Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So simple , yet our own Government does not want to follow it !
WHY !
the porno x-ray machines and groping pat downs would go away in a heartbeat if our own Government followed these simple rules, framed by our founding fathers.
Our Government needs to get back to basics, NOW!
The Fourth Amendment is not the only part of the Constitution that is being ignored.
The Tenth Amendment is a another good example :
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Simply put, States rights and the Federal Government putting there nose where it doesn't belong.
I could spend all day giving examples of how the Government is abusing the Constitution on a daily basis.
Here's what scares me. The citizens of this country are getting so use to it, they don't care anymore or they don't know the Constitution well enough to know its getting abused.
Wake up America ! ! ! the Government is getting to big for its own good, and it must be stopped.
Or in a few short years. we will not recognize our great Country.
Get a copy of the Constitution and read it. Your Freedom depends on it.
Here's a good link to brush up on the Costitution :
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.htm
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
BORN IN THE USA? PART I I I Supremes challenged to put Constitution above Twitter, Case questioning eligibility says facts don't support Obama story
( this is really the gift that keeps on giving ! ! ! )
Posted: November 26, 2010
11:45 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the Constitution will trump Twitter on issues of national importance, including the eligibility of a president, which could determine the very future of the American form of government.
The request is being made in a petition for writ of certiori, or a request for the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower appellate court, in a case brought on behalf of Col. Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force officer.
He is among the many who have brought court challenges to Obama's tenure in the Oval Office based on doubts about whether Obama qualifies for the position under the U.S. Constitution's demand that presidents be a "natural born citizen," a qualification not imposed on many other federal officers.
The pleadings submitted to the court, compiled by longtime attorney John D. Hemenway, cite the incredible importance of the claims that Obama, in fact, failed to qualify for the office.
"If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," states the pleading.
"Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued.
"Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question," it continued.
The case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.
Judge James Robertson
In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, "The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."
Besides the sarcasm involved, the pleading states, the very evidence pertinent to the dispute at issues was ignored.
The pleading outlines that information, which challenges Obama's claim to eligibility and his campaign's citation of a computer-generated Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii, a document also made available to those not necessarily born in the state, as proof of Obama's eligibility.
It suggests there are "sufficient allegations" that Obama was not born inside the United States, and outlines the law and regulations in force at the time of Obama's birth, in 1961.
"At the time of the birth of the respondent Obama in 1961 as alleged, Congress had … the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. Under the applicable provision of that act … for the respondent Obama to have been a naturalized citizen of the United States at birth, were he born of one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, as he has alleged throughout his political career he was, his mother would have had to have been continuously resident in the United States for a period of 10 years preceding the date of his birth and, most importantly, she would have had to have resided continuously for five years preceding his birth in the United State after she had turned 14 years old. Since she was only 18 when Obama was born, this condition was clearly not fulfilled," the arguments said.
It also raised the suggestion that there are sound arguments to the effect that a "natural born citizen" is someone born to two citizen parents, and Obama himself has documented that his father never was a citizen of the U.S.
The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a "biased" decision on "a completely extrajudicial factor" [twittering], prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the petition states. .
"A further example of this bias based on extrajudicial factors by the district court was its observation that a lawyer associated with the initiation of petitioner Hollister's case, a prominent Democrat in Pennsylvania who backed Hillary Clinton in her successful primary there against respondent Obama, though never admitted in the case, was 'probably' the 'real plaintiff' in the case and that he and another lawyer who signed filings but was also never admitted … were 'agents provocateur' whose efforts to raise the issue of the respondent Obama's constitutional eligibility in lawsuits were a crusade in which the petitioner Hollister was a dupe," the petition says.
The questions suggested by the petition are weighty:
"Did the district court examine the complaint, as required by the decisions of this and every other federal court, to see if it alleged facts to support its claims?"
"By refusing to consider the issue of defendant Obama not being a 'natural born citizen' as set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, did the district court violate its obligations to consider the issues raised by the complaint?"
"In … relying on extrajudicial criteria such as an assertion that 'the issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency' combined with an attack on petitioner … did the district court not engage in such obvious political bias and upon extrajudicial factors as to render its opinion void?"
"Did the … bias engaged in lead to a decision which ignored the law as set out above and as a result place the respondent-defendant Obama above that law and the rule of law in this country generally and threaten the constitutional basis and very existence of our rule of law?"
"Did the courts below not completely ignore the decisions of this court and the clear language of Rule 15 of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning amendments so as to compound its biased elevation of the defendant Obama above the rule of constitutional law?"
While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered," the appeals court simply adopted his reasoning, but wouldn't even allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.
Hollister's concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he at some point could be subject to Obama's orders.
"If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give the order … If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound … to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders," the pleading said.
This case doesn't have the "standing" dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama's eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson "found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing."
Courts in other case have ruled that the plaintiffs suffered no injury themselves that was not general to the population, so they weren't allowed to sue. However, because of Robertson's handling of the case, standing here has been established, the pleading states, allowing the appeal actually to argue the merits of the case, and note how Supreme Court precedents have been contradicted in the handling of the challenge to Obama.
Officials told WND that this case is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to re-establish that its precedents are binding.
The district judge also remarked "sarcastically" that there may be as many as a "couple of dozen" people concerned about the dispute. In fact, polls done by CNN and others indicate almost 6 in 10 in American don't believe Obama's birth narrative, which would give those doubting the president a total in the range of 180 million or more.
"In fact, reliable polls have shown the number of such people to be in the tens of millions and growing," the pleading explains.
"The combination of bias and ridicule of a person like the plaintiff wanting his concerns resolved by a court as being, essentially, an 'unthinkable' notion, is an expressed denial of a citizen's right to access to the courts," the case pleading continues.
The document also explains that both Robertson and Obama have "held management positions on boards of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, and thus are acquainted with each other. There is every appearance of bias here," it said.
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.
Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that "he does not want the public to know."
WND reported just days ago on another case, Kerchner v. Obama, that was before the Supreme Court with a request for review, on the same subject.
The case focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."
WND has reported on dozens of legal and other challenges to Obama's eligibility. Some suggest he was not born in Hawaii has he claims; others say his birth location makes no difference because a "natural born citizen" was understand at the time to be a child of two citizen parents, and Obama's father was subject to the British crown when Barack Obama was born.
Posted: November 26, 2010
11:45 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the Constitution will trump Twitter on issues of national importance, including the eligibility of a president, which could determine the very future of the American form of government.
The request is being made in a petition for writ of certiori, or a request for the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower appellate court, in a case brought on behalf of Col. Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force officer.
He is among the many who have brought court challenges to Obama's tenure in the Oval Office based on doubts about whether Obama qualifies for the position under the U.S. Constitution's demand that presidents be a "natural born citizen," a qualification not imposed on many other federal officers.
The pleadings submitted to the court, compiled by longtime attorney John D. Hemenway, cite the incredible importance of the claims that Obama, in fact, failed to qualify for the office.
"If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," states the pleading.
"Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued.
"Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question," it continued.
The case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.
Judge James Robertson
In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, "The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."
Besides the sarcasm involved, the pleading states, the very evidence pertinent to the dispute at issues was ignored.
The pleading outlines that information, which challenges Obama's claim to eligibility and his campaign's citation of a computer-generated Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii, a document also made available to those not necessarily born in the state, as proof of Obama's eligibility.
It suggests there are "sufficient allegations" that Obama was not born inside the United States, and outlines the law and regulations in force at the time of Obama's birth, in 1961.
"At the time of the birth of the respondent Obama in 1961 as alleged, Congress had … the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. Under the applicable provision of that act … for the respondent Obama to have been a naturalized citizen of the United States at birth, were he born of one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, as he has alleged throughout his political career he was, his mother would have had to have been continuously resident in the United States for a period of 10 years preceding the date of his birth and, most importantly, she would have had to have resided continuously for five years preceding his birth in the United State after she had turned 14 years old. Since she was only 18 when Obama was born, this condition was clearly not fulfilled," the arguments said.
It also raised the suggestion that there are sound arguments to the effect that a "natural born citizen" is someone born to two citizen parents, and Obama himself has documented that his father never was a citizen of the U.S.
The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a "biased" decision on "a completely extrajudicial factor" [twittering], prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the petition states. .
"A further example of this bias based on extrajudicial factors by the district court was its observation that a lawyer associated with the initiation of petitioner Hollister's case, a prominent Democrat in Pennsylvania who backed Hillary Clinton in her successful primary there against respondent Obama, though never admitted in the case, was 'probably' the 'real plaintiff' in the case and that he and another lawyer who signed filings but was also never admitted … were 'agents provocateur' whose efforts to raise the issue of the respondent Obama's constitutional eligibility in lawsuits were a crusade in which the petitioner Hollister was a dupe," the petition says.
The questions suggested by the petition are weighty:
"Did the district court examine the complaint, as required by the decisions of this and every other federal court, to see if it alleged facts to support its claims?"
"By refusing to consider the issue of defendant Obama not being a 'natural born citizen' as set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, did the district court violate its obligations to consider the issues raised by the complaint?"
"In … relying on extrajudicial criteria such as an assertion that 'the issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency' combined with an attack on petitioner … did the district court not engage in such obvious political bias and upon extrajudicial factors as to render its opinion void?"
"Did the … bias engaged in lead to a decision which ignored the law as set out above and as a result place the respondent-defendant Obama above that law and the rule of law in this country generally and threaten the constitutional basis and very existence of our rule of law?"
"Did the courts below not completely ignore the decisions of this court and the clear language of Rule 15 of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning amendments so as to compound its biased elevation of the defendant Obama above the rule of constitutional law?"
While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered," the appeals court simply adopted his reasoning, but wouldn't even allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.
Hollister's concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he at some point could be subject to Obama's orders.
"If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give the order … If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound … to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders," the pleading said.
This case doesn't have the "standing" dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama's eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson "found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing."
Courts in other case have ruled that the plaintiffs suffered no injury themselves that was not general to the population, so they weren't allowed to sue. However, because of Robertson's handling of the case, standing here has been established, the pleading states, allowing the appeal actually to argue the merits of the case, and note how Supreme Court precedents have been contradicted in the handling of the challenge to Obama.
Officials told WND that this case is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to re-establish that its precedents are binding.
The district judge also remarked "sarcastically" that there may be as many as a "couple of dozen" people concerned about the dispute. In fact, polls done by CNN and others indicate almost 6 in 10 in American don't believe Obama's birth narrative, which would give those doubting the president a total in the range of 180 million or more.
"In fact, reliable polls have shown the number of such people to be in the tens of millions and growing," the pleading explains.
"The combination of bias and ridicule of a person like the plaintiff wanting his concerns resolved by a court as being, essentially, an 'unthinkable' notion, is an expressed denial of a citizen's right to access to the courts," the case pleading continues.
The document also explains that both Robertson and Obama have "held management positions on boards of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, and thus are acquainted with each other. There is every appearance of bias here," it said.
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.
Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that "he does not want the public to know."
WND reported just days ago on another case, Kerchner v. Obama, that was before the Supreme Court with a request for review, on the same subject.
The case focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."
WND has reported on dozens of legal and other challenges to Obama's eligibility. Some suggest he was not born in Hawaii has he claims; others say his birth location makes no difference because a "natural born citizen" was understand at the time to be a child of two citizen parents, and Obama's father was subject to the British crown when Barack Obama was born.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Charles Krauthammer Rips Liberal Media for Being Obsessed with Sarah Palin
By Noel Sheppard
November 27, 2010
10:08
Charles Krauthammer on Friday tore into the liberal media for being obsessed with former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.
