congress are hell bent on imposing socialized medicine on us.They are pushing“cap and trade,” an energy program which will destroy our gas and coal industries and lose an estimated two million more jobs while chasing windmills and solar panels.
- They have given millions for a‘Teddy’ memorial (this inserted by Sen.
  John Kerry) in the defense budget!
- We are forced to watch as 40‘czars’are turning out to be a bunch of radical lunatics with unlimited power and answerable only to Obama.
- Our major automobile producers, banks, insurance companies are being run by the government while Congress refuses to investigate the corrupt ACORN and SEIU organizations.
- Our president and elected officials are planning to eliminate states’rights and give the federal government sweeping powers over things that are now under the rule of the states.
- This can result in gaining control over schools, energy production, the environment and the wealth of every U.S. citizen.
- It IS happening and we must wake up and demand our legislators remember their oath to defend and protect our Constitution and liberties!
- Can’t happen in America?
- Fed up with“Democrat Dictatorship” yet? Do you really want to send another one to Washington in January?
- Patricia Stebbins lives in East Sandwich.

04 Dec 09

January 2010: Adam Ciralsky on Blackwater | vanityfair.com

Prince at a Kandahar airfield. Photograph Adam Ferguson
Spies and Whispers
65 more annotations...
- Last June, C.I.A. director Leon Panetta met in a closed session with the House and Senate intelligence committees to brief them on a covert-action program, which the agency had long concealed from Congress.
- Panetta explained that he had learned of the existence of the operation only the day before and had promptly shut it down.
- The reason, C.I.A. spokesman Paul Gimigliano now explains: “It hadn’t taken any terrorists off the street.”
- During the meeting, according to two attendees, Panetta named both Erik Prince and Blackwater as key participants in the program.
- (When asked to verify this account, Gimigliano notes that “Director Panetta treats as confidential discussions with Congress that take place behind closed doors.”)
- Soon thereafter, Prince says, he began fielding inquisitive calls from people he characterizes as far outside the circle of trust.
- In July, The Wall Street Journal described the program as “an attempt to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives.”
- It took three weeks for details, however sketchy, to surface.
- The agency reportedly planned to accomplish this task by dispatching small hit teams overseas.
- Lawmakers, who couldn’t exactly quibble with the mission’s objective, were in high dudgeon over having been kept in the dark.
- (Former C.I.A. officials reportedly saw the matter differently, characterizing the program as “more aspirational than operational” and implying that it had never progressed far enough to justify briefing the Hill.)
- The New York Times published a story headlined cia sought blackwater’s help to kill jihadists. The Washington Post concurred: cia hired firm for assassin program.
- On August 20, the gloves came off.
- Prince confesses to feeling betrayed. “I don’t understand how a program this sensitive leaks,” he says. “And to ‘out’ me on top of it?”
- The next day, the Times went further, revealing Blackwater’s role in the use of aerial drones to kill al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders:
- “At hidden bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan … the company’s contractors assemble and load Hellfire missiles and 500-pound laser-guided bombs on remotely piloted Predator aircraft, work previously performed by employees of the Central Intelligence Agency.”
- Erik Prince, almost overnight, had undergone a second rebranding of sorts, this one not of his own making.
- The war profiteer had become a merchant of death, with a license to kill on the ground and in the air.
- “I’m an easy target,” he says. “I’m from a Republican family and I own this company outright. Our competitors have nameless, faceless management teams.”
- Prince blames Democrats in Congress for the leaks and maintains that there is a double standard at play.
- “The left complained about how [C.I.A. operative] Valerie Plame’s identity was compromised for political reasons. A special prosecutor [was even] appointed. Well, what happened to me was worse. People acting for political reasons disclosed not only the existence of a very sensitive program but my name along with it.”
- As in the Plame case, though, the leaks prompted C.I.A. attorneys to send a referral to the Justice Department, requesting that a criminal investigation be undertaken to identify those responsible for providing highly classified information to the media.
- By focusing so intently on Blackwater, Congress and the press overlooked the elephant in the room.
- Prince wasn’t merely a contractor; he was, insiders say, a full-blown asset.
- Three sources with direct knowledge of the relationship say that the C.I.A.’s National Resources Division recruited Prince in 2004 to join a secret network of American citizens with special skills or unusual access to targets of interest.
- As assets go, Prince would have been quite a catch. He had more cash, transport, matériel, and personnel at his disposal than almost anyone Langley would have run in its 62-year history.
- The C.I.A. won’t comment further on such assertions, but Prince himself is slightly more forthcoming.
- “I was looking at creating a small, focused capability,” he says, “just like Donovan did years ago”—the reference being to William “Wild Bill” Donovan, who, in World War II, served as the head of the Office of Strategic Services, the precursor of the modern C.I.A.
- (Prince’s youngest son, Charles Donovan—the one who fell into the pool—is named after Wild Bill.)
- Two sources familiar with the arrangement say that Prince’s handlers obtained provisional operational approval from senior management to recruit Prince and later generated a “201 file,” which would have put him on the agency’s books as a vetted asset.
- It’s not at all clear who was running whom, since Prince says that, unlike many other assets, he did much of his work on spec, claiming to have used personal funds to road-test the viability of certain operations.
- “I grew up around the auto industry,” Prince explains. “Customers would say to my dad, ‘We have this need.’ He would then use his own money to create prototypes to fulfill those needs. He took the ‘If you build it, they will come’ approach.”
- According to two sources familiar with his work, Prince was developing unconventional means of penetrating “hard target” countries—where the C.I.A. has great difficulty working either because there are no stations from which to operate or because local intelligence services have the wherewithal to frustrate the agency’s designs.
- “I made no money whatsoever off this work,” Prince contends.
- He is unwilling to specify the exact nature of his forays.
- “I’m painted as this war profiteer by Congress. Meanwhile I’m paying for all sorts of intelligence activities to support American national security, out of my own pocket.”
- (His pocket is deep: according to The Wall Street Journal, Blackwater had revenues of more than $600 million in 2008.)
- Clutch Cargo
- The Afghan countryside, from a speeding perch at 200 knots, whizzes by in a khaki haze. The terrain is rendered all the more nondescript by the fact that Erik Prince is riding less than 200 feet above it.
- The back of the airplane, a small, Spanish-built eads casa C-212, is open, revealing Prince in silhouette against a blue sky. Wearing Oakleys, tactical pants, and a white polo shirt, he looks strikingly boyish.
- As the crew chief initiates a countdown sequence, Prince adjusts his harness and moves into position. When the “go” order comes, a young G.I. beside him cuts a tether, and Prince pushes a pallet out the tail chute. Black parachutes deploy and the aircraft lunges forward from the sudden weight differential. The cargo—provisions and munitions—drops inside the perimeter of a forward operating base (fob) belonging to an elite Special Forces squad.
- A Blackwater aircraft en route to drop supplies to U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan in September. Photograph by Adam Ferguson
- Five days a week, Blackwater’s aviation arm—with its unabashedly 60s-spook name, Presidential Airways—flies low-altitude sorties to some of the most remote outposts in Afghanistan.
- Since 2006, Prince’s company has been conscripted to offer this “turnkey” service for U.S. troops, flying thousands of delivery runs.
- Blackwater also provides security for U.S. ambassador Karl Eikenberry and his staff, and trains narcotics and Afghan special police units.
- Once back on terra firma, Prince, a BlackBerry on one hip and a 9-mm. on the other, does a sweep around one of Blackwater’s bases in northeast Afghanistan, pointing out buildings recently hit by mortar fire.
- As a drone circles overhead, its camera presumably trained on the surroundings, Prince climbs a guard tower and peers down at a spot where two of his contractors were nearly killed last July by an improvised explosive device.
- “Not counting civilian checkpoints,” he says, “this is the closest base to the [Pakistani] border.”
- His voice takes on a melodramatic solemnity. “Who else has built a fob along the main infiltration route for the Taliban and the last known location for Osama bin Laden?”
- Going “Low-Pro”
- Blackwater has been in Afghanistan since 2002.
- At the time, the C.I.A.’s executive director, A. B. “Buzzy” Krongard, responding to his operatives’ complaints of being “worried sick about the Afghans’ coming over the fence or opening the doors,” enlisted the company to offer protection for the agency’s Kabul station.
- Going “low-pro,” or low-profile, paid off: not a single C.I.A. employee, according to sources close to the company, died in Afghanistan while under Blackwater’s protection.
- (Talk about a tight-knit bunch. Krongard would later serve as an unpaid adviser to Blackwater’s board, until 2007.
- And his brother Howard “Cookie” Krongard—the State Department’s inspector general—had to recuse himself from Blackwater-related oversight matters after his brother’s involvement with the company surfaced. Buzzy, in response, stepped down.)
- As the agency’s confidence in Blackwater grew, so did the company’s responsibilities, expanding from static protection to mobile security—shadowing agency personnel, ever wary of suicide bombers, ambushes, and roadside devices, as they moved about the country.
- By 2005, Blackwater, accustomed to guarding C.I.A. personnel, was starting to look a little bit like the C.I.A. itself.
- Enrique “Ric” Prado joined Blackwater after serving as chief of operations for the agency’s Counterterrorism Center (CTC).
- A short time later, Prado’s boss, J. Cofer Black, the head of the CTC, moved over to Blackwater, too.
- He was followed, in turn, by his superior, Rob Richer, second-in-command of the C.I.A.’s clandestine service.
- Of the three, Cofer Black had the outsize reputation.
- As Bob Woodward recounted in his book Bush at War, on September 13, 2001,
- Black had promised President Bush that when the C.I.A. was through with al-Qaeda “they will have flies walking across their eyeballs.”
- According to Woodward, “Black became known in Bush’s inner circle as the ‘flies-on-the-eyeballs guy.’”
- Richer and Black soon helped start a new company, Total Intelligence Solutions (which collects data to help businesses assess risks overseas), but in 2008 both men left Blackwater, as did company president Gary Jackson this year.