After Krauthammer scolded the "editorial judgment" of the producers of PBS's "Inside Washington" for week after week prominently displaying her as the "only representative of conservatism of any importance" in this nation, the Washington Post's Colby King proved his point .
GORDON PETERSON, HOST: In an exclusive interview with Barbara Walters at the White House this week, when asked if he thinks he could beat Sarah Palin in 2012, the President said, “I don’t think about Sarah Palin.” Perhaps Sarah Palin will lead us out of the smoldering ruins of public life, perhaps not. Former first lady Barbara Bush apparently thinks not.
LARRY KING: What’s your read about Sarah Palin?
BARBARA BUSH: I sat next to her once, thought she was beautiful, and I think she’s very happy in Alaska, and I hope she’ll stay there.
PETERSON: Former first lady Barbara Bush.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I should explain again as I do every week to the viewers as a kind of a viewer's guide that this is the weekly Sarah Palin segment in which the impression is given that the whole of conservatism in America is encapsulated in this one glorious woman?
PETERSON: Why do you oppose her candidacy if she has one?
KRAUTHAMMER: I never took a position on her candidacy. I am making a comment on the editorial judgment of this show in which she is prominently figured week after week, which is I think in the liberal imagination she is and will always be the only representative of conservatism of any importance.
COLBY KING, WASHINGTON POST: She is the most significant Republican, conservative around. She brought this your party back from oblivion to this wonderful state that it is in now...
NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: (Laughter)
KING: ...where the nation’s Democrats are quaking in their wake.
KRAUTHAMMER: You see what I mean?
KING: You ought to be proud of her. The elites, the elitists in the Republican Party puts this poor woman from Wasilla down. I think it’s a shame.
KRAUTHAMMER: Perfect evidence of how liberals are obsessed with Sarah Palin.
Indeed. Taking this further, this media obsession also comprises a compulsion to bash her at every turn.
As I noted Tuesday, this is destined to get far worse as Republicans announce whether or not they're running for president in 2012.
November 27, 2010
10:08
Charles Krauthammer on Friday tore into the liberal media for being obsessed with former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.
After Krauthammer scolded the "editorial judgment" of the producers of PBS's "Inside Washington" for week after week prominently displaying her as the "only representative of conservatism of any importance" in this nation, the Washington Post's Colby King proved his point .
GORDON PETERSON, HOST: In an exclusive interview with Barbara Walters at the White House this week, when asked if he thinks he could beat Sarah Palin in 2012, the President said, “I don’t think about Sarah Palin.” Perhaps Sarah Palin will lead us out of the smoldering ruins of public life, perhaps not. Former first lady Barbara Bush apparently thinks not.
LARRY KING: What’s your read about Sarah Palin?
BARBARA BUSH: I sat next to her once, thought she was beautiful, and I think she’s very happy in Alaska, and I hope she’ll stay there.
PETERSON: Former first lady Barbara Bush.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I should explain again as I do every week to the viewers as a kind of a viewer's guide that this is the weekly Sarah Palin segment in which the impression is given that the whole of conservatism in America is encapsulated in this one glorious woman?
PETERSON: Why do you oppose her candidacy if she has one?
KRAUTHAMMER: I never took a position on her candidacy. I am making a comment on the editorial judgment of this show in which she is prominently figured week after week, which is I think in the liberal imagination she is and will always be the only representative of conservatism of any importance.
COLBY KING, WASHINGTON POST: She is the most significant Republican, conservative around. She brought this your party back from oblivion to this wonderful state that it is in now...
NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: (Laughter)
KING: ...where the nation’s Democrats are quaking in their wake.
KRAUTHAMMER: You see what I mean?
KING: You ought to be proud of her. The elites, the elitists in the Republican Party puts this poor woman from Wasilla down. I think it’s a shame.
KRAUTHAMMER: Perfect evidence of how liberals are obsessed with Sarah Palin.
Indeed. Taking this further, this media obsession also comprises a compulsion to bash her at every turn.
As I noted Tuesday, this is destined to get far worse as Republicans announce whether or not they're running for president in 2012.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Palin fires back against Barbara Bush
Chris Woodward - OneNewsNow - 11/26/2010 4:10:00 AM
Sarah Palin is showing once again that when she is attacked...even by former GOP First Lady Barbara Bush.....she is ready to respond.
When recently asked whether Palin would make a good presidential candidate, Bush told Larry King, "I think she's happy in Alaska, and I hope she stays there."
Palin issued her response Wednesday on The Laura Ingraham Show.
"I don't want to concede that we have to get used to this kind of thing, because I think the majority of Americans don't want to put up with the blue-bloods," she replied. "And I say it with all due respect because I love the Bushes. But the blue bloods...want to pick and choose their winners instead of allowing competition to pick and choose the winners."
Palin, who has not announced whether she plans to run for president in 2012, adds that people do not understand that competition is good and it helps the cause.
Sarah Palin is showing once again that when she is attacked...even by former GOP First Lady Barbara Bush.....she is ready to respond.
When recently asked whether Palin would make a good presidential candidate, Bush told Larry King, "I think she's happy in Alaska, and I hope she stays there."
Palin issued her response Wednesday on The Laura Ingraham Show.
"I don't want to concede that we have to get used to this kind of thing, because I think the majority of Americans don't want to put up with the blue-bloods," she replied. "And I say it with all due respect because I love the Bushes. But the blue bloods...want to pick and choose their winners instead of allowing competition to pick and choose the winners."
Palin, who has not announced whether she plans to run for president in 2012, adds that people do not understand that competition is good and it helps the cause.
The Real Threat to America
Advertise on NYTimes.com
Op-Ed Columnist
By ROGER COHEN
Published: November 25, 2010
Damon Winter/The New York Times
Roger Cohen
LONDON — The full-body scanners and intrusive pat-downs that are fast becoming the norm at U.S. airports — just in time for Thanksgiving! — do at least provide the answer to what should be done with Osama bin Laden if he’s ever captured: Rotate him in perpetuity through this security hell, “groin checks” and all.
He’ll crumple fast and wonder that 19 young guys in four planes could so warp the nervous system of the world’s most powerful nation that it has empowered zealous bureaucrats to trample on the liberties for which Americans give thanks this week.
In his stupor, arms raised as his body gets “imaged,” arms outstretched through “enhanced” patting, bin Laden might also wonder at just how stupid it is to assemble huge crowds at the Transportation Security Administration’s airport checkpoints, as if hundreds of people on planes were the only hundreds of people who make plausible targets for terrorists.
It seems Abdulmutallab, a name T.S.A. agents must now memorize, is to blame. Abdulmutallab is the failed Nigerian “underwear bomber” of last Christmas. He joins the failed shoe bomber and failed shampoo-and-bottled-water bombers in a remarkable success: adding another blanket layer of T.S.A checks, including dubious gropes, to the daily humiliations of travelers.
Whether or not these explosive devices were ever actually operable remains a matter of dispute, just as it remains a mystery that the enemy — if as powerful as portrayed — has not contrived a single terrorist act on U.S. soil since 9/11. What is not in doubt is an old rule: Give a bureaucrat a big stick and a big budget, allow said bureaucrat to trade in the limitless currency of human anxiety, and the masses will soon be intimidated by the Department of Fear.
Lavrenti Beria, Stalin’s notorious secret police chief, once said, “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.” The T.S.A. seems to operate on the basis of an adapted maxim: “Show me the security check and I’ll find you the excuse.”
Anyone who has watched T.S.A. agents spending 10 minutes patting down 80-year-old grandmothers, or seen dismayed youths being ordered back into the scanner booth by agents connected wirelessly to other invisible agents gazing at images of these people in a state of near-nakedness, has to ask: What form of group madness is it that forsakes judgment and discernment for process run amok?
I don’t doubt the patriotism of the Americans involved in keeping the country safe, nor do I discount the threat, but I am sure of this: The unfettered growth of the Department of Homeland Security and the T.S.A. represent a greater long-term threat to the prosperity, character and wellbeing of the United States than a few madmen in the valleys of Waziristan or the voids of Yemen.
America is a nation of openness, boldness and risk-taking. Close this nation, cow it, constrict it and you unravel its magic.
There are now about 400 full-body scanners, set to grow to 1,000 next year. One of the people pushing them most energetically is Michael Chertoff, the former Secretary of Homeland Security.
He’s the co-founder and managing principal of the Chertoff Group, which provides security advice. One of its clients is California-based Rapiscan Systems, part of the OSI Systems corporation, that makes many of the “whole body” scanners being installed.
Chertoff has recently been busy rubbishing Martin Broughton, the wise British Airways chairman who said many security checks were redundant — calling him “ill-informed.” Early this year Chertoff called on Congress to “fund a large-scale deployment of next-generation systems.”
Rapiscan and its adviser the Chertoff Group will certainly profit from the deployment underway (some of the machines were bought with funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act). Americans as a whole will not.
Rapiscan: Say the name slowly. It conjures up a sinister science fiction. When a government has a right to invade the bodies of its citizens, security has trumped freedom.
Intelligence has improved beyond measure since 9/11. It can be used far more effectively at airports. Instead of humiliating everyone, focus on the very small proportion of travelers who might present a threat.
You can’t talk down fear simply by calling terrorists “violent extremists,” or getting rid of the color-coded terrorism alert system, as the Obama administration has done. During the Bosnian war, besieged Sarajevans had a word — “inat” — for the contempt-cum-spite they showed barbarous gunners on the hills by dressing and carrying on as normal. Inat is what Americans should show the jihadist cave-dwellers.
So I give thanks this week for the Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
I give thanks for Benjamin Franklin’s words after the 1787 Constitutional Convention describing the results of its deliberations: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
To keep it, push back against enhanced patting, Chertoff’s naked-screening and the sinister drumbeat of fear.
Op-Ed Columnist
By ROGER COHEN
Published: November 25, 2010
Damon Winter/The New York Times
Roger Cohen
LONDON — The full-body scanners and intrusive pat-downs that are fast becoming the norm at U.S. airports — just in time for Thanksgiving! — do at least provide the answer to what should be done with Osama bin Laden if he’s ever captured: Rotate him in perpetuity through this security hell, “groin checks” and all.
He’ll crumple fast and wonder that 19 young guys in four planes could so warp the nervous system of the world’s most powerful nation that it has empowered zealous bureaucrats to trample on the liberties for which Americans give thanks this week.
In his stupor, arms raised as his body gets “imaged,” arms outstretched through “enhanced” patting, bin Laden might also wonder at just how stupid it is to assemble huge crowds at the Transportation Security Administration’s airport checkpoints, as if hundreds of people on planes were the only hundreds of people who make plausible targets for terrorists.
It seems Abdulmutallab, a name T.S.A. agents must now memorize, is to blame. Abdulmutallab is the failed Nigerian “underwear bomber” of last Christmas. He joins the failed shoe bomber and failed shampoo-and-bottled-water bombers in a remarkable success: adding another blanket layer of T.S.A checks, including dubious gropes, to the daily humiliations of travelers.
Whether or not these explosive devices were ever actually operable remains a matter of dispute, just as it remains a mystery that the enemy — if as powerful as portrayed — has not contrived a single terrorist act on U.S. soil since 9/11. What is not in doubt is an old rule: Give a bureaucrat a big stick and a big budget, allow said bureaucrat to trade in the limitless currency of human anxiety, and the masses will soon be intimidated by the Department of Fear.
Lavrenti Beria, Stalin’s notorious secret police chief, once said, “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.” The T.S.A. seems to operate on the basis of an adapted maxim: “Show me the security check and I’ll find you the excuse.”
Anyone who has watched T.S.A. agents spending 10 minutes patting down 80-year-old grandmothers, or seen dismayed youths being ordered back into the scanner booth by agents connected wirelessly to other invisible agents gazing at images of these people in a state of near-nakedness, has to ask: What form of group madness is it that forsakes judgment and discernment for process run amok?
I don’t doubt the patriotism of the Americans involved in keeping the country safe, nor do I discount the threat, but I am sure of this: The unfettered growth of the Department of Homeland Security and the T.S.A. represent a greater long-term threat to the prosperity, character and wellbeing of the United States than a few madmen in the valleys of Waziristan or the voids of Yemen.
America is a nation of openness, boldness and risk-taking. Close this nation, cow it, constrict it and you unravel its magic.
There are now about 400 full-body scanners, set to grow to 1,000 next year. One of the people pushing them most energetically is Michael Chertoff, the former Secretary of Homeland Security.
He’s the co-founder and managing principal of the Chertoff Group, which provides security advice. One of its clients is California-based Rapiscan Systems, part of the OSI Systems corporation, that makes many of the “whole body” scanners being installed.
Chertoff has recently been busy rubbishing Martin Broughton, the wise British Airways chairman who said many security checks were redundant — calling him “ill-informed.” Early this year Chertoff called on Congress to “fund a large-scale deployment of next-generation systems.”
Rapiscan and its adviser the Chertoff Group will certainly profit from the deployment underway (some of the machines were bought with funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act). Americans as a whole will not.
Rapiscan: Say the name slowly. It conjures up a sinister science fiction. When a government has a right to invade the bodies of its citizens, security has trumped freedom.
Intelligence has improved beyond measure since 9/11. It can be used far more effectively at airports. Instead of humiliating everyone, focus on the very small proportion of travelers who might present a threat.
You can’t talk down fear simply by calling terrorists “violent extremists,” or getting rid of the color-coded terrorism alert system, as the Obama administration has done. During the Bosnian war, besieged Sarajevans had a word — “inat” — for the contempt-cum-spite they showed barbarous gunners on the hills by dressing and carrying on as normal. Inat is what Americans should show the jihadist cave-dwellers.
So I give thanks this week for the Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
I give thanks for Benjamin Franklin’s words after the 1787 Constitutional Convention describing the results of its deliberations: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
To keep it, push back against enhanced patting, Chertoff’s naked-screening and the sinister drumbeat of fear.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamation
THANK YOU : THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION/MORNING BELL
We hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving Holiday yesterday and continue to enjoy spending time with friends and family today. The Heritage Foundation will be posting on The Foundry throughout this Friday so please check back frequently. Till then, do enjoy President Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation below.
.............................................................................................
The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they can not fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God.
In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign states to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere, except in the theater of military conflict, while that theater has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.
Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle, or the ship; the ax has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well as the iron and coal as of our precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battlefield, and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.
No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.
It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.
And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the imposition of the Almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the divine purpose, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and union.
We hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving Holiday yesterday and continue to enjoy spending time with friends and family today. The Heritage Foundation will be posting on The Foundry throughout this Friday so please check back frequently. Till then, do enjoy President Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation below.
.............................................................................................
The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they can not fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God.
In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign states to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere, except in the theater of military conflict, while that theater has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.
Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle, or the ship; the ax has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well as the iron and coal as of our precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battlefield, and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.
No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.
It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.
And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the imposition of the Almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the divine purpose, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and union.
BLOG POST # 100 ! ! !
10 weeks, 1,095 page views, 32 countries + the U.S., Denmark is second only to the U.S. in page views.
Thank You to everyone who has taken the time to read my blog.
Bob Yeager
Thank You to everyone who has taken the time to read my blog.
Bob Yeager
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Thanksgiving Message 2010
Credits for this message go to Alan Keyes @ www.DeclarationAlliance.org
Thanksgiving Message 2010
Let us give thanks to Almighty God on this day of Thanksgiving for our manifold blessings.
And as we do so, let us emulate our nation's two greatest presidents, who bequeathed us this day of national Thanksgiving, in also asking with all humility our Father God's continued blessings and protections for our nation, and His forgiveness for our countless transgressions of His will.
For we know the stinging truth: America's many problems stem above all from 40 years of faithlessness, of failure to live fully, openly and unashamedly in righteousness as we are called to do.
We are assured in our nation's very Founding creed, our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and all our Founding documents, laws and institutions of the natural law philosophy of ordered liberty that is America. This philosophy stands unique in human history as the God-honoring champion of human equality, the defender of unalienable rights of life, liberty and property of every human person.
A paramount obligation of the state, because of the duty owed to the Supreme Judge of the Universe, is our respect for the God-given right to the free establishment and free exercise of decent, God-fearing religion. America's Founding Judeo-Christian religious faith and convictions form the moral and intellectual foundation of the American regime.
Yet with what vigor and boldness have we publicly lived out the very blessings of liberty entrusted to us by our great American experiment in responsible self-government under God?
We, as God's people, still allow our politicians, courts and bureaucrats to keep taking step after step to erode our God-ordained freedom, outlaw public expression or evidence of our faith, and to deny the spiritual foundations of our great nation! The banning of God from our national common life -- from our courthouses, our public schools, our military -- proceeds apace. Legal protections and religious & moral equivalence are accorded to murderous cults and depraved practices that are the antithesis of the true sanctity owed to God.
For God to bless America, as our troubled society so desperately needs Him to do, outspoken leadership from the humblest to the loftiest levels must call our nation to action. And there is no better high ground on which to make our stand than to seek an end to the reigning tyranny in Washington that mocks God and continually subverts our troubled society. To put a halt to these usurpations requires us to pray, and to act with courage -- and to insist that our public officials, from our City Councils to the Oval Office, and our Congress, halt the government's encroachments upon our free exercise of our Judeo-Christian faith.
As we enjoy this day of Thanksgiving with family and friends, let us pray for strength and fortitude to openly defend God's authority over the sovereignty of the American people -- a power of self-governance and self-mastery entrusted us in our human equality by God the Father. Let us pray to no longer suffer from a lack of clarity and forthrightness about how America must address crucial issues of justice, moral law, national security and the requirements of constitutional order.
For America's sake, let us today commit to step beyond the weak conventions of professing only "private" faith and summon the courage each of us to be a strong advocate of national, public obedience to the authority of our Creator God and His moral law.
Let us remember that far too many of our fellow countrymen now accept the false doctrine of absolute "separation of church and state," as if embarrassed to bear witness to the faith of our fathers.
History teaches us this truth: nations follow the moral example of their leadership. So let us re-read the wise and humble words of our great leaders, Presidents Washington and Lincoln, who knew that "those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord."
And then let us resolve to act decisively in our own communities, to live our faith. For only by honoring God and his Supreme Authority in the affairs of men may we return America's constitutional order to its necessary equilibrium of sovereignty of a Godly people, limited power among our branches of government, sound ethics to public service -- and at least in this faithfulness, become again a nation and a people remotely worthy of receiving the Gift of God's unfathomable Grace.
Thanksgiving Message 2010
Let us give thanks to Almighty God on this day of Thanksgiving for our manifold blessings.
And as we do so, let us emulate our nation's two greatest presidents, who bequeathed us this day of national Thanksgiving, in also asking with all humility our Father God's continued blessings and protections for our nation, and His forgiveness for our countless transgressions of His will.
For we know the stinging truth: America's many problems stem above all from 40 years of faithlessness, of failure to live fully, openly and unashamedly in righteousness as we are called to do.
We are assured in our nation's very Founding creed, our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and all our Founding documents, laws and institutions of the natural law philosophy of ordered liberty that is America. This philosophy stands unique in human history as the God-honoring champion of human equality, the defender of unalienable rights of life, liberty and property of every human person.
A paramount obligation of the state, because of the duty owed to the Supreme Judge of the Universe, is our respect for the God-given right to the free establishment and free exercise of decent, God-fearing religion. America's Founding Judeo-Christian religious faith and convictions form the moral and intellectual foundation of the American regime.
Yet with what vigor and boldness have we publicly lived out the very blessings of liberty entrusted to us by our great American experiment in responsible self-government under God?
We, as God's people, still allow our politicians, courts and bureaucrats to keep taking step after step to erode our God-ordained freedom, outlaw public expression or evidence of our faith, and to deny the spiritual foundations of our great nation! The banning of God from our national common life -- from our courthouses, our public schools, our military -- proceeds apace. Legal protections and religious & moral equivalence are accorded to murderous cults and depraved practices that are the antithesis of the true sanctity owed to God.
For God to bless America, as our troubled society so desperately needs Him to do, outspoken leadership from the humblest to the loftiest levels must call our nation to action. And there is no better high ground on which to make our stand than to seek an end to the reigning tyranny in Washington that mocks God and continually subverts our troubled society. To put a halt to these usurpations requires us to pray, and to act with courage -- and to insist that our public officials, from our City Councils to the Oval Office, and our Congress, halt the government's encroachments upon our free exercise of our Judeo-Christian faith.
As we enjoy this day of Thanksgiving with family and friends, let us pray for strength and fortitude to openly defend God's authority over the sovereignty of the American people -- a power of self-governance and self-mastery entrusted us in our human equality by God the Father. Let us pray to no longer suffer from a lack of clarity and forthrightness about how America must address crucial issues of justice, moral law, national security and the requirements of constitutional order.
For America's sake, let us today commit to step beyond the weak conventions of professing only "private" faith and summon the courage each of us to be a strong advocate of national, public obedience to the authority of our Creator God and His moral law.
Let us remember that far too many of our fellow countrymen now accept the false doctrine of absolute "separation of church and state," as if embarrassed to bear witness to the faith of our fathers.
History teaches us this truth: nations follow the moral example of their leadership. So let us re-read the wise and humble words of our great leaders, Presidents Washington and Lincoln, who knew that "those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord."
And then let us resolve to act decisively in our own communities, to live our faith. For only by honoring God and his Supreme Authority in the affairs of men may we return America's constitutional order to its necessary equilibrium of sovereignty of a Godly people, limited power among our branches of government, sound ethics to public service -- and at least in this faithfulness, become again a nation and a people remotely worthy of receiving the Gift of God's unfathomable Grace.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
BORN IN THE USA? PART II : U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility,Is president a 'natural-born citizen' as Constitution requires?
Posted: November 23, 2010
9:45 pm Eastern
By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?
The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."
If the Supreme Court decides to grant the "writ of certiorari," it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court's decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.
If any court hears the merits of the case, Apuzzo says it will mark the "death knell" for Obama's legitimacy.
"Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a natural-born citizen so it's a death knell to his legitimacy. What happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is something else," Apuzzo told WND.
Mario Apuzzo
Apuzzo observed it is "undisputed fact" that Obama's father was a British subject.
A hearing on the merits "is also a death knell because it would allow discovery so we would be able to ask him for his birth certificate, and we don't know what that would show," according to Apuzzo. "We might not even get to the question of defining 'natural-born citizen.' If he was not born in the U.S., he'd be undocumented, because he's never been naturalized. We don't even know what his citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his records, but that's hearsay. We have not seen the root documents."
Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama's presidency.