03 Dec 09

The American Spectator : The Plan to Silence Dissent

For the record: neither political party and their adherents have clean hands in regards to violations of the U.S. Constitution. Bush and his Neocon agents took steps to violate the Constitution almost from the inception of the Bush administration. Obama and the Demon'crats are just adding to the descent of the American Republic's liberties into the sink hole of a police state. The only question at this juncture is will this "New Amerika" be a Democratic Party "Marxist State" or a Republican Party "Fascist State?"

spectator.org/...the-plan-to-silence-dissent - Preview

Obama White-House dissent broadband Liberals Leftists USA US-Govt Democrats RHINOs emergency censorship coercion dictatorship Goebbels Conservatives America FCC Senator-Rockefeller S-773

The Plan to Silence Dissent
y Mark Hyman on 11.30.09 @ 6:08AM
69 more annotations...
- There is no shortage of conspiracy theories that elicit a chuckle
  or the rolling of eyeballs. "September 11th was an inside job."
  "The war on Iraq was launched to enrich Halliburton." "AIDS was
  created to annihilate the black community."
- But should we be
  alarmed when a theory appears plausible in an age when the
  previously unthinkable occurs on a regular basis?
- "When the heavy hand of the State is imposed on the press,
  all of us lose," Barack Obama told a group of Kenyan journalists
  during a 2006 trip to Africa.
- He continued, "The media does not
  have a formal role in the Government, but it serves a critical
  function in providing information to the public so that they can
  hold the Government accountable."
- That was then and this is now.
- Apparently, a present-day
  President Obama has a different view -- a wild-eyed view -- of a
  free press than did a Senator Obama now that some outlets hold
  him, his administration and his political allies
  accountable.
- The Obama Administration declared war on the minority of
  media outlets that do not worship the political left's newest
  false idol immediately after Obama was sworn in.
- Three days into
  his presidency Obama warned Congressional Republicans against
  listening to radio host Rush Limbaugh.
- Amazingly, the president
  who offered to sit down with the thug leaders of rogue nations,
  such as Iran's Holocaust denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, without any
  preconditions believed an immense threat was posed by a radio
  talk show host originally from southeastern Missouri.
- Then the White House launched a jihad against Fox News
  Channel and its hosts by first boycotting appearances on the
  cable channel and then second, by engaging in name-calling and
  leveling baseless allegations.
- More recently, the White House brazenly attempted to
  marginalize Fox News Channel by enlisting the support of the
  heretofore compliant news media.
- Fortunately, competing news
  outlets found the backbone -- if only temporarily -- to put the
  kibosh on Obama's attempts to blacklist FNC from the White House
  press pool.
- All of the Obama Administration bluster may have been just
  that. Supporters of talk radio breathed a sigh of relief earlier
  this year when an amendment introduced by Senator Jim DeMint
  (R-SC) passed with an 87-11 Senate vote that seemingly ended an
  attempt to implement the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."
- The
  inaptly named "Fairness Doctrine" is nothing less than
  government-imposed speech codes.
- Although the doctrine would not
  have likely survived Constitutional scrutiny, radio hosts and
  listeners alike thought a major bullet was dodged.
- So, are all threats averted? Perhaps not. There may be
  another plan afoot to silence dissent.
- Instead of having the government decide which program
  merited "the other side" of the argument, what if there was a
  plan to shut down the free component of talk radio and broadcast
  TV?
- More than 150 bureaucrats at the Federal Communications
  Commission are in the final stages of planning how to deliver
  broadband Internet to the estimated 3-6 million people who do not
  have access.
- A formal plan will be unveiled in early 2010 but one
  proposal being discussed is deeply alarming as it threatens First
  Amendment freedoms.
- The FCC is contemplating the notion that some or all of the
  electromagnetic spectrum occupied by radio and TV broadcasters is
  the perfect real estate to launch a national wireless broadband
  service.
  - Goebbels would be proud of this proposed US Government Ministry of Propaganda." Seig Heil! - on 2009-12-03
  Add Sticky Note
- The price tag is $350 billion. That is as much as nearly
  $120,000 per person to be connected. Apparently, the FCC has not
  heard of the "$99 Triple Play."
- Evicted broadcasters would no longer offer free,
  over-the-air radio and TV, but would instead be confined to
  subscription platforms such as cable and satellite or the
  Internet.
- This aspect of the plan is indeed troubling. The public
  would be required to pay for their news, information and
  entertainment services and there would be no free option.
- However, it gets worse.
- Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
  introduced a measure this year that would allow the president to
  disconnect private broadband users during an undefined national
  cyber emergency.
  - A "Rockefeller." Go figure...maybe the far out conspiracy loons are correct afterall. We have been invaded steathly and the "Reptilians" are among us. - on 2009-12-03
  Add Sticky Note
- One provision of S.773 would grant the president authority
  to "declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or
  shutdown of Internet traffic" including that on private systems
  designated as critical.
- Not surprisingly, the bill gives the
  president wide discretion in designating private systems as
  "critical."
- Would an H1N1 pandemic qualify as such an emergency
  allowing the president to shut down voices opposing his
  socialized medicine plans?
- Another provision of the bill is to federally-license
  certain information technology professionals making it illegal
  for those not holding such a license to access any IT systems.
- Obviously, the most efficient way to control the nation's
  broadband platforms is to control those who operate them.
- Connecting the dots in this fashion would not have been
  contemplated as recently as one year ago.
- But today, no one is
  rolling their eyes.
- Mark Hyman is a commentator appearing nationally on the television stations of Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
- Comments
- hunter| 11.30.09 @ 7:42AM
  
  The screaming heard from the liberals comes from the bright light
  being shone on them.
- Like the cockroaches in the middle dark of
  night, where their dirty work is being done when the light is
  turned on. They actually scream, and run for cover,
- they are the
  vermin of life, they live off others.
- If he has his way we will be in the
  same shape Zimbabwe is today.
- This president reminds me
  of Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
- His goverment owns the banks,
  industry, utilities, land, etc. Sound familiar?
- Obomba would do
  well to remember he ain't in Chicago no more, and that the
  American people won't fall for B.S. like the Zimbabweans. Hushing
  the american media is like stomping ducks to shut them up, all
  you get is more noise and a big mess.
- Louis Jenkins| 11.30.09 @ 8:53AM
- During last year's national
  election we discovered how easily voters can be duped. Internet,
  blogs, news sites, and telebroadcasts can move public opinion. It
  can be a friend to a candidate or it can be an ankle twister
  depending on its content.
- Elimination or tethering the
  Conservative's voice is most desirable from the liberal view,
  particularly when it can be done in a "legal" fashion by
  Congress.
- Do not kid yourself, most of what Congress does is not
  found in the Constitution.
- This is inplausible to those with an
  acute understanding of our Republic, but an unkown to the average
  person on the street.
- Freedom of the press, association, peaceful
  assembly are corner stones of our Constitution, but there are
  those in government and in the ignorant public who believe that
  document to be outdated. They are at war with its concepts and
  will not rest until absolute control of every facet of life is
  achieved.
- James Pawlak| 11.30.09 @ 8:59AM
  
  Remember that the Second Amendment is the ultimate protection for
  the First!
- Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.09 @ 9:09AM
  
  Yet another "canary in our coal mine" to watch carefully.
- PS: People, I suggest you begin a document file containing the
  articles like this one by Mr. Hyman.
- Another thought: Let us Patriots decide among ourselves that our
  "meet and discuss" sites will be our respective County Courthouse
  lawns...say the first and third Saturdays of each month, (with
  empty hands for goodness sake), If we are knocked offline. Carry
  a small American flag for identifying purposes.
  