"If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office," Berg told WND. "We would ask for a lift of Obama's ban on all of his documents. The last official report said Obama has spent $1.6 million in legal fees [keeping his papers secret], and the total is probably over $2 million now. You don't spend that kind of money unless there's something to hide, and I believe the reason he's hiding this is because he was not born in the United States."
"The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an eligibility case," Berg added. "If the Supreme Court would decide to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office."
"They're taking a different approach, arguing that both parents must be citizens," Berg noted.
Apuzzo is arguing the "Vattel theory," which asserts that the term "natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined by French writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, "The Law of Nations," was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.
According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term "natural-born citizen" has never been altered.
"The courts and Congress have never changed the definition," said Apuzzo. "The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him."
Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel's definition of "natural-born citizen" in "dicta," or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1814 "Venus" case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel's definition.
Apuzzo also cites the writings of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel.
Previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility have all been rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have decided that the plaintiffs do not have "standing" to bring a suit against Obama because they have failed to prove they are directly injured by his occupation of the Oval Office.
"To me that's false," said Berg. "The 10th Amendment refers to 'we the people.' If the people can't challenge the president's constitutionality, that would be ridiculous."
"My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president," said Apuzzo. "Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients."
Apuzzo said the founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen.
"They were making sure the President had the values from being reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would preserve everybody's life, liberty and property in the process.
"They made that decision, so my clients have every right to expect the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your basic rights, every right that is inalienable. The president has to be a natural-born citizen."
9:45 pm Eastern
By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?
The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."
If the Supreme Court decides to grant the "writ of certiorari," it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court's decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.
If any court hears the merits of the case, Apuzzo says it will mark the "death knell" for Obama's legitimacy.
"Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a natural-born citizen so it's a death knell to his legitimacy. What happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is something else," Apuzzo told WND.
Mario Apuzzo
Apuzzo observed it is "undisputed fact" that Obama's father was a British subject.
A hearing on the merits "is also a death knell because it would allow discovery so we would be able to ask him for his birth certificate, and we don't know what that would show," according to Apuzzo. "We might not even get to the question of defining 'natural-born citizen.' If he was not born in the U.S., he'd be undocumented, because he's never been naturalized. We don't even know what his citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his records, but that's hearsay. We have not seen the root documents."
Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama's presidency.
"If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office," Berg told WND. "We would ask for a lift of Obama's ban on all of his documents. The last official report said Obama has spent $1.6 million in legal fees [keeping his papers secret], and the total is probably over $2 million now. You don't spend that kind of money unless there's something to hide, and I believe the reason he's hiding this is because he was not born in the United States."
"The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an eligibility case," Berg added. "If the Supreme Court would decide to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office."
"They're taking a different approach, arguing that both parents must be citizens," Berg noted.
Apuzzo is arguing the "Vattel theory," which asserts that the term "natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined by French writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, "The Law of Nations," was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.
According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term "natural-born citizen" has never been altered.
"The courts and Congress have never changed the definition," said Apuzzo. "The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him."
Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel's definition of "natural-born citizen" in "dicta," or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1814 "Venus" case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel's definition.
Apuzzo also cites the writings of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel.
Previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility have all been rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have decided that the plaintiffs do not have "standing" to bring a suit against Obama because they have failed to prove they are directly injured by his occupation of the Oval Office.
"To me that's false," said Berg. "The 10th Amendment refers to 'we the people.' If the people can't challenge the president's constitutionality, that would be ridiculous."
"My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president," said Apuzzo. "Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients."
Apuzzo said the founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen.
"They were making sure the President had the values from being reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would preserve everybody's life, liberty and property in the process.
"They made that decision, so my clients have every right to expect the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your basic rights, every right that is inalienable. The president has to be a natural-born citizen."
Spreadin' the glove: TSA infecting U.S.?Latex coverings 'have been in crotches, armpits, touching people who may be ill'
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINES Posted: November 22, 2010
11:04 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Those latex gloves Transportation Security Administration agents wear while giving airline passengers those infamous full-body pat-downs apparently aren't there for the safety and security of passengers – only the TSA agents.
That's the word being discussed on dozens of online forums and postings after it was noted that the agents wear the same gloves to pat down dozens, perhaps hundreds, of passengers, not changing them even though the Centers for Disease Control in its online writings has emphasized the important of clean hands to prevent the exchange of loathsome afflictions.
"Herpes via latex glove ... ewwww," wrote one participant on the independence-minded AR15 website forum.
Responding to the question, "Does the TSA change latex gloves after each sexual assault?" another wrote on the same forum, "I seriously doubt it. Gloves are for their protection, not yours."
Join tens of thousands of Americans in a petition demanding action against the intrusive airport screening procedures implemented by Janet Napolitano and send a letter to Congress, President Obama and others telling them exactly what you think about the issue.
In fact, TSA officials in both national and regional offices declined to respond to WND inquiries about the policy for changing gloves to prevent an infection that may be on the clothes or body of one passenger during a pat-down by TSA agents from being transmitted to other passengers, including children, in line.
Martha Donahue in a commentary at Resistnet said she'd spent 30 years in the medical industry.
"For those of you who fly and opt for the 'pat down,' you need to demand the TSA thugs change their gloves. I've been watching on the news how they operate. People are being searched [with] dirty gloves ... gloves that have been in crotches, armpits, touching people who may be ill, people who pick their noses. Do you want those gloves touching you?
"These thugs are protecting themselves from you. You need to be protected from them," she wrote. "In a hospital, nursing home, in-home care, or even labs, that would never even be considered an option."
ABC reported one of its news employees documented how a TSA worker reached inside her underwear.
"The woman who checked me reached her hands inside my underwear and felt her way around," the ABC employee said in the network's report. "It was basically worse than going to the gynecologist. It was embarrassing. It was demeaning. It was inappropriate."
Asked today about the possibility of contamination being spread from one passenger to another on the gloves of TSA agents, a spokesman for the CDC bailed.
"Please contact the Dept of Homeland Security and/or TSA on this issue," the spokesman told WND.
But in its online writings, the CDC repeatedly makes clear the importance of maintaining clean hands to avoid such transmission of communicable and contagious afflictions.
Dr. Julie Gerberding, at the time the chief of the CDC, said during a special presentation on hand cleanliness, "We know that hand hygiene is a critical component of safe and healthy health care."
At the same time, Dr. John Boyce, lead author of the organization's hand-washing guidelines and the chairman of the Hand Hygiene Task Force, said, "There's a large study that was conducted at the University of Geneva Hospital in Switzerland where they demonstrated significant improvement in the adherence of health care workers to hand hygiene practices and they also showed that the incidence of antibiotic resistance to staph infections went down and that the overall prevalence of health care-acquired infections went down ... ."
Suggested Gerberding in the context of health care, "Hand hygiene saves lives. We're recommending a comprehensive evidence-based approach in hospitals that consists of handwashing with soap and water when the goal is to remove unsightly debris; hand alcohol preps for enhancing appearance and reducing bacterial counts; and gloving when people have contact with blood or other body fluids in accordance with universal precautions."
She said even in a "community setting," "washing with soap and water remains a very sensible strategy for hand hygiene."
Other health standards across the country routinely warn against hand contact with sores, lesions or other sources of viruses or contamination. The Lincoln, Neb., health site notes, "This includes hand contact."
Officials at the Canadian Center for Occupational Health noted that "hand washing is the single most effective way to prevent the spread of infections.
"You can spread certain 'germs' (a general term for microbes like viruses and bacteria) casually by touching another person. You can also catch germs when you touch contaminated objects or surfaces and then you touch your face (mouth, eyes, and nose)," it said.
In a forum on The Hill, writer Carol Felsenthal said agents should, simply in the course of their work, change gloves between passengers.
"Anyone who has visited a fast food joint, a doctor's office or a hospital has watched as workers change gloves between servings or exams. And if they don't, the customer/patient would surely say something," she wrote. "How often do the TSA agents doing the 'enhanced pat-downs' change gloves?"
She wrote that she was wondering "about the possibility of screeners passing everything from bedbugs to skin infections from one passenger to another."
She continued, "Latex glove issues might seem minor, but there ought to be procedures to require TSA screeners to don fresh gloves each time they encounter a new passenger."
On a TSA blog promoting the agency's actions and policies, one screener explained, "Changing gloves is fairly simple ... . When I gate screen I carry about 10-12 pairs in my pockets."
Respondents to the comment were outraged, "That's just plain disgusting and most certainly not acceptable ... procedures as set forth by the CDC for usage of gloves for protection," said one. "Reasoning being is that the bacteria count in your pockets is about the same is your mouth or armpit."
Wrote another forum participant, "Those gloves are soiled if they come out of your pockets and before handling my stuff you will be expected to obtain a clean, from the original container, pair. ... Who knows what filth inhabits your pockets!"
Officials at the city-owned Denver International Airport, some 20 miles northeast of downtown, said they had no participation in making any health policy regarding the gloves used by TSA screeners on Denver passengers, and, in fact, did not know if there was a policy.
On the Above Top Secret blog, the author was trying to provide a public service.
"Those gloves are worn for the protection of the agent," wrote the commentator. "You must request that they change the gloves in your presence or you risk acquiring venereal disease resulting from a fondle/molest search."
11:04 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Those latex gloves Transportation Security Administration agents wear while giving airline passengers those infamous full-body pat-downs apparently aren't there for the safety and security of passengers – only the TSA agents.
That's the word being discussed on dozens of online forums and postings after it was noted that the agents wear the same gloves to pat down dozens, perhaps hundreds, of passengers, not changing them even though the Centers for Disease Control in its online writings has emphasized the important of clean hands to prevent the exchange of loathsome afflictions.
"Herpes via latex glove ... ewwww," wrote one participant on the independence-minded AR15 website forum.
Responding to the question, "Does the TSA change latex gloves after each sexual assault?" another wrote on the same forum, "I seriously doubt it. Gloves are for their protection, not yours."
Join tens of thousands of Americans in a petition demanding action against the intrusive airport screening procedures implemented by Janet Napolitano and send a letter to Congress, President Obama and others telling them exactly what you think about the issue.
In fact, TSA officials in both national and regional offices declined to respond to WND inquiries about the policy for changing gloves to prevent an infection that may be on the clothes or body of one passenger during a pat-down by TSA agents from being transmitted to other passengers, including children, in line.
Martha Donahue in a commentary at Resistnet said she'd spent 30 years in the medical industry.
"For those of you who fly and opt for the 'pat down,' you need to demand the TSA thugs change their gloves. I've been watching on the news how they operate. People are being searched [with] dirty gloves ... gloves that have been in crotches, armpits, touching people who may be ill, people who pick their noses. Do you want those gloves touching you?
"These thugs are protecting themselves from you. You need to be protected from them," she wrote. "In a hospital, nursing home, in-home care, or even labs, that would never even be considered an option."
ABC reported one of its news employees documented how a TSA worker reached inside her underwear.
"The woman who checked me reached her hands inside my underwear and felt her way around," the ABC employee said in the network's report. "It was basically worse than going to the gynecologist. It was embarrassing. It was demeaning. It was inappropriate."
Asked today about the possibility of contamination being spread from one passenger to another on the gloves of TSA agents, a spokesman for the CDC bailed.
"Please contact the Dept of Homeland Security and/or TSA on this issue," the spokesman told WND.
But in its online writings, the CDC repeatedly makes clear the importance of maintaining clean hands to avoid such transmission of communicable and contagious afflictions.
Dr. Julie Gerberding, at the time the chief of the CDC, said during a special presentation on hand cleanliness, "We know that hand hygiene is a critical component of safe and healthy health care."
At the same time, Dr. John Boyce, lead author of the organization's hand-washing guidelines and the chairman of the Hand Hygiene Task Force, said, "There's a large study that was conducted at the University of Geneva Hospital in Switzerland where they demonstrated significant improvement in the adherence of health care workers to hand hygiene practices and they also showed that the incidence of antibiotic resistance to staph infections went down and that the overall prevalence of health care-acquired infections went down ... ."
Suggested Gerberding in the context of health care, "Hand hygiene saves lives. We're recommending a comprehensive evidence-based approach in hospitals that consists of handwashing with soap and water when the goal is to remove unsightly debris; hand alcohol preps for enhancing appearance and reducing bacterial counts; and gloving when people have contact with blood or other body fluids in accordance with universal precautions."
She said even in a "community setting," "washing with soap and water remains a very sensible strategy for hand hygiene."
Other health standards across the country routinely warn against hand contact with sores, lesions or other sources of viruses or contamination. The Lincoln, Neb., health site notes, "This includes hand contact."
Officials at the Canadian Center for Occupational Health noted that "hand washing is the single most effective way to prevent the spread of infections.
"You can spread certain 'germs' (a general term for microbes like viruses and bacteria) casually by touching another person. You can also catch germs when you touch contaminated objects or surfaces and then you touch your face (mouth, eyes, and nose)," it said.
In a forum on The Hill, writer Carol Felsenthal said agents should, simply in the course of their work, change gloves between passengers.
"Anyone who has visited a fast food joint, a doctor's office or a hospital has watched as workers change gloves between servings or exams. And if they don't, the customer/patient would surely say something," she wrote. "How often do the TSA agents doing the 'enhanced pat-downs' change gloves?"
She wrote that she was wondering "about the possibility of screeners passing everything from bedbugs to skin infections from one passenger to another."
She continued, "Latex glove issues might seem minor, but there ought to be procedures to require TSA screeners to don fresh gloves each time they encounter a new passenger."
On a TSA blog promoting the agency's actions and policies, one screener explained, "Changing gloves is fairly simple ... . When I gate screen I carry about 10-12 pairs in my pockets."
Respondents to the comment were outraged, "That's just plain disgusting and most certainly not acceptable ... procedures as set forth by the CDC for usage of gloves for protection," said one. "Reasoning being is that the bacteria count in your pockets is about the same is your mouth or armpit."
Wrote another forum participant, "Those gloves are soiled if they come out of your pockets and before handling my stuff you will be expected to obtain a clean, from the original container, pair. ... Who knows what filth inhabits your pockets!"
Officials at the city-owned Denver International Airport, some 20 miles northeast of downtown, said they had no participation in making any health policy regarding the gloves used by TSA screeners on Denver passengers, and, in fact, did not know if there was a policy.
On the Above Top Secret blog, the author was trying to provide a public service.
"Those gloves are worn for the protection of the agent," wrote the commentator. "You must request that they change the gloves in your presence or you risk acquiring venereal disease resulting from a fondle/molest search."
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Illegal Immigrants With Fake Social Securities Get Tax Refunds
POSTED BY THE CORRUPTION CHRONICLES
Fri, 11/19/2010 - 4:47pm
An advocacy group partially funded by the U.S. government is helping illegal immigrants who work with fake Social Security numbers recover unclaimed income tax refunds.
The New York nonprofit, Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, has so far helped a dozen illegal aliens get back thousands of dollars in state tax refunds, according to a local newspaper report. In some cases the undocumented aliens use bogus Social Security numbers, which is a serious federal offense.
In most instances the illegal immigrants filed taxes using a special identification number that rarely receives scrutiny from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and allows workers to get federal refunds. However, New York’s tax agency flags employees who provide mismatched information like a Social Security that doesn’t correlate with a name and doesn’t mail refunds to those candidates.
Thanks to the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, which receives money from city, state and federal government sources, those lawbreakers are getting refunds. After all, the group aims to promote financial justice in New York’s low-income communities and in communities of color. It also strives to eliminate discriminatory economic practices that harm communities and perpetuate inequality and poverty.
What about the injustice in stealing someone’s identity? The group’s associate director claims it’s a harmless crime because most illegal immigrants use Social Security numbers that are made up and not stolen from a real person. Either way, the immigrant advocate reminds that labor laws protect all workers, even the undocumented.
Fri, 11/19/2010 - 4:47pm
An advocacy group partially funded by the U.S. government is helping illegal immigrants who work with fake Social Security numbers recover unclaimed income tax refunds.
The New York nonprofit, Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, has so far helped a dozen illegal aliens get back thousands of dollars in state tax refunds, according to a local newspaper report. In some cases the undocumented aliens use bogus Social Security numbers, which is a serious federal offense.
In most instances the illegal immigrants filed taxes using a special identification number that rarely receives scrutiny from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and allows workers to get federal refunds. However, New York’s tax agency flags employees who provide mismatched information like a Social Security that doesn’t correlate with a name and doesn’t mail refunds to those candidates.
Thanks to the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, which receives money from city, state and federal government sources, those lawbreakers are getting refunds. After all, the group aims to promote financial justice in New York’s low-income communities and in communities of color. It also strives to eliminate discriminatory economic practices that harm communities and perpetuate inequality and poverty.
What about the injustice in stealing someone’s identity? The group’s associate director claims it’s a harmless crime because most illegal immigrants use Social Security numbers that are made up and not stolen from a real person. Either way, the immigrant advocate reminds that labor laws protect all workers, even the undocumented.
Monday, November 22, 2010
The U.S. Police State Outrages Continue: Why is the TSA strip searching little boys?
Posted by Red State
Sunday, November 21st at 12:30AM EST
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…
You may have heard about Janet Napolitano’s blue shirts forcing a cancer-surviving flight attendant to remove her prosthetic breast, or the woman whose pants the TSA’s hand went down:
“I was shaking and crying when I left that room” Moroney says. “Under any other circumstance, if a person touched me like that without my permission, it would be considered criminal sexual assault.”
You may have also heard about the woman who was singled out because she was wearing a skirt:
“The female officer ran her hand up the inside of my leg to my groin and she did it so hard and so rough she lifted me off my heels,” she says. “I think I yelped. I was in pain for about an hour afterwards. It just felt excessive and unnecessary.”
You may have also heard about the cancer survivor who, due to an “enhanced” TSA pat-down breaking the seal on his urastomy bag, was left humiliated, in tears, and covered in his own urine.
Now, meet a little boy who was randomly selected for an “enhanced” screening by The Sexual Assaulters the TSA.
According to the person who posted this video, the child apparently was uncomfortable with having strangers pat him down. [Who could blame him?]
Lets get the facts straight first. Before the video started the boy went through a metal detector and didn’t set it off but was selected for a pat down. The boy was shy so the TSA couldn’t complete the full pat on the young boy. The father tried several times to just hold the boys arms out for the TSA agent but i guess it didn’t end up being enough for the guy. I was about 30 ft away so i couldn’t hear their conversation if there was any. The enraged father pulled his son shirt off and gave it to the TSA agent to search, thats when this video begins.
So, sexual assault, humiliation, and pedophilia are preferable to Janet Napolitano, John Pistole, and Barack Obama, than having the courage to profile actual would-be terrorists?
Is this just one more way they’re “transforming” America?
Once again…
Number of TSA Agents: 67,000
TSA’s FY 2010 budget: $7.8 billion
Number of terrorists caught by TSA: ZERO.
“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776
Sunday, November 21st at 12:30AM EST
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…
You may have heard about Janet Napolitano’s blue shirts forcing a cancer-surviving flight attendant to remove her prosthetic breast, or the woman whose pants the TSA’s hand went down:
“I was shaking and crying when I left that room” Moroney says. “Under any other circumstance, if a person touched me like that without my permission, it would be considered criminal sexual assault.”
You may have also heard about the woman who was singled out because she was wearing a skirt:
“The female officer ran her hand up the inside of my leg to my groin and she did it so hard and so rough she lifted me off my heels,” she says. “I think I yelped. I was in pain for about an hour afterwards. It just felt excessive and unnecessary.”
You may have also heard about the cancer survivor who, due to an “enhanced” TSA pat-down breaking the seal on his urastomy bag, was left humiliated, in tears, and covered in his own urine.
Now, meet a little boy who was randomly selected for an “enhanced” screening by The Sexual Assaulters the TSA.
According to the person who posted this video, the child apparently was uncomfortable with having strangers pat him down. [Who could blame him?]
Lets get the facts straight first. Before the video started the boy went through a metal detector and didn’t set it off but was selected for a pat down. The boy was shy so the TSA couldn’t complete the full pat on the young boy. The father tried several times to just hold the boys arms out for the TSA agent but i guess it didn’t end up being enough for the guy. I was about 30 ft away so i couldn’t hear their conversation if there was any. The enraged father pulled his son shirt off and gave it to the TSA agent to search, thats when this video begins.
So, sexual assault, humiliation, and pedophilia are preferable to Janet Napolitano, John Pistole, and Barack Obama, than having the courage to profile actual would-be terrorists?
Is this just one more way they’re “transforming” America?
Once again…
Number of TSA Agents: 67,000
TSA’s FY 2010 budget: $7.8 billion
Number of terrorists caught by TSA: ZERO.
“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Soros group maps out Obama strategy for next 2 years
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Posted: November 18, 2010
12:30 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A George Soros-funded think tank with deep ties to the White House has written a roadmap for President Obama to bypass the new Republican Congress and rule for the next two via executive order.
The plan calls for Obama to push a "progressive agenda" on issues of health care, economy, environment, education, federal government and foreign policy.
John Podesta, president of the Center for American Progress, wrote, "the U.S. Constitution and the laws of our nation grant the president significant authority to make and implement policy," including in executive orders, diplomacy, rulemaking and commanding the armed forces.
"The ability of President Obama to accomplish important change through these powers should not be underestimated," he wrote.
Podesta was commenting in introductory remarks to his center's 54-page treatise entitled, "The Power of the President: Recommendations to Advance Progressive Change."
The center reportedly was founded in 2003 with seed money from Soros, who also donated $3 million to the center's sister, the Project Action Fund. Its mission states the group is "dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action."
Podesta, a former chief of staff to Bill Clinton, was co-chairman of the Obama-Biden Transition Project. A Time magazine article profiles the influence of Podesta's Center for American Progress in the formation of the Obama administration, stating that "not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan's transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway."
A summary of the center's map for Obama's next two years is listed on the group's website. The center states it is offering "just some of the many possible actions the administration can take using existing authority to move the country forward."
On energy, the center recommends Obama use executive power to:
Reduce oil imports and make progress toward energy independence.
Progress toward reducing greenhouse gas pollution by 17 percent by 2020.
Conserve federal lands for future generations.
Manage public lands to support a balanced energy strategy.
Convene and engage hunters and anglers in the development of a fish and wildlife climate adaptation plan.
Generate solar energy on U.S. Air Force hangar roofs.
On the domestic economic policy front, the center writes that Obama should:
Direct an assessment, strategy, and new policy development to promote U.S. competitiveness.
Launch the new consumer financial protection bureau with an aggressive agenda to protect and empower consumers.
Increase the capacity of small businesses to expand hiring and purchases by accelerating the implementation of the Small Business Jobs Act.
Promote automatic mediation to avoid foreclosure where possible and speed resolution.
Create a web portal to empower housing counselors, reduce burdens on lenders, and speed up home mortgage modifications.
Help stabilize home values and communities by turning "shadow REO" housing inventory into "scattered site" rental housing.