  Thoughts?
- Margie| 11.30.09 @ 10:15AM
  
  Yes. Good idea. But if they are willing to shut down the lines of
  communication, you can bet they'd probably not allow us to meet.
- Al Adab| 11.30.09 @ 2:02PM
  
  It will be interesting to watch them arrest people in a public
  setting. While even the homeless can gather, political dissenters
  may not. Remember when "dissent was the highest form of
  patriotism?"
  
  Check out the Manhattan Declaration and sign up.
- martha| 11.30.09 @ 9:39PM
  
  I like it.
  
  I was thinking of flyers on telephone polls but with a code
  phrase or something,, or go back to basics: How about a chain
  letter via snail mail?
- Jim| 11.30.09 @ 9:12AM
  
  Wow, take over the internet in an 'emergency'? What would an
  'emergency' be under Herr Obama?
- davelnaf| 11.30.09 @ 9:19AM
  
  If the Left’s plan to take over the airwaves is further along
  that a dirty gleam in the eyes of government hacks scheming to
  pull it off, then we are going to see something happen in this
  country we have never seen before. Not a liberal takeover of the
  media, but something close to an across the board political
  upheaval that will put dems out of power for a generation. Are
  moderate democrats paying close attention?
- sandyinohio| 11.30.09 @ 12:53PM
  
  There are too few of us moderate Dems. anymore. I cannot stand
  this whole admin & their people.
- victor| 11.30.09 @ 8:47PM
  
  Well, then, what are you waiting for?
  
  All moderate dems are welcome to come on over to the conservative
  side.
  
  Tell all your friends, y'hear?
  
  Freedom and Liberty are always prefereable to Tyranny and
  Oppression.
- Benson| 11.30.09 @ 9:25AM
  
  If we go by the style presented so far of we don't give a damn
  what the majority of Americans wants or what the Constitution
  says, I assume the emergency would be what ever Herr Obama said
  it was.
- Radioman 777| 11.30.09 @ 9:56AM
  
  Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al... Obama and his minions are cut from
  the same cloth and in the same pattern.
- Margie| 11.30.09 @ 10:26AM
  
  Well, are we really surprised? This from a man (Obummer), who
  claims that our Constitution is obsolete.
- Is there any question
  that Liberalism=Socialism=Communism=Satanism?
- Of course a man who
  is run by "certain" spirit, who abhors FREEDOM and a FREE people
  has plans. All of the above are based on taking away the freedom
  of the individual.
- Is there any question left in anyone's mind
  about his intentions?
- If he were a decent man he would take that $350 BILLION and use
  it to BUILD UP OUR MILITARY! What about that! What about our
  brave men and women fighting a losing war because of this man's
  slackness?
  
  It is such a disgrace.
  
  Ps. 109:8
- Marcell| 11.30.09 @ 11:34AM
  
  Maybe the conservative news outlets should spend more time
  reporting the news. Instead, they are working their behinds off
  trying to spin the news to their advantage.
  
  --------------------
  
  Deutsch: Who are the GOP leaders?
  
  Nov. 30: Donny Deutsch joins the Morning Joe discussion on the
  lack of leadership in the Republican party.
  
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22.....3#34204873"
- victor| 11.30.09 @ 8:53PM
  
  Why are we letting losers define who conservatives are
  anyway?
  
  The clueless interviewing the classless.
- martin j smith| 11.30.09 @ 12:04PM
  
  I am not a cyber geek nor , really big into blogging but--I will
  say this about Obama: He has to be watched. His record in dealing
  with opposition is not exactly stellar. To the contrary--
- The
  Democrat Left and even RHINOS woulds love to shut the opposition
  up. It would be wise to take any cautions seriously and to
  consider actions such as are legally and politically appropriate.

22 Nov 09

Wall Street tax must be international: Pelosi | U.S. | Reuters

www.reuters.com/...idUSTRE5AI3ZV20091119 - Preview

Nancy-Pelosi Speaker Congress Wall-Street Big-Business taxes International-Tax Obama Democrats Squeaker-of-the-Mouse Liberals Leftists Washington-DC NYC

Wall Street tax must be international: Pelosi
Thu Nov 19, 2009
19 more annotations...
- By Andy Sullivan
- WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Any tax imposed on financial transactions would have to take effect internationally to keep Wall Street jobs and related business from moving overseas, U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday.
- "It would have to be an international rule, not just a U.S. rule," Pelosi said at a news conference.
- "We couldn't do it alone, we'd have to do it as an international initiative."
- Several House Democrats have proposed a Wall Street tax to pay for job-creating legislation they plan to pass in December.
- The tax, which could raise $150 billion per year, would tap into widespread public outrage at Wall Street in the wake of the financial crisis.
- "There's something really out of kilter in this society," said Democratic Representative Marcy Kaptur, noting the gap between wages in her Ohio district and Wall Street bonuses.
  - There's something "out of kilter" alright and it stinks to the heavens.. - on 2009-11-22
  Add Sticky Note
- But support is tepid among key legislators, especially those from the New York region who worry that finance jobs could disappear if the tax drives trading activity overseas.
- The No. 4 Democrat in the House, Representative John Larson, said his proposal to impose a 0.25 percent tax on over-the-counter derivatives transactions would apply internationally.
- "Part of our proposal would include that it would be international," Larson told Reuters after meeting with other lawmakers about the jobs package.
  - So..American Jobs creation/formulation is going to the "Global Community?" - on 2009-11-22
  Add Sticky Note
- Democratic Representative Peter DeFazio said his separate proposal, which would tax a wider array of trading activity, would cover all U.S. corporations and individuals no matter where their trades took place.
- Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have emphasized that the proposal is merely one of many ideas in play.
- "It hasn't been developed to a high priority, but it has substantial currency in our caucus," Pelosi said.
- Britain urged other governments earlier this month to consider a bank tax as a way to fund future bailouts, and France and Germany have also called for a bank tax.
- The International Monetary Fund is studying the idea.
- LITTLE ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT
- But it has little support in the Obama administration.
- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Thursday that he has "not seen a version of that tax that I think would be appropriate for our country."
- Democrats are developing their jobs bill to ease double-digit unemployment levels that threaten an economic recovery. The Senate is expected to act early next year.

31 Oct 09

1,000 U.S. troops wounded in Afghanistan in past 3 months

www.washingtonpost.com/...AR2009103003759_pf.html - Preview

afghanistan OEF casualties Barack-Obama war POTUS-Obama delays US-Military IEDs combat-injuries Ward-57 Democrats

U.S. combat injuries rise sharply
Three-month total in Afghanistan surpasses 1,000
31 more annotations...
- By Ann Scott Tyson
  