Promote practices that support working families.
On the domestic policy front, the center urges Obama to:
Partner with the private sector in health care payment reform.
Focus on health care prevention in implementing the Affordable Care Act.
Streamline and simplify access to federal antipoverty programs.
Replace costly, inhumane immigration detention policies with equally effective measures.
In the education policy arena, the president can:
Launch an "educational productivity" initiative to help school districts spend every dollar wisely to best prepare our children for the 21st century.
Ensure students can compare financial aid offers from different postsecondary institutions.
Improve the quality, standards, and productivity of postsecondary education.
In "improving the performance of the federal government," the center says the president should:
Scrutinize federal spending programs and tax expenditures to achieve greater returns on public investment.
Build the next-generation Recovery.gov website to track all public expenditures and performance in real time.
Use new information technology for faster, more transparent freedom of information.
\Create a virtual U.S. statistical agency.
Collect data on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans in federal data surveys.
And in the foreign policy and national security arena, the president and his administration should:
Rebalance our Afghanistan strategy with greater emphasis on political and diplomatic progress.
Promote domestic revenue generation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Appoint a special envoy for the Horn of Africa and the southwest Arabian Peninsula region.
Appoint a special commission to assess contracting practices in national security and foreign affairs.
Use executive branch authority to mitigate the impact of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy if Congress does not repeal it.
Redouble support for Palestinian state- and institution-building efforts.
Pursue dual-track policy on Iran while sharpening focus on Iranian human rights issues.
Reinvigorate the U.S.-Turkey strategic alliance. Develop a comprehensive policy on the Russia-Georgia conflict.
WND reported previously when the Institute for Policy Studies, a Marxist-oriented think-tank in Washington, and also funded by Soros, made a similar suggestion.
"Progressives won in the 2010 mid-term elections," wrote Karen Dolan, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, or IPS, and director of the Cities for Progress and Cities for Peace projects based at the radical organization.
"The Congressional Progressive Caucus, the largest caucus in the House Democratic Caucus at over 80 members, emerged virtually unscathed, losing only three members," she wrote, in the piece published on the IPS website.
Dolan declared that "our work is now finally beginning."
"The veil of a happy Democratic governing majority is finally lifted. We didn't have it then; We don't have it now. But what we do have now is a more solidly progressive bunch of Dems in Congress and a president presumably less encumbered by the false illusion that playing nice will get him a date with the other team."
She went on to recommend that progressives "throw our support unabashedly behind the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and let's push Obama to finally do the right thing through as many Executive Orders as we can present to him."
With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott
Posted: November 18, 2010
12:30 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A George Soros-funded think tank with deep ties to the White House has written a roadmap for President Obama to bypass the new Republican Congress and rule for the next two via executive order.
The plan calls for Obama to push a "progressive agenda" on issues of health care, economy, environment, education, federal government and foreign policy.
John Podesta, president of the Center for American Progress, wrote, "the U.S. Constitution and the laws of our nation grant the president significant authority to make and implement policy," including in executive orders, diplomacy, rulemaking and commanding the armed forces.
"The ability of President Obama to accomplish important change through these powers should not be underestimated," he wrote.
Podesta was commenting in introductory remarks to his center's 54-page treatise entitled, "The Power of the President: Recommendations to Advance Progressive Change."
The center reportedly was founded in 2003 with seed money from Soros, who also donated $3 million to the center's sister, the Project Action Fund. Its mission states the group is "dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action."
Podesta, a former chief of staff to Bill Clinton, was co-chairman of the Obama-Biden Transition Project. A Time magazine article profiles the influence of Podesta's Center for American Progress in the formation of the Obama administration, stating that "not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan's transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway."
A summary of the center's map for Obama's next two years is listed on the group's website. The center states it is offering "just some of the many possible actions the administration can take using existing authority to move the country forward."
On energy, the center recommends Obama use executive power to:
Reduce oil imports and make progress toward energy independence.
Progress toward reducing greenhouse gas pollution by 17 percent by 2020.
Conserve federal lands for future generations.
Manage public lands to support a balanced energy strategy.
Convene and engage hunters and anglers in the development of a fish and wildlife climate adaptation plan.
Generate solar energy on U.S. Air Force hangar roofs.
On the domestic economic policy front, the center writes that Obama should:
Direct an assessment, strategy, and new policy development to promote U.S. competitiveness.
Launch the new consumer financial protection bureau with an aggressive agenda to protect and empower consumers.
Increase the capacity of small businesses to expand hiring and purchases by accelerating the implementation of the Small Business Jobs Act.
Promote automatic mediation to avoid foreclosure where possible and speed resolution.
Create a web portal to empower housing counselors, reduce burdens on lenders, and speed up home mortgage modifications.
Help stabilize home values and communities by turning "shadow REO" housing inventory into "scattered site" rental housing.
Promote practices that support working families.
On the domestic policy front, the center urges Obama to:
Partner with the private sector in health care payment reform.
Focus on health care prevention in implementing the Affordable Care Act.
Streamline and simplify access to federal antipoverty programs.
Replace costly, inhumane immigration detention policies with equally effective measures.
In the education policy arena, the president can:
Launch an "educational productivity" initiative to help school districts spend every dollar wisely to best prepare our children for the 21st century.
Ensure students can compare financial aid offers from different postsecondary institutions.
Improve the quality, standards, and productivity of postsecondary education.
In "improving the performance of the federal government," the center says the president should:
Scrutinize federal spending programs and tax expenditures to achieve greater returns on public investment.
Build the next-generation Recovery.gov website to track all public expenditures and performance in real time.
Use new information technology for faster, more transparent freedom of information.
\Create a virtual U.S. statistical agency.
Collect data on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans in federal data surveys.
And in the foreign policy and national security arena, the president and his administration should:
Rebalance our Afghanistan strategy with greater emphasis on political and diplomatic progress.
Promote domestic revenue generation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Appoint a special envoy for the Horn of Africa and the southwest Arabian Peninsula region.
Appoint a special commission to assess contracting practices in national security and foreign affairs.
Use executive branch authority to mitigate the impact of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy if Congress does not repeal it.
Redouble support for Palestinian state- and institution-building efforts.
Pursue dual-track policy on Iran while sharpening focus on Iranian human rights issues.
Reinvigorate the U.S.-Turkey strategic alliance. Develop a comprehensive policy on the Russia-Georgia conflict.
WND reported previously when the Institute for Policy Studies, a Marxist-oriented think-tank in Washington, and also funded by Soros, made a similar suggestion.
"Progressives won in the 2010 mid-term elections," wrote Karen Dolan, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, or IPS, and director of the Cities for Progress and Cities for Peace projects based at the radical organization.
"The Congressional Progressive Caucus, the largest caucus in the House Democratic Caucus at over 80 members, emerged virtually unscathed, losing only three members," she wrote, in the piece published on the IPS website.
Dolan declared that "our work is now finally beginning."
"The veil of a happy Democratic governing majority is finally lifted. We didn't have it then; We don't have it now. But what we do have now is a more solidly progressive bunch of Dems in Congress and a president presumably less encumbered by the false illusion that playing nice will get him a date with the other team."
She went on to recommend that progressives "throw our support unabashedly behind the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and let's push Obama to finally do the right thing through as many Executive Orders as we can present to him."
With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott
Unveiled: Constitution for New Socialist North America
Unveiled: Constitution for New Socialist North America
Party calls for resistance to 'capitalist-imperialist system'
Posted: November 16, 2010
9:39 pm Eastern
By Fergus Hodgson
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
NEW ORLEANS, La. – The Revolutionary Communist Party USA has announced a "Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America," and members say they are planning for a "revolution" against capitalism, with violence if necessary.
The "present capitalist-imperialist system" should be replaced with a "radically new economic system," they say.
Carl Dix, a founding member and spokesman, believes that the federal government bailouts, under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, are just one instance where they propped up what he calls the "capitalist class." His party is "building a revolution" and under the proposed constitution all "natural resources [would] be collectively owned," with the goal of a "classless, communist world," he said.
"We have to move to a point where people can work in common for the common good and get back what they need to live a life worthy of human beings. … The competitiveness and the looking out for No. 1 that's promoted in this society – that kind of thinking has to be broken," he said after the "constitution" was announced this week.
The RCP, founded in 1975 with roots in the New Left of the 1960s and 1970s era, has active chapters in at least 15 population centers and publishes "Revolution," a biweekly newspaper and website. RCP leaders believe "elections are not the arena where decisions are made about the future direction of the society" and do not participate.
However, they have facilitated numerous activist organizations, including Refuse and Resist and the October 22 Coalition to Stop Police Brutality. They also have demonstrated their willingness to engage in violent confrontation, most notably with their support for and involvement in the Los Angeles riots of 1992, in which more than 50 people were killed and 4,000 were injured.
"The revolutionary people will have to meet and defeat attempts at violent suppression," said Dix. "When you look at this government. … it's not going to act non-violently to maintain its position. So it would be wrong for the movement for revolution to say that it's going to be non-violent, because that would be saying to them, 'You can come and crush us.'"
The party's leader, Bob Avakian, has faced multiple charges for confrontations with police, and he applied for refugee status in France, claiming political persecution, but was rejected. To place the legal standing of the organization's activities in further doubt, Dix, who served jail time for refusing orders to serve in Vietnam, would not divulge member numbers. His fear is that such "information would be very helpful for the government to come at us."
He would say, though, that he believes his movement is gathering momentum and bringing "forward a determined core of fighters for this revolution." On Oct. 29, Dix participated in a public discussion with Cornell West, a prominent socialist professor of Princeton University, and the sellout 650-plus crowd at the Harlem Stage gave him optimism.
His organization unabashedly seeks to refine the "revolutionary societies like China … like the Soviet Union before it."
"They accomplished a lot of good things there, and we uphold that, but we also saw that there was a tendency to marginalize and attempt to silence opponents. … That's something that Bob Avakian, the leader of the [RCP], has strenuously brought forward as a different approach."
The RCP also titled their constitution with "North America," as opposed to the United States, to make clear that it is "not bound by the current borders." The group is open to returning parts of the country to Mexico, providing autonomy for parts of the indigenous population and even allowing an "independent African American republic in the south eastern United States."
Gary Odom, national field director with the Constitution Party of the United States, knows the RCP well and describes them as "outlandish" and "hysterical," even within the socialist movement.
"The RCP has been around for a long time," he says, and while he believes the two parties that "pretty much control this country" are "totally corrupt," he hopes that people don't give up on the ballot box.
"There are people who talk about bullets instead of ballots, but that would be a bad thing for this country, for sure," he said.
Party calls for resistance to 'capitalist-imperialist system'
Posted: November 16, 2010
9:39 pm Eastern
By Fergus Hodgson
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
NEW ORLEANS, La. – The Revolutionary Communist Party USA has announced a "Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America," and members say they are planning for a "revolution" against capitalism, with violence if necessary.
The "present capitalist-imperialist system" should be replaced with a "radically new economic system," they say.
Carl Dix, a founding member and spokesman, believes that the federal government bailouts, under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, are just one instance where they propped up what he calls the "capitalist class." His party is "building a revolution" and under the proposed constitution all "natural resources [would] be collectively owned," with the goal of a "classless, communist world," he said.
"We have to move to a point where people can work in common for the common good and get back what they need to live a life worthy of human beings. … The competitiveness and the looking out for No. 1 that's promoted in this society – that kind of thinking has to be broken," he said after the "constitution" was announced this week.