  Washington Post Staff Writer
  
  Saturday, October 31, 2009
- More than 1,000 American troops have been wounded in battle over the past three months in Afghanistan, accounting for one-fourth of those injured in combat since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.
- The dramatic increase in amputees and other seriously injured service members comes as October marks the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
- Expanded military operations, a near-doubling of the number of troops since the beginning of the year and a Taliban offensive that has included a proliferation of roadside bombings have led to the great increase in casualties.
- U.S. troops in Afghanistan are suffering wounds at a higher rate than those who were serving in Iraq when violence spiraled during the military "surge" two years ago.
- In mid-2007, 600 U.S. troops were wounded in Iraq each month out of about 150,000 troops deployed there. In Afghanistan, about 68,000 troops are currently installed, with about 350 wounded each month recently.
- Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell acknowledged that the casualties in Afghanistan have surpassed Iraq surge proportions and noted that the violence in Afghanistan is directed more against U.S. and other coalition forces, whereas it was heavily sectarian in Iraq. "It shows you how we are the targets and how effectively they are targeting us," Morrell said.
- He noted that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has become concerned about the rising number of wounded and has ordered thousands of additional support troops to Afghanistan to look for, and minimize, the roadside bombs.
- Military doctors say the nature of the Afghanistan casualties is reminiscent of those in Iraq in 2007. "We're seeing similar types of injuries from Afghanistan that we saw in Iraq" before and during the surge, said Lt. Col. Shelton Davis, chief of physical medicine at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington.
- The bombs account for 70 to 80 percent of U.S. and coalition casualties in that country, according to Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz, director of the Pentagon's Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.
- More than 1,000 improvised explosive devices, or roadside bombs, exploded or were found in Afghanistan in August, more than double any monthly total until this summer.
- Metz told military reporters this week that IEDs are now the "weapon of choice" for Taliban fighters.
- The bombs are so powerful, he said, that they can take out the latest mine-resistant vehicles the Pentagon has employed to protect troops. In addition, insurgents have begun targeting troops on foot.
- He said that the rise in bombings has coincided with the doubling of U.S. troop numbers this year and that further troop increases -- now under consideration by President Obama -- would bring more bombs.
- As U.S. ground forces moved in this year, Metz said at a House Armed Services Committee hearing this week, "the enemy was ready with a very thick array of IEDs. . . . Those soldiers and Marines ran into those IEDs, and it was what we predicted."
- Walter Reed's Ward 57 provides wrenching proof of the devastating effectiveness of the bombs, with patients suffering amputations, spinal cord damage, traumatic brain injuries and fractures.
- On Aug. 18, Lt. Dan Berschinski, 25, of Peach Tree City, Ga., was serving as a platoon leader with the Stryker brigade combat team in Kandahar province, where the roads were laced with bombs and his unit had to operate without engineer support or mine-detection equipment.
- His platoon was crossing a footbridge when a bomb threw Berschinski to the ground, deafened a sergeant and blew up Pfc. Jonathan Yanney, a radio operator. An initial search located part of Yanney's shredded helmet, pieces of a boot and some small body parts that Berschinski said team members put in a plastic bag.
- Realizing that not only the roads but also the foot trails were too dangerous, Berschinski and his men moved on by walking through shin-high water. Regrouping in a mud-walled compound later that day, Berschinski was passing a gate when another bomb blew up underneath him, bouncing him off a wall and tossing him back into the crater that had formed.
- "I immediately reached down -- up, really, since I was upside down -- for my legs. I could tell they were gone," Berschinski said in a written account provided by his family. His right leg and hip and his left leg above the knee were amputated. According to Metz, few soldiers have survived stepping on such bombs.
- But the survival rate among the wounded is greater than in previous conflicts because of improved first aid, quick evacuations to field hospitals and better armored protection.
- Busy wards in wartime
- As more wounded flow in, hospitals must adjust.
- "We can open more beds as needed and bring on more staff as needed. As you can imagine, that is not without its own challenges," said Col. Paul Pasquina, chief of orthopedics and rehabilitation at Walter Reed and the Bethesda National Naval Medical Hospital.
- He noted that although military medical personnel are in demand stateside, they also must deploy overseas.
- "The ward is pretty full now," said Tracy Glascoe, a physician assistant on Ward 57.
- One significant challenge, she said, is helping wounded troops transition from a regimen of constant ward care so that they can work on further physical rehabilitation.
- Resting the stub of his right leg on his hospital bed one day last week, Spec. Harrison Ruzicka, 23, said he is eager for physical therapy. Ruzicka, who is from North Carolina knows he faces a long recovery but said he was thankful to be alive after a bomb flipped his armored vehicle into a river on Aug. 7.
- He said he screamed for help but quickly realized no one was there. He somehow got loose, swam to the embankment and dragged himself onto land with his arms. He knew his legs were broken. "I didn't want to look at them because I would have put myself in shock," he said.
- He recalled being pinned under the vehicle and fearing he could drown in the river.
- He started calling for his good friend, vehicle driver Sgt. Jerry R. Evans Jr., 23, of Eufaula, Ala. "I was in his wedding party," Ruzicka said. "There was no response. Nothing from him."

YouTube - Dennis Miller Goes Off On Barack Obama's Politics As Usual

www.youtube.com/watch - Preview

dennis-miller the-factor obama racism campaign-2008 bill-o'reilly obama-speech race-card democrats

Dennis Miller Goes Off On Barack Obama's Politics As Usual
2 more annotations...
- mghoft
  
  June 26, 2008
- Dennis Miller goes off on Barack Obama for playint the "race-race card" last week on the campaign trail.
  This is a rare moment of Miller rage for the masses- from the O'Reilly Factor, Wednesday June 25, 2008.

27 Oct 09

Page 1 The American Self Immolation, Truly a Sight to See - Pravda.Ru

Page 1

english.pravda.ru/...109977-self_immolation-0 - Preview

USA obama bush US-Govt europe russia britain economy cap-trade recovery self-immolation democrats congress agenda NWO

The American Self Immolation, Truly a Sight to See
As my readers know, I am a fan of economics and of history, as well as politics, a combination that forms some very interesting cycles to research, discuss and argue on. None is so interesting than the death of great nations, for here there is always the self destruction that comes before the final breakups and invasions. As they say: Rome did not fall to the barbarians, all they did was kick in the rotting gates.
16 more annotations...
- It can be safely said, that the last time a great nation destroyed itself through its own hubris and economic folly was the early Soviet Union (though in the end the late Soviet Union still died by the economic hand).
- Now we get the opportunity to watch the Americans do the exact same thing to themselves.
- The most amazing thing of course, is that they are just repeating the failed mistakes of the past.
- One would expect their fellow travelers in suicide, the British, to have spoken up by now, but unfortunately for the British, their education system is now even more of a joke than that of the Americans.
- While taking a small breather from mouthing the never ending propaganda of recovery, never mind that every real indicator is pointing to death and destruction, the American Marxists have noticed that the French and Germans are out of recession and that Russia and Italy are heading out at a good clip themselves.
- Of course these facts have been wrapped up into their mind boggling non stop chant of "recovery" and hope-change-zombification.
- What is ignored, of course, is that we and the other three great nations all cut our taxes, cut our spending, made life easy for small business...in other words: the exact opposite of the Anglo-Sphere.
- That brings us to Cap and Trade. Never in the history of humanity has a more idiotic plan been put forward and sold with bigger lies.
- Energy is the key stone to any and every economy, be it man power, animal power, wood or coal or nuclear.
- How else does one power industry that makes human life better (unless of course its making the bombs that end that human life, but that's a different topic).
- Never in history, with the exception of the Japanese self imposed isolation in the 1600s, did a government actively force its people away from economic activity and industry.
- Even the Soviets never created such idiocy.
- The great famine of the late 1920s was caused by quite the opposite, as the Soviets collectivized farms to force peasants off of their land and into the big new factories.
- So one must ask, are the powers that be in Washington and London degenerates or satanically evil?
  - I think they are both - on 2009-10-27
  Add Sticky Note
- Of course this had disastrous results.
- Where is the opposition? Where are the Republicans in America and Tories in England?

25 Oct 09

Jon Christian Ryter -- Obama will continue Chinese Quid Pro Quos, Part 2

Part 2

www.newswithviews.com/...jon297.htm - Preview

bernard-schwartz Loral Hughes-Corp super-computer-sales china Al-Gore the-clintons obama democrats treason PLA bill-gates Hagel washington-dc

The perpetual money manipulator, Hillary found even
greener pastures elsewhere without the risk of being embarrassed when
her bagmen were revealed as Chinese agents..
Among her new money pastures
on foreign soil was one in India fertilized by Cisco Systems
who began laying off high income workers in its American Infosys facilities
as they moved their offices to Bangalore, India. Hillary discovered
a new donor mechanism—outsourcing US jobs to India and Pakistan.
48 more annotations...
- When
  you call your local bank after hours to check the balance of your account,
  or you want to find out if a particular check has cleared the bank,
  and you hear a voice with a distinctly Pakistani or Indian accent (and
  we aren't talking Cherokee here), or you get the same accent when you're
  placing a macy's orf JCPenney catalog order, or answering an ad on an
  all night infomercial, the odds are about 50-50 that Hillary Clinton
  was paid handsomely for outsourcing those US jobs to India, Pakistan,
  Indonesia, or China.
- Since the Clintons were no longer in the White
  House they could no longer use the super-size money-laundering washing
  machines at the Democratic National Committee to scrub quid
  pro quo dollars from foreign countries to make them look like squeaky
  clean American working class contributions.
- Instead, those paying for
  a US Senator's help to outsource hundreds of thousands of telemarketing
  jobs from the United States simply donated money to the William
  J. Clinton Presidential Library.
- Most
  of Infosys' 850 American employees have been outsourced to
  India. According to a 2006 Newsweek article, Cisco Systems
  transferred over 3,000 jobs to India and was also building a new Infosys
  office in Monterray, Mexico.
- The quid pro quo in this case?
  Bill Clinton made two speeches to Cisco employees to the tune of $150
  thousand per speech. Cisco employees—or at least those who still
  had jobs in the United States—donated $39,450 to Hillary's reelection
  campaign.
- As
  pressure mounted by Congressmen and Senators to kill outsourcing legislation,
  Clinton, Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Chuck Schumer were instrumental in
  creating the Senate India Caucus to pressure Congressmen and Senators
  who were trying to derail their efforts.
- Their primary ally in the House
  was Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
- Hillary went to India with Dr. Sant Singh
  Chatwal in late February, 2008 where Indian businessmen, led by Chatwal,
  raised $5 million for Hillary's presidential campaign.
- When Hillary
  returned she told the media that "...outsourcing will continue.
  There is no way to legislate against reality. We are not in favor of
  putting up fences."
- In Hillary's mind, as Secretary of State
  for the United States of America, if we can't move the businesses—like
  Macy's or Walmart or your local bank—to the third world where's
  tomorrow's consumers need jobs, we'll simply move the jobs.
- The Delaware-based
  IT Professionals Association of America [ITPAA] responded to
  Clinton's arrogance by awarding her its Weasel Award.
- Now
  there's a new man in the White House. (Notice I did not say "new
  president".)
- A man who spend millions of dollars to conceals the
  truth of his birth is clearly a man who [a] was not born in the United
  States, and thus, cannot be construed as an Article II citizen, and
  [b] cannot constitutionally seek, or hold, the office of President of
  the United States.
- Which, or course, also means any laws, decrees or
  other documents he signed while sitting in the Oval Office are constitutionally
  null and void.
- The
  man currently occupying the White House who has yet to satisfy the American
  people that he is actually an Article II citizen of the United States,
  Barack Hussein Obama, has turned back the pages of history to the Clinton
  Era when Bill Clinton began issuing militarily-sensitive waivers under
  the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 to America's deadliest
  enemy.
- Obama did what Clinton did in 1996 when he transferred the authority
  to issue military technology waivers from the Department of Defense
  to the Department of Commerce, The current decisions was likely made
  by Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Weapons Czar Ashton Carter (a
  former Undersecretary of Defense during the Clinton years)
  and Chief Technology Czar Aneesh Paul Chopra (and a Harvard friend of
  Obama.)
- The reason? Bush-43 Defense Secretary Robert Gates was, first
  and foremost, too patriotic to serve in the Obama Administration.
- Gates
  served in some of the most sensitive defense roles in the nation. He
  spent 26 years in the Central Intelligence Agency and in the
  National Security Agency under President George H.W. Bush.
  Prior to that, he was a wartime officer in the USAF.
- Under President
  George W. Bush, he served as head of Defense. It's safe to say that
  Gates was the the last person Obama wanted either at Langley or at the
  Pentagon.
- Obama wanted Leon Panetta in Langley. And Obama. had already
  picked Sen.Chuck Hagel [R-NE] for the job at the Pentagon because Hagel
  was just another decorated antiwar Vietnam veteran.. Who could ask for
  a better choice for the DoD?
- When
  Hagel's personal problems bit him in the behind, Richard Danzig, SecNav
  under Clinton, became Obama's next top choice. Danzig was followed by
  John Hamre, Deputy Defense Secretary under Clinton's Defense Secretary
  William Cohen.
- With his short list running out after Colin Powell flatly
  turned him down Obama appeared to be, at least temporarily, stuck with
  Bush's man, Gates.
- Which explains why Obama did the same thing Clinton
  did in 1996. William Cohen, Clinton's Defense Secretary was also a Republican.
  While Cohen was a liberal, Clinton didn't fully trust him and knew if
  Cohen suspected that Clinton was selling technology to China that was
  detrimental to the United States, his friends in the Senate would learn
  about it very quickly.
- Obama knew if Gates controlled
  whether or not waivers on military technology were issued to nations
  that might sell the technology to our enemies, or use the technology
  against us themselves, Gates would rule against the waiver.
- The
  same was true about Obama and Gates.
- In Clinton's
  case, there were few men he trusted as completely as he did Big Bill
  Daley, the former Mayor of Chicago, and one of the few politicians in
  American who knows how to get the dead fto vote when his boss needs
  a few \ more votes to win an election.
- Clinton moved control of the
  waivers from the Defense Department where it rightly belongs, to Commerce
  where Daley and John Huang, one of Gen. Liu Huaqing agents, would do
  his bidding.
- On
  Sept. 29 Obama issued a Presidential Determination that copied
  the Presidential Decision Directive issued by Bill Clinton
  that transferred the waiver authority from the Department of Defense
  to the Department of Commerce.
- Only in this case, Obama's Presidential
  Determination altered one key provision in the Defense Authorization
  Act of 1999 that was designed to defang overzealous presidents.
- When Clinton sold China 300 super computers, he did irreparable harm
  to the United States. Congress was determined that no future president
  would possess the power to arbitrarily transfer critical technology
  without first notifying Congress what he was doing, and getting their
  consent to complete the transfer the technology.
- Only,
  Obama's Presidential Determination violates Section 1512 of
  the the Defense Authorization Act of 1999 by ignoring the proviision
  that requires the President or his agent in the Department of Defense
  (or elsewhere) to notify Congress whether the transfer of missile or
  space technology to China (in this instance), would harm the space-launch
  technology of the United States, or in any way, help or assist China
  advance their missile programs or systems.
- The law was passed in the
  aftermath of the Loral Space Systems and Hughes Electronics
  espionage case.
- Loral was fined $20 million in that case, and Hughes
  Electronics was fined $32 million by the State Department.
- It was
  imperative, in 1998, that Bernard Schwartz of Loral and Mike Smith of
  Hughes Electronics should have been criminally-charged with espionage
  and made to stand trial for treason against the United States of America.
  Both men should be spending the balance of their natural lives in prison.
- In our society, rich men are exempt from the full penalty of the law
  because those who contribute millions of dollars to politicians can
  expect politicians to exceed on their behalf and pardon their crimes.
- However,
  today, even though Obama chose to signore that provision of law, Section
  1512 of the Defense Authorization Act mandates that the President
  of the United States certify that the technology he is allowing to pass
  into other hands will not harm the United States if that information
  falls into the wrong hands, nor will it benefit the recipient's efforts
  to develop either guided missiles or rockets for space exploration.
- Obama apparently chose to ignore that requirement because he knows he
  is not an Article II citizen, and thus, is not constitutionally the
  president of anything.
- The new policy, with appears to structure a new
  era of cooperation between the United States and China can, and likely
  will have, extremely dangerous consequences for the United States.
- China
  now possesses the power to collapse the economy of the United States
  at will, whenever they wish.
- And while US economists are convinced it
  will harm China equally as bad, any nation with the brute power to regulate
  its currency by fiat, has an internallly secure monetary system.
- Henry
  Sokolski, Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center,
  noted early during the Vietnam War that had Lyndon Johnson, Richard
  Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter not forced the US military under
  their command to use UN Rules of Engagement (which meant not using any
  more force than that which your enemy possesses) the United States would
  have won the Vietnam War in less than 90 days.
- By forcing the major
  powers to use UN rules of engagement in the future, the United States
  and the industrialized nations will never again be able to win a war
  against any inferior third world terrorist nation. Watching Obama make
  Clinton's mistakes all over again, Sokolski said "...It was
  foolish for us to do this in the 1990s and is even more dangerous for
  us to do this now."
- Gary
  Milhollin, Director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control
  said he, too was shocked by the decision to shift that responsibility
  back to Commerce—a change that George W. Bush never made.
- "It''s
  shocking that it would be delegated to the Secretary of Commerce whose
  job it is to promote trade, rather than to the Secretary of State or
  the Secretary of Defense who have far more knowledge of responsibility
  within their organizations for missile technology."
- The
  Chinese got Loral-Hughes, Part I in 1998. It appears that under
  Obama, they expect to get Loral-Hughes, Part II.
- The new green light
  for China suggests that the Manchurian Candidate we currently have at
  1600 Pennsylvania Avenue had three masters all along, First were his
  Muslim father and Muslim stepfather who taught him to hate every white—including
  his mother whose race he denounced. Second was his Muslim mentor, King
  Abdullah of Saudi Arabia who paid for his Harvard education. And finally,
  his communist political mentor, George Soros who led him down the primrose
  path to the bankers to whom he has surrendered.
- © 2009 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights
  Reserved
- Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a
  former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored
  a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s
  until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban
  markets in the United States.
  
  Today, Jon is an advertising
  executive with the Washington Times. His website, www.jonchristianryter.com
  has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington
  insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use
  both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on
  his website.
  