The RCP, founded in 1975 with roots in the New Left of the 1960s and 1970s era, has active chapters in at least 15 population centers and publishes "Revolution," a biweekly newspaper and website. RCP leaders believe "elections are not the arena where decisions are made about the future direction of the society" and do not participate.
However, they have facilitated numerous activist organizations, including Refuse and Resist and the October 22 Coalition to Stop Police Brutality. They also have demonstrated their willingness to engage in violent confrontation, most notably with their support for and involvement in the Los Angeles riots of 1992, in which more than 50 people were killed and 4,000 were injured.
"The revolutionary people will have to meet and defeat attempts at violent suppression," said Dix. "When you look at this government. … it's not going to act non-violently to maintain its position. So it would be wrong for the movement for revolution to say that it's going to be non-violent, because that would be saying to them, 'You can come and crush us.'"
The party's leader, Bob Avakian, has faced multiple charges for confrontations with police, and he applied for refugee status in France, claiming political persecution, but was rejected. To place the legal standing of the organization's activities in further doubt, Dix, who served jail time for refusing orders to serve in Vietnam, would not divulge member numbers. His fear is that such "information would be very helpful for the government to come at us."
He would say, though, that he believes his movement is gathering momentum and bringing "forward a determined core of fighters for this revolution." On Oct. 29, Dix participated in a public discussion with Cornell West, a prominent socialist professor of Princeton University, and the sellout 650-plus crowd at the Harlem Stage gave him optimism.
His organization unabashedly seeks to refine the "revolutionary societies like China … like the Soviet Union before it."
"They accomplished a lot of good things there, and we uphold that, but we also saw that there was a tendency to marginalize and attempt to silence opponents. … That's something that Bob Avakian, the leader of the [RCP], has strenuously brought forward as a different approach."
The RCP also titled their constitution with "North America," as opposed to the United States, to make clear that it is "not bound by the current borders." The group is open to returning parts of the country to Mexico, providing autonomy for parts of the indigenous population and even allowing an "independent African American republic in the south eastern United States."
Gary Odom, national field director with the Constitution Party of the United States, knows the RCP well and describes them as "outlandish" and "hysterical," even within the socialist movement.
"The RCP has been around for a long time," he says, and while he believes the two parties that "pretty much control this country" are "totally corrupt," he hopes that people don't give up on the ballot box.
"There are people who talk about bullets instead of ballots, but that would be a bad thing for this country, for sure," he said.
Friday, November 19, 2010
TSA........ARE YOU KIDDING ME ? ? ?
I believe the Federal Government has found a whole new meaning for TSA, " Touching Sacred Areas" .
Your now have a choice when you buy a plane ticket and board a plane in certain airports, and believe it or not this won't cost you a penny !
It will take a toll on your personal dignity, something I consider priceless.
You can choose between a full body scan, an airport pornographic expose' of sorts, OR you can subject yourself to a complete and I do mean complete rub down of your body! No area left untouched really, except body cavities, and give it time, they will be going there too. UGH! P.S. you might be required to do both ! ! !
These TSA employees are going to know you better than your mother did as an infant, or even your family doctor.
All in the name of safety ? ? ?
Believe it or not there is a better way of doing this, The Federal Government is just SCARED to do it. It's called profiling. I know , I know ....that's a swear word. But it works. Ask Israel, El Al, The countries airline has been doing it for years, with great results....and no groping !
This is one of many examples of our Quasi-Socialist Government trying to steal our freedoms, IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK ! ! !
America, it's time to stand up for what is right and tell our Government to BACK OFF ! ! !
Even if you don't fly, they are eventually going to find a way to bust into you life. Give it time.
As a back story, Socialist-Communist George Soros owned 11,000 shares of the company the manufactures these body scanners, and sold his shares a few days before this story went viral, see a connection ? ? ?
Let's start putting this Government in its place, before they get so big we won't have the freedom to do it.
Until the next post,
Bob Yeager
,
Your now have a choice when you buy a plane ticket and board a plane in certain airports, and believe it or not this won't cost you a penny !
It will take a toll on your personal dignity, something I consider priceless.
You can choose between a full body scan, an airport pornographic expose' of sorts, OR you can subject yourself to a complete and I do mean complete rub down of your body! No area left untouched really, except body cavities, and give it time, they will be going there too. UGH! P.S. you might be required to do both ! ! !
These TSA employees are going to know you better than your mother did as an infant, or even your family doctor.
All in the name of safety ? ? ?
Believe it or not there is a better way of doing this, The Federal Government is just SCARED to do it. It's called profiling. I know , I know ....that's a swear word. But it works. Ask Israel, El Al, The countries airline has been doing it for years, with great results....and no groping !
This is one of many examples of our Quasi-Socialist Government trying to steal our freedoms, IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK ! ! !
America, it's time to stand up for what is right and tell our Government to BACK OFF ! ! !
Even if you don't fly, they are eventually going to find a way to bust into you life. Give it time.
As a back story, Socialist-Communist George Soros owned 11,000 shares of the company the manufactures these body scanners, and sold his shares a few days before this story went viral, see a connection ? ? ?
Let's start putting this Government in its place, before they get so big we won't have the freedom to do it.
Until the next post,
Bob Yeager
,
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Now, what's next ?
It's just two weeks after the big mid-term election. The people have spoken and their voices have been heard, by most of the politions.
I think it's safe to say Nancy Pelosi had her hearing aids turned off on election day.
I'm certain that a few others up on The Hill just didn't quite get it either.
My hope is it was mainly the democrats. This is supposed to be a smaller Democratic house, but much more liberal.
Good !
Now as long as the Republicans will stick to their guns. (No pun intended.) Can the new Tea Party members keep the old guard in check ? That remains to be seen, one can only hope.
If not, B.H.O. will get more of his Socialist (radically transforming America) Agenga shoved down our throats, and the GOP won't have a snowballs chance in Hell of winning in 2012.
That would be unthinkable.
If the Republicans hold their ground, cut back on spending, reduce the deficit, get rid of, or reform Obamacare, they will be well on their way to making B.H.O. a one term President. One can only hope.
The GOP must take the lessens learned on 11.2.10 and work towards winning the top spot in 2012. Obama's Socialism is not what this country wants .....or needs.
Let's hope and pray for brighter days for America's future.
I think it's safe to say Nancy Pelosi had her hearing aids turned off on election day.
I'm certain that a few others up on The Hill just didn't quite get it either.
My hope is it was mainly the democrats. This is supposed to be a smaller Democratic house, but much more liberal.
Good !
Now as long as the Republicans will stick to their guns. (No pun intended.) Can the new Tea Party members keep the old guard in check ? That remains to be seen, one can only hope.
If not, B.H.O. will get more of his Socialist (radically transforming America) Agenga shoved down our throats, and the GOP won't have a snowballs chance in Hell of winning in 2012.
That would be unthinkable.
If the Republicans hold their ground, cut back on spending, reduce the deficit, get rid of, or reform Obamacare, they will be well on their way to making B.H.O. a one term President. One can only hope.
The GOP must take the lessens learned on 11.2.10 and work towards winning the top spot in 2012. Obama's Socialism is not what this country wants .....or needs.
Let's hope and pray for brighter days for America's future.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Shock poll: only 26% of public thinks Obama will be reelected...
By: Mark Penn
November 15, 2010 10:29 PM EST
The midterms not only dealt a big shock to Democrats but also sent a message to President Barack Obama. According to the new POLITICO Power and the People poll, only 26 percent of the public believes he will be reelected as president in 2012. Inside the Beltway, however, expectations are quite different, with D.C. elites saying he will have a second term by a reverse 2 to 1 margin. (49 percent say re-elected; 23 percent say not).
This difference in expectations could mislead the president if he is listening to the Beltway chatter — right here in D.C., he may just find a lot of comfort in this assessment by insiders, and that may lead to actions that don’t fully adjust for the sea change that has occurred among the general public. (See also Poll: D.C. Sees Midterms Differently)
This big difference can partially be explained by the different ways that the two groups see the economy and the world today. Seventy percent of D.C. elites admit that they have been affected less than the average citizen when it comes to the economic downturn. The elites see the tea party as purely a fad (70 percent). In contrast, those who say that the president will not be reelected see the country as headed in the wrong direction by 82 percent, see the economy as headed in the wrong direction by 81 percent and overwhelmingly want repeal of the health care law at the top of the agenda. The quarter of the public who consider Obama's reelection probable see the economy turning around by nearly 3-to-1. They are the outliers of the electorate, suggesting that the president has a lot more work to do to get back on track for a second term.
In 1994, President Bill Clinton heard the message loud and clear — he was facing both houses in the hands of the Republican Party, so he moved aggressively to the center and remade his White House and his policies. But not every president is willing to take that kind of aggressive action to change course.
The discontent of the electorate has been pretty clear since Scott Brown of Massachusetts filled the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s seat with an upset Republican victory. The administration depicted that as an isolated event based on a supposedly weak Democratic campaign and candidate. And so all the way up to the midterms, the president made few policy or personnel changes.
It should be clear now that the public believes it sent a very clear message to the president that it wants new policies — particularly when it comes to government spending and health care. The public wants him to move back to the center and focus on the economy.
D.C. elites can, of course, sometimes be right over the public. But in this case the administration has the electoral carnage of the midterms as proof that the public is fully prepared to vote in more Republicans unless it sees more changes than it saw in the months since Brown was elected. There will be a tempting comfort to the president to stay the course; the poll results show that staying the course may be quite perilous.
Mark Penn is president and CEO of Penn Schoen Berland, the internationally recognized market research firm that conducted this poll for POLITICO.
© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC
November 15, 2010 10:29 PM EST
The midterms not only dealt a big shock to Democrats but also sent a message to President Barack Obama. According to the new POLITICO Power and the People poll, only 26 percent of the public believes he will be reelected as president in 2012. Inside the Beltway, however, expectations are quite different, with D.C. elites saying he will have a second term by a reverse 2 to 1 margin. (49 percent say re-elected; 23 percent say not).
This difference in expectations could mislead the president if he is listening to the Beltway chatter — right here in D.C., he may just find a lot of comfort in this assessment by insiders, and that may lead to actions that don’t fully adjust for the sea change that has occurred among the general public. (See also Poll: D.C. Sees Midterms Differently)
This big difference can partially be explained by the different ways that the two groups see the economy and the world today. Seventy percent of D.C. elites admit that they have been affected less than the average citizen when it comes to the economic downturn. The elites see the tea party as purely a fad (70 percent). In contrast, those who say that the president will not be reelected see the country as headed in the wrong direction by 82 percent, see the economy as headed in the wrong direction by 81 percent and overwhelmingly want repeal of the health care law at the top of the agenda. The quarter of the public who consider Obama's reelection probable see the economy turning around by nearly 3-to-1. They are the outliers of the electorate, suggesting that the president has a lot more work to do to get back on track for a second term.
In 1994, President Bill Clinton heard the message loud and clear — he was facing both houses in the hands of the Republican Party, so he moved aggressively to the center and remade his White House and his policies. But not every president is willing to take that kind of aggressive action to change course.
The discontent of the electorate has been pretty clear since Scott Brown of Massachusetts filled the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s seat with an upset Republican victory. The administration depicted that as an isolated event based on a supposedly weak Democratic campaign and candidate. And so all the way up to the midterms, the president made few policy or personnel changes.
It should be clear now that the public believes it sent a very clear message to the president that it wants new policies — particularly when it comes to government spending and health care. The public wants him to move back to the center and focus on the economy.