  E-Mail: BAFFauthor@aol.com

Jon Christian Ryter -- Obama will continue Chinese Quid Pro Quos, Part 1

Part 1

www.newswithviews.com/...jon296.htm - Preview

alan-cranston maria-cantwell US-Senate washington-state PLA china the-clintons democrats obama donations Clipper-Chip Real-Networks

The
mid-term election of 2012 is only 13 months off. California voters,
like Washington State voters have short memories concerning the integrity
of their elected officials and even shorter memories on the words inscribed
in the Constitution of the United States.
That's
why Washington State is fast becoming the Massachusetts of the far West.
48 more annotations...
- It's being overrun by retiring liberals who are trying to steal that
  State the same way the Muslims are stealing Europe. They are simply
  overpopulating the opposition.
- On top of that, the Washington State
  Democrats have to be dumber than sled tracks in Florida in July because,
  in face of all the evidence to the contrary, they choose to believe
  the lies of the left before they accept the honest realities of the
  right that anyone with 20-50 vision can see.
- They are absolutely certain
  that liberals like Barney Franks, aluminum-foil freezer-bagman William
  Jefferson and Charlie Rangel would never lie to them because the left
  repeatedly tells them they don't lie and everyone knows that anyone
  who belongs to the the party of Andy Jackson would never fib.
- Even though before graft
  became the major part of the politicians undeclared income, legislators
  were part-time politicians who actually had real jobs.
- Today, for most
  politicians, collecting graft has become their real job.
- Sadly, where
  the graft comes from apparently no longer matters—even if the
  money comes from Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, Riyah, Amman, Caracas, Jakarta,
  Karachi, or Nairobi.
- Since the left views the world as one big apple
  cart, money's money even if it comes from a foreign country—and
  that country is our enemy.
- That is, unless the left discovers that someone
  from the right picked a few ripe dollars from an American money tree
  that belonged to some local lobbyist, of that a former staffer of a
  Congressman went to work for a lobbyist who spread his client's wealth
  around K Street.
- Both would be enough to indict the Republican, but
  taking hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars from the head of
  Chinese intelligence by a Democratic President or Vice President wouldn't
  be considered newswowrthy by any liberal paper in the United States.
  Nor, would the voters give it credence, either. They would simply shrug
  and say, "Everyone does it."
- In
  1998 Clinton convinced major Democratic donor, Rob Glaser, owner of
  RealNetworks, the first digital audio/visual Internet streaming
  company, hired Maria Cantwell as his VP of Marketing.
- Clinton wanted
  something. RealNetworks was the first Internet company to incorporate
  the Clipper Chip spyware that could track everything a viewer watched
  or downloaded.
- Clinton wanted Microsoft magnate Bill Gates to create
  spyware similar to the Clipper Chip and bury it in Windows95.
  Gates refused.
- The Clipper Chip tracked very program and download
  watched by any unsuspecting user.
- Clinton wanted more. He wanted to
  be able to read everything that was on the computer—including
  encrypted files through backdoors created by Bill Gates.
- Gates' refusal
  cost him his friendship with Clinton, and cost him a class action lawsuiit
  jointly initiated by AOL and Netscape.
- By 2002, half the Internet opearting
  systems in Europe joined the lawsuit, hoping to raid Microsoft and steal
  their patented technology.. The lawsuit was settled on May 30, 2003
  for $750 million. Microsoft kept their proprietory information.
- RealNetworks
  didn't fare as well. When it was revealed that RealNetworks
  used the Clipper Chip, Maria Cantwell played the innocent dupe,
  and made a public statement, demanding RealNetworks stop using
  it.
- When she ran for the US Senate, Cantwell campaigned as a privacy
  rights candidate which, of course, she wasn't, She was the huckseter
  who was selling the Clipper Chip.
- Rick Glaser of RealNetworks
  was forced to disclose everyone they sold private data to. Several lawsuits
  were settled out of court. Cantwell, the Clipper Chip marketing
  director, became the "privacy rights" US Senator.
- Among
  the "companies" who purchased the Clipper Chip technology
  from Cantwell—who became a multimillionaire on the deal—was
  the United States government.
- (The Clipper Chip was the spyware
  that Obama installed in the government's clunker rebate program.)
- You
  can bet that for however long Obama is in control of the US government,
  that spyware will be tied to every government website and many covert
  websites that pose as antigovernment sites.
- Between
  1984 and 1988 the Chinese, through Indonesian banker Mochtar Riady and
  his son James, invested what was believed by the US Congressional Thompson
  Committee chairman Fred Thompson to be well in excess of $600 million
  in illegal contributions to the Clinton Campaign through straw donors
  in the United States posing as legitimate donors.
- During
  the Presidential Campaign of 1988 The Clintons and Gore pretended they
  had no knowledge that any of the contributions they received were illegal.
- When the nature of those illegal donations were revealed—and only
  then—did the White House made a pretense of returning them.
- Even
  though Al Gore dreamed up the notion of selling access to the White
  House (a crime) through a series of "coffees" in which, for
  money, contributors would be granted access to key members of the Administration
  including the President and First Lady.
- There
  were 108 coffees held at the White House during the last six months
  of 1995. Thos specific coffees brought in $27 million.
- On June 18, 1996
  there were two coffees held at the White House on the same day. Both
  coffees were held in the Map Room. Both were headed by DNC Chairman
  Don Fowler, and the guest of honor at both functions was the President
  of the United States.
- The coffees, originally scheduled as one event,
  contained a problem for Fowler. Among the list of American citizen contributors
  was a group of Chinese donors who were brought to the White House by
  Pauline Kanchanakak, an intelligence officer from the People's Liberation
  Army.
- The donors were all either Chinese businessmen with ties
  to the PRC, or Thai businessmen whose companies were owned by the PLA.
  One was the donors was the head of CP Group, the largest exporter in
  China. CP Group is owned by the PLA.
- Shocking
  as it may seem, one of the donors who posed for a photo op with the
  President that day was a major gun runner who supplies most of the automatic
  weapons used by street gangs in the United States.
- (You weren't stupid
  enough to believe the rubbish spewed by far left that the guns used
  by street gangs come from legal gun shops, and regulating them stops
  the flow of illegal guns, were you?)
- Don Fowler tried to refuse to attend
  that portion of the June 18 coffee which contained foreigners who could
  not legally contribute to a US political candidate—or an administration
  who would be violating the several laws by accepting contributions from
  even a legitimate donor in any federal office.
- Clinton forced him to
  make the introductions before excusing him from the meeting to attend
  another more pressing engagement—called CYA.
- According to federal
  law, any office in the Executive branch used for an official government
  function (i.e., meeting with constituents in which the President, Vice
  President, First Lady, or any department head attends), is legally construed
  to be used for an official government function. Accepting contributions
  in any of those functions is a federal crime.
- But, even more, accepting
  money from any foreigner, or an enemy of the United States at any of
  those functions can be construed as treason. It is an impeachable offense.
- William Jefferson Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Al Gore, Jr. Should
  have been impeached, removed from office, tried and imprisoned for accepting
  hundreds of millions of dollars from America's deadliest enemy and for
  allowing themselves to be bribed by the People's Republic of China from
  1988 to 1998.
- Furthermore,
  since there is no statute of limitations on treason, any Congressman
  and Senator who has taken money from the Soviet Union or the People's
  Republic of China or any foreign nation, ally or neutral, should be
  removed from office by impeachment, forced to stand trial for bribery
  and sentenced to prison for 20 years to life.
- Barack Obama noted in
  his San Francisco speech on the 16th that he and Nancy Pelosi had gotten
  a couple of big brooms to clean up the mess left behind by George W.
  Bush. He asked everyone to pitch in and help.
- I think we should. Only,
  in addition to cleaning the trash out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avneue, we
  also need to clean the trash out of the Dirkson, Hart and Russell Senate
  Buildings and the Cannon, Longworth and Rayburn House Buildings..
- The
  trash that needs to be swept out are the thieves who soiled the institutions
  to which they belonged, and who have sold their souls not only to money
  barons in the United States, but more important, to this nation's enemies
  who are using those politicians to weaken this nation and prepare it
  for destruction.
- Clinton
  paid his quid pro quos in spades to his Chinese benefactors
  when Hughes Electronics and Loral Space Communications needed to launch
  a new communications satellite, but the United States had no rockets
  ready to launch.
- Under the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917,
  US law forbade US companies (without a special waiver from the President)
  to provide military weapons or weapons parts, ammunition, or any technology
  that can be used to advance the creation of weapons.
- Why
  we would have a law on the books that lets any American company, under
  any circumstance, sell weapons, munitions or military technology that
  can, and will, kill Americans to the very enemies we are fighting? But,
  such laws exist, and Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon Johnson,
  Richard Nixon. Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have all exercised
  the option.
- At the end of his second term, President Dwight D. Eisenhower
  warned the American people to beware of the indusrial-military complex.
  American should have listened. We should have listened, and whenever
  one of them climbed in bed with a politician, we should have thrown
  both of them in prison. But, we lack the inanimate gonads that brass
  monkeys come with out of the kiln.
- Under
  the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, no US company can provide
  any military technology, war materials, or anything to assist the war
  effort of an enemy or ally of an enemy of the United States without
  a special waiver signed by the President of the United States.
- While
  it seems ridiculous that any Congress, past or present, would grant
  any US President the right to issue a waiver that would allow any American
  corporation the right to sell any materials or technology that could
  be used by an enemy or the ally of an enemy of this nation, to help
  defeat or destroy us.
- © 2009 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights
  Reserved

Cliff Kincaid -- Damaging Disclosures in Van Jones Scandal

www.newswithviews.com/...cliff361.htm - Preview

van-jones White-House valerie-jarrett veting-process communist George-Soros center-for-american-progress US-Govt democrats green-czar affiliations connections

DAMAGING
DISCLOSURES IN VAN JONES SCANDAL
By Cliff Kincaid

October 25, 2009

NewsWithViews.com
44 more annotations...
- When
  Van Jones resigned his White House job, under fire for his pro-communist
  views, White House adviser David Axelrod said that Jones had himself made
  the decision to leave the administration.
- But new documents indicate that
  Jones didn’t even write his own resignation letter.
- It is now abundantly
  clear that he was pushed out because the scandal threatened to implicate
  Obama friend and White House adviser Valerie Jarrett in the scandal that
  gave him a critical White House position without proper vetting.
- Jones,
  a self-identified communist, was an anti-police activist in Oakland, California,
  before an extreme makeover landed him at the George Soros-funded Center
  for American Progress in Washington, D.C. as a “senior fellow.”
- This is the entity that has provided a number of top officials for the
  Obama Administration and even sponsored public appearances by cop-killer
  apologist Marc Lamont Hill, the fired Fox News analyst who appeared regularly
  on The O’Reilly Factor.
- The
  documents I have received indicate that many different officials from
  the White House, operating on the evening of Saturday, September 5, and
  into the early morning hours of Sunday September 6, were preoccupied with
  the matter of how to arrange Jones’ ouster from the White House
  Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
- It is clear that the increasing
  scrutiny devoted by Glenn Beck of Fox News to Jones’ communist connections
  was taking its toll on the Obama Administration.
- Citing
  his coverage of Jones, the Center for American Progress (CAP) had attacked
  Beck for “red-baiting” and channeling Joe McCarthy, the anti-communist
  Senator.
- Yet,
  Jones was deeply involved in a Marxist group, Standing Together To Organize
  a Revolutionary Movement or STORM, which sent some of its members of Cuba
  for brainwashing.
- Jones was also on a list of “veteran activists”
  attending a conference in the summer of 1998 at the University of Illinois
  at Chicago, the same place where Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers
  is now a professor, in order to plot the "Black Liberation Agenda
  for the 21st Century" under the auspices of the Black Radical Congress.
- Angela Davis, former Communist Party USA official, participated, and the
  CPUSA helped organize the event. Jones named a son in honor of Amilcar
  Cabral, the African Marxist.
- CAP
  insisted that Jones had renounced his communist views in 2000 and favored
  “business-based solutions” for the environment.
- But in fact
  he gave an interview last year to “Uprising Radio” stating
  that his goals were “transforming the whole society” and going
  beyond "systems of exploitation and oppression” and even “eco-capitalism.”
- When
  I initially requested documents through the Freedom of Information Act
  (FOIA) relating to the hiring of Jones by the White House CEQ and the
  agency’s knowledge of his communist background, the agency said
  it had none.
- However, Jones, the “Green Jobs Czar,” was technically
  a “special adviser” at the CEQ, and his hiring had been announced
  by Nancy Sutley, chair of the CEQ.
- It was strange, to say the least, that
  the entity which employed him had no documents about how he was hired
  and by whom.
- There
  is nothing in the new documents I have received—and I requested
  a copy of anything relating to his resignation—indicating that Jones
  had written the resignation statement himself.
- Indeed, there are no emails
  from Jones himself about any of this. Everything seems to have been orchestrated
  by the CEQ working under the supervision of Obama’s White House
  advisers.
- “This
  is Van’s [resignation] statement,” states an email from Jonathan
  K. Carson, chief of staff at the CEQ. “He understands that it will
  be sent out tonight.” The tone of “he understands” suggests
  that Jones has been informed or even told how his resignation will be
  carried out.
- Before
  becoming chief of staff at the CEQ, Carson was national field director
  for Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign.
- The
  timing of the email exchanges was unusual, indicating that the controversy
  was so intense that things couldn’t wait until Monday, September
  7.
- The
  Carson email was dated Saturday, September 5, around 10:42 p.m., and was
  sent to a number of high-level Obama Administration staffers, including
  Communications Director Anita Dunn, press secretary Gibbs, and Patrick
  Gaspard, Director of the White House Office of Political Affairs and former
  operative and lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
- The
  CEQ said, however, that it was withholding three documents totaling 5
  pages in response to my request.
- The
  documents which have been released are nevertheless significant because
  they help demonstrate that Jones was indeed answerable to Obama’s
  inner circle.
- Obama White House adviser Valerie Jarrett had said publicly
  that “we” had been following Jones since his days as an activist
  in Oakland, California, and had “recruited him into the White House.”
  The “we” presumably included the president himself.
- The
  mounting controversy over his role in the administration and the attention
  being given to his communist background was something that greatly concerned
  Obama’s top advisers.
- The
  focus, as noted by New Zealand blogger Trevor Loudon, who broke the story
  of Jones’ communist connections, was going to the question of “who
  hired him and why an easily identifiable communist revolutionary with
  a police record could serve as a presidential adviser.”
- As this
  attention was building, AIM released a column, “Van Jones Scandal
  Threatens the Obama Presidency,” on the late afternoon of September
  5, in which we pointed out that “…if Jones’ background
  can sink Jones, the President himself is in trouble.
- Obama has decades
  of friendly associations with communists and terrorists, ranging from
  Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis in his youth in Hawaii
  to communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn in Chicago when
  he was doing community organizing and running for political office.
- By
  comparison to Obama, when it comes to nefarious connections, Jones is
  a piker.”
- After
  his forced ouster, Jones’ former patron and sponsor, John Podesta
  of the Center for American Progress, adopted the White House line and
  declared that Jones “has chosen to resign because he believed he
  was serving as a distraction to the president’s agenda. I respect
  that decision.”
- But
  the documents released to this columnist through the FOIA include no indication
  whatsoever that Jones wanted to resign. Instead, the documents indicate
  that a resignation letter was written for Jones and issued in his name.
- At about
  the same time that Carson informed the White House that a statement of
  resignation would be issued in Jones’ name, CEQ chair Nancy Sutley
  sent an email to Carol Browner, the White House energy czar and an associate
  of the Socialist International, informing her about the pending “Resignation
  of Van Jones.” At one minute after midnight, the Jones resignation
  statement had been sent out.
- An email
  from another CEQ official, Jessica Maher, a former senior policy advisor
  for socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, was sent shortly thereafter. She
  said that “I reached out to Reid, Pelosi, Durbin and Hoyer offices.”
  Damage control was now completely underway.
- The
  White House line was that Jones was gone and it was time to move on. The
  Jones resignation letter was sent out along with a statement thanking
  him for his service from Sutley.
- “Christine
  has the list of the White House reporters for both of the statements to
  be sent to,” stated an email from Obama’s former Senate press
  secretary and now White House spokesman Benjamin LaBolt.
- Christine
  is Christine Glunz, who functioned as Jones’ mouthpiece and sidekick
  and previously worked for disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich.
- The
  coverage followed the carefully orchestrated White House line. “In
  a statement Saturday night,” CNN declared, “the White House
  said Jones was giving up his post at the Council on Environmental Quality,
  where he helped coordinate government agencies focused on delivering millions
  of green jobs to the ailing U.S. economy.”
- On September
  6, Obama adviser David Axelrod was on NBC’s “Meet the Press”
  and denying that the president had asked Jones to resign. “Absolutely
  not,” Axelrod said. “This was Jones’ own decision.”
- Axelrod
  added, “He said in his statement that he didn't want his comments
  to become a distraction from the issue, which is so important to the future
  of our economy and communities around the country. And I commend him for
  making that decision.”
- Meanwhile,
  $500 million has already been authorized by the Obama “stimulus”
  bill for “green jobs” projects that Van Jones was supposed
  to specialize in.
- One
  group that has been following where the money is going with keen interest
  is Green for All, Jones’ former organization, which is working to
  funnel it to left-wing labor unions to hire “green collar”
  workers.
- ©
  2009 Cliff Kincaid - All Rights Reserved
- Cliff Kincaid,
  a veteran journalist and media critic, Cliff concentrated in journalism
  and communications at the University of Toledo, where he graduated with
  a Bachelor of Arts degree.
  
  Cliff has written or co-authored
  nine books on media and cultural affairs and foreign policy issues. One
  of Cliff's books, "Global
  Bondage: The UN Plan to Rule the World" is still awailable.
  
  Cliff has appeared on Hannity &
  Colmes, The O’Reilly Factor, Crossfire and has been published in the Washington
  Post, Washington Times, Chronicles, Human Events and Insight.
  
  Web Site: www.AIM.org
  
  E-Mail: cliff.kincaid@aim.org

23 Oct 09

Congress passes 'Pedophile Protection Act'

www.wnd.com/index.php - Preview

hate-crimes-bill pedophile-protection-act US-Govt congress christianity truth defense-bill obama Rep-Alcee-Hatings democrats

Congress passes 'Pedophile Protection Act'
Opponents worry over special 'hate crimes' treatment for homosexuals
42 more annotations...
- Posted: October 22, 2009
  8:05 pm Eastern
  
  By Bob Unruh
  
  
  
  
  © 2009 WorldNetDaily
- A "hate crimes" plan that opponents have warned will be used to crack down on Christian speech, even the reading of the Bible, is poised to be signed by President Obama, a longtime proponent of the plan to give homosexuals and those with other alternative lifestyles special protections not provided other classes of citizens.
- The Senate approved the "hate crimes" plan 68-29 today after Democrats strategically attached it to a "must-pass" $680 billion defense appropriations plan.
- Most Republicans, although normally strong supporters of the U.S. military, opposed the plan.
- "The inclusion of the controversial language of the hate crimes legislation, which is unrelated to our national defense, is deeply troubling," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., told Fox News after the vote.
- The plan also hands out federal money to states and local governments in pursuit of "preventing" hate crimes.
- Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said the move is a step toward thought crimes and suggested the bill will be a warning against those to speak out about their religious faith.
- Obama was strongly supported during his 2008 presidential campaign by homosexual advocates, and has expressed a willingness to act on the proposal, calling it an "important civil rights issue."
- The plan – which creates federal protections and privileges for homosexuals and other alternative lifestyles but denies those protections to other groups of citizens – earlier was approved in the U.S. House.
- When the Senate earlier approved a key move, Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said, "In … months President Obama and the Democratic-led Congress have forced on the American people the most radical and immoral agenda.
  
  "The administration and the Democratic-led Congress are out of touch with the mainstream. They represent the most fringe extreme elements of America. They will not be able to continue their efforts to undermine moral values, socialize the economy and trash American pride and heritage.
- "The people will not remain silent forever," he said.
- The House vote prompted the American Family Association to alert its constituents and create a procedure for them to send e-mails to Washington about the plan.
- "In its never-ending quest to shred America's Judeo-Christian value system, the left is planning to hurriedly push through a 'thought crimes' bill," the alert said. "So-called 'hate crimes' laws are really laws that criminalize thought, because they punish an individual not for what he did but for what he thought. Politically incorrect thoughts about homosexual behavior will result in enhanced criminal sanctions under this law."
- The AFA said, "Everywhere hate crimes laws have gone into effect, they have been quickly used to intimidate, silence and punish people of faith who express deeply held religious objections to the normalization of homosexuality.
- "Such laws not only punish officially disapproved speech and thought, they create two tiers of victims. Under hate crimes laws, some victims get more protections than others, which violates the fundamental American principle of equality under the law," the alert said. "In fact, such laws actively discriminate against heterosexual Christians who are victims of crime, since they will get less legal protection than homosexual victims."
- The American Family Association said since "sexual orientation" nowhere is defined in the law, "this law will give pedophiles, voyeurs, and exhibitionists special protections, which is why the bill has correctly been called 'The Pedophile Protection Act.'"
- Also offering an online "contact Washington" process is the organization Pray in Jesus Name, founded by former U.S. Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, who was involuntarily removed from the U.S. military after he prayed "in Jesus name."
- His organization submitted via fax almost 400,000 petitions to Washington opposing the "hate crimes" law.
- Also, a separate larger Fed Ex campaign to warn U.S. Senate members of the dangers of the "hate crimes" plan dispatched more than 705,000 letters to senators.
- The letter-writing effort was organized by WND columnist Janet Porter, who also heads the Faith2Action Christian ministry. It allowed citizens to send individually addressed letters to all 100 senators over their own "signature" for only $10.95.
- Klingenschmitt said there is a remote chance Obama may not like the proposal, since it is linked to funding for an engine for the F-35 fighter jet, which he has opposed.
- "If President Obama vetoes the F-35 second engine, as he promised when speaking in Phoenix last spring, he will ironically kill the homosexual agenda and their evil 'Pedophile Protection Act,'" he wrote.
- Attempts by Republicans to add amendments stating "pedophilia is not protected as a sexual orientation" were blocked by House Democrats.
- In fact, Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., said all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected.
- "This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'philias' and fetishes and 'isms' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule," he said.
- Further, the proposal has a broad definition of "intimidation," so a Christian pastor's sermon could be considered 'hate speech" if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against someone based on "sexual orientation."
- The pastor, Klingenschmitt said, could be prosecuted for "conspiracy to commit a hate crime" or "inciting violence against gays" for quoting the Bible.
- As it went through the House, the version was H.R. 1913, or the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. The Senate then worked on its own version, and it ultimately was added as an amendment to a defense spending plan.
- As WND reported, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted a homosexual activist who is attacked following a Christian minister's sermon about homosexuality would be protected by the proposed federal law, but a minister attacked by a homosexual wouldn't be
- The revelations came from Holder's June testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was taking comments on the proposal. The measure also was the subject of discussion on talk radio host Rush Limbaugh's July 3 show.
- "This is the question," Limbaugh said. "(Sen.) Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) presents a hypothetical where a minister gives a sermon, quotes the Bible about homosexuality and is thereafter attacked … by a gay activist because of what the minister said about his religious beliefs and what Scripture says about homosexuality. Is the minister protected?"
  No, said Holder.
- "Well, the statute would not – would not necessarily cover that," Holder stated. "We're talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, that is what this statute tends – is designed to cover. We don't have the indication that the attack was motivated by a person's desire to strike at somebody who was in one of these protected groups. That would not be covered by the statute."
- Continued Limbaugh, "In other words: ministers and whites are not covered by the hate crime statute because we're talking about crimes that have a historic basis, groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of their skin color, sexual orientation. So hate crimes are reserved exclusively for blacks and homosexuals. Everybody else can get to the back of the bus on this one."
- The bill was nicknamed "The Pedophile Protection Act" when Rep. Steve King proposed an amendment during its trek through the U.S. House that would specify pedophiles could not use the law to protect their activities.
- Majority Democrats flatly refused.
  - And this law comes in the midst of yet another child murder in Florida..(week of Oct 22, 2009). Yeah, protect the child rapists/murderers and thereby force the family members of said child to seek retribution and justice by their own means; thus government's continued contribution to crime. - on 2009-10-23
  Add Sticky Note
- Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, told WND the move is alarming because "this would be the very first governmental and societal disapproval of a sincerely held religious belief, held by a majority of Americans, namely that homosexual behavior is immoral.
- "It's the first time the federal government is writing into law a disapproval of that belief," he said.
- While he said he doesn't believe there will be "immediate" prosecutions of pastors and churches for teaching the biblical injunction that homosexual behavior is sin, "I think the effect on speech and religious speech is nonetheless real."
- He said he does expect that pastors soon will begin being called to testify in "hate crime" cases in court "as to what that pastor preaches, what the church teaches, what the Bible teaches."
- "When this happens, there will be a shock wave through pastorates in America," he said.
- Ultimately, he warned that the homosexual advocates who have pushed the "hate crimes" plan consider this law just the first step "toward silencing Christians."
- That development already has been observed not only with the enactment of "hate crimes" laws in other nations but in the "hate crime" related speech codes existing on many university campuses in the U.S., Stanley said.

1 - 20 of 91 Next › Last »

Showing 20▼ items per page

Selected Tags

democrats

Related Tags

Top Contributors

Click in to find related links.

Groups interested in democrats

US ELECTION 2008

Members (1)

bookmarks (122)
teachchange

Members (2)

bookmarks (642)
OurKingdom is reading

Members (5)

bookmarks (1815)

Related Lists on Diigo

Democrats

Democratic Party

Items: 1 | Visits: 9

Created by: Kambridge Giles
US Presidential Election 2008

The US Election 2008 Web Mo...

Items: 1 | Visits: 50

Created by: ecoresearch
POLITICS USA

Items: 52 | Visits: 13

Created by: Malachi Smith

Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »

Join Diigo

Malachi Smith's Library tagged democrats → View Popular

hunter| 11.30.09 @ 7:42AM

James Pawlak| 11.30.09 @ 8:59AM

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.09 @ 9:09AM

Margie| 11.30.09 @ 10:15AM

Al Adab| 11.30.09 @ 2:02PM

martha| 11.30.09 @ 9:39PM

Jim| 11.30.09 @ 9:12AM

davelnaf| 11.30.09 @ 9:19AM

sandyinohio| 11.30.09 @ 12:53PM

victor| 11.30.09 @ 8:47PM

Benson| 11.30.09 @ 9:25AM

Radioman 777| 11.30.09 @ 9:56AM

Margie| 11.30.09 @ 10:26AM

Marcell| 11.30.09 @ 11:34AM

victor| 11.30.09 @ 8:53PM

martin j smith| 11.30.09 @ 12:04PM

Selected Tags

Related Tags

Sponsored Links

Top Contributors

Groups interested in democrats