D.C. elites can, of course, sometimes be right over the public. But in this case the administration has the electoral carnage of the midterms as proof that the public is fully prepared to vote in more Republicans unless it sees more changes than it saw in the months since Brown was elected. There will be a tempting comfort to the president to stay the course; the poll results show that staying the course may be quite perilous.
Mark Penn is president and CEO of Penn Schoen Berland, the internationally recognized market research firm that conducted this poll for POLITICO.
© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC
POSTS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED : 10.26.10 TO 11.10.10
PLEASE NOTE : THERE IS A POST FROM 10.26.10 AT THE BOTTOM OF POST.
1.) New York Times: Democrats Backing Fake Tea Party Candidates. 10.28.10
2.) Top Ten Leftist Comebacks 10.29.10
3.) SOMETHING IN THE AIR, Palin has last laugh on PBS host, Kos...... 10.29.10
4.) Let's Crush the Socialist Democrats--Vote! Vote! Vote!
11.2.10
5.) Top 10 Reasons Why Conservatives Must Vote Today!
11.2.10‘It’s Not Me. It’s You.’
6.) IT'S CRUNCH TIME ! ! ! ! 11.2.10
7.) Obama Admits Losing Sight of Leadership Role
11.6.10
8.) ‘It’s Not Me. It’s You.’ 11.8.10
9.) Communist Party covers up support for Obama.
11.9.10
10.) Boehner under fire: First cut should be lawmakers' salaries. 11.10.10
11.) Huckabee Knocks Elitist GOP, Rove 10.26.10
1.) New York Times: Democrats Backing Fake Tea Party Candidates. 10.28.10
2.) Top Ten Leftist Comebacks 10.29.10
3.) SOMETHING IN THE AIR, Palin has last laugh on PBS host, Kos...... 10.29.10
4.) Let's Crush the Socialist Democrats--Vote! Vote! Vote!
11.2.10
5.) Top 10 Reasons Why Conservatives Must Vote Today!
11.2.10‘It’s Not Me. It’s You.’
6.) IT'S CRUNCH TIME ! ! ! ! 11.2.10
7.) Obama Admits Losing Sight of Leadership Role
11.6.10
8.) ‘It’s Not Me. It’s You.’ 11.8.10
9.) Communist Party covers up support for Obama.
11.9.10
10.) Boehner under fire: First cut should be lawmakers' salaries. 11.10.10
11.) Huckabee Knocks Elitist GOP, Rove 10.26.10
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
AARP abandoning its membership
Chris Woodward - OneNewsNow - 11/15/2010 3:45:00 AM
A non-profit, non-partisan membership organization for people age 50 and over is receiving sharp criticism after announcing it is raising healthcare premiums for its employees.
In September 2009, AARP insisted that ObamaCare must be enacted to reduce the cost of healthcare. But now, that same group is raising the cost of insurance for its employees -- a move Dr. Larry Hunter, president of the self-professed conservative alternative to AARP, Alliance for Retirement Prosperity, calls "treacherous."
"As a Fortune 500 corporation, which AARP is, this was a commercial play to undermine their main competitor, Medicare Advantage Plans, and that was the deal they cut with the White House," Hunter contends. "The reason I call that treachery is because [AARP] abandoned its membership."
He says the endorsement was also a move by AARP to continue receiving a tax exemption from insurance and millions of dollars in federal grants.
"The irony is that now, AARP itself has found it necessary to raise the cost of healthcare to its employees -- and it's a direct result of ObamaCare," the Alliance president points out. He further adds that "if this is how AARP treats its employees, imagine how it treats its members."
All Original Content Copyright 2006-2008 American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved. Policies
Get the ONN RSS Feed
Contact Us
"OneNewsNow", "OneNewsNow.com", and the "OneNewsNow World" logo, are Trademarks of the American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved
A non-profit, non-partisan membership organization for people age 50 and over is receiving sharp criticism after announcing it is raising healthcare premiums for its employees.
In September 2009, AARP insisted that ObamaCare must be enacted to reduce the cost of healthcare. But now, that same group is raising the cost of insurance for its employees -- a move Dr. Larry Hunter, president of the self-professed conservative alternative to AARP, Alliance for Retirement Prosperity, calls "treacherous."
"As a Fortune 500 corporation, which AARP is, this was a commercial play to undermine their main competitor, Medicare Advantage Plans, and that was the deal they cut with the White House," Hunter contends. "The reason I call that treachery is because [AARP] abandoned its membership."
He says the endorsement was also a move by AARP to continue receiving a tax exemption from insurance and millions of dollars in federal grants.
"The irony is that now, AARP itself has found it necessary to raise the cost of healthcare to its employees -- and it's a direct result of ObamaCare," the Alliance president points out. He further adds that "if this is how AARP treats its employees, imagine how it treats its members."
All Original Content Copyright 2006-2008 American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved. Policies
Get the ONN RSS Feed
Contact Us
"OneNewsNow", "OneNewsNow.com", and the "OneNewsNow World" logo, are Trademarks of the American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved
Rough road ahead for Obama, unions as compromises loom
The contents of this site are © 2010 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.
By Sam Youngman - 11/13/10 05:32 PM ET
President Obama and labor unions are entering a new and difficult stretch in their relationship as the White House looks to find common ground with Republicans on issues like trade and the deficit.
Unions praised Obama this week for insisting that talks continue on a free trade agreement with South Korea after negotiators failed to win concessions from that country on automobiles.
But union sources say that praise is tentative, given that the talks are continuing and Obama has made it clear he wants to present a deal to Congress.
Labor is decidedly more concerned about how Obama will proceed with the recommendations from his debt commission. The two chairmen of that body this week proposed sweeping reforms, including changes to Social Security that would lower benefits. Unions blasted the recommendations as an assault on workers.
Both issues point to the changing political order in Washington, which will complicate Obama’s relationship with labor unions.
The president must now contend with a Republican House majority and weakened Democrats in Congress at a time when the attention of the White House is naturally shifting to the 2012 election.
To get anything done, Obama will have to work with Republicans, and trade and debt reduction have long been seen as two areas where the White House and incoming Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) could work together.
That’s a huge concern for unions, which have sometimes been disappointed in the White House. Unions were unhappy when the president gave up on a public insurance option in the healthcare bill, and feel Obama never put much muscle behind card-check legislation that would have made it easier for unions to organize.
An official with the AFL-CIO said that the unions are happy, for now, that Obama is insisting that auto provisions in the South Korea agreement must be changed.
But the official eyed the continued talks warily, and said the union’s praise for Obama “is contingent on [Obama] sticking to his guns, which to their credit, they have been for two years.”
The United Autoworkers, along with Ford and Chrysler, are demanding that South Korea do more to open its market in exchange for the U.S. lowering tariffs on Korean cars and trucks.
Obama this week make it clear Seoul will have to accept some concessions in that area to finalize the deal, saying he is “not interested in signing a trade agreement just for the sake of an announcement.”
“I think we can get a win-win, but it was important to take the extra time so that I am assured that it is a win for American workers and American companies as well as for Korean workers and Korean companies, because I’m the one who’s going to have to go to Congress and sell it,” Obama said this week.
The auto provisions are important to unions, but they also have concerns about the trade deal’s provisions on investment, services and labor rights, none of which were a focus of this week’s negotiations.
The deal “largely replicates” a trade model “which cost the U.S. more than one million jobs,” according to a fact sheet on the deal posted on the AFL-CIO’s web site. The fact sheet contends that the agreement as negotiated by the Bush administration would allow violations of core labor standards to continue unabated and would lead U.S. jobs to be shipped overseas.
The trade agreement is important to Obama, whose administration has developed an anti-business reputation, in part because of fierce confrontations with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over the healthcare law, the financial regulatory overhaul and tax policy. The Chamber supports the South Korean FTA, and its passage through Congress would allow Obama to hit the 2012 campaign trail with something to tout to businesses.
Despite the breakdown in talks, Obama said he is confident he can still get the trade deal done in “a matter of weeks.”
On the debt panel chairman’s recommendations, Obama offered a much different reaction than unions and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has emerged since the Democrat’s midterm election losses as a standard bearer for the left.
Pelosi described the proposals as “unacceptable” and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said the chairmen had told “working Americans to ‘drop dead.’”
“Some people are saying this is plan is just a 'starting point.' Let me be clear, it is not,” Trumka added.
But Obama on Friday, while carefully saying he would not comment on the report until it is finalized, warned, “before anybody starts shooting down proposals, I think we need to listen, we need to gather up all the facts.
“I think we have to be straight with the American people," Obama said. “If people are, in fact, concerned about spending, debt, deficits and the future of our country, then they’re going to need to be armed with the information about the kinds of choices that are going to be involved, and we can’t just engage in political rhetoric.”
None of that suggests Obama will back changes to Social Security, but for unions, they are worrying signs nonetheless.
The contents of this site are © 2010 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.
By Sam Youngman - 11/13/10 05:32 PM ET
President Obama and labor unions are entering a new and difficult stretch in their relationship as the White House looks to find common ground with Republicans on issues like trade and the deficit.
Unions praised Obama this week for insisting that talks continue on a free trade agreement with South Korea after negotiators failed to win concessions from that country on automobiles.
But union sources say that praise is tentative, given that the talks are continuing and Obama has made it clear he wants to present a deal to Congress.
Labor is decidedly more concerned about how Obama will proceed with the recommendations from his debt commission. The two chairmen of that body this week proposed sweeping reforms, including changes to Social Security that would lower benefits. Unions blasted the recommendations as an assault on workers.
Both issues point to the changing political order in Washington, which will complicate Obama’s relationship with labor unions.
The president must now contend with a Republican House majority and weakened Democrats in Congress at a time when the attention of the White House is naturally shifting to the 2012 election.
To get anything done, Obama will have to work with Republicans, and trade and debt reduction have long been seen as two areas where the White House and incoming Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) could work together.
That’s a huge concern for unions, which have sometimes been disappointed in the White House. Unions were unhappy when the president gave up on a public insurance option in the healthcare bill, and feel Obama never put much muscle behind card-check legislation that would have made it easier for unions to organize.
An official with the AFL-CIO said that the unions are happy, for now, that Obama is insisting that auto provisions in the South Korea agreement must be changed.
But the official eyed the continued talks warily, and said the union’s praise for Obama “is contingent on [Obama] sticking to his guns, which to their credit, they have been for two years.”
The United Autoworkers, along with Ford and Chrysler, are demanding that South Korea do more to open its market in exchange for the U.S. lowering tariffs on Korean cars and trucks.
Obama this week make it clear Seoul will have to accept some concessions in that area to finalize the deal, saying he is “not interested in signing a trade agreement just for the sake of an announcement.”
“I think we can get a win-win, but it was important to take the extra time so that I am assured that it is a win for American workers and American companies as well as for Korean workers and Korean companies, because I’m the one who’s going to have to go to Congress and sell it,” Obama said this week.
The auto provisions are important to unions, but they also have concerns about the trade deal’s provisions on investment, services and labor rights, none of which were a focus of this week’s negotiations.
The deal “largely replicates” a trade model “which cost the U.S. more than one million jobs,” according to a fact sheet on the deal posted on the AFL-CIO’s web site. The fact sheet contends that the agreement as negotiated by the Bush administration would allow violations of core labor standards to continue unabated and would lead U.S. jobs to be shipped overseas.
The trade agreement is important to Obama, whose administration has developed an anti-business reputation, in part because of fierce confrontations with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over the healthcare law, the financial regulatory overhaul and tax policy. The Chamber supports the South Korean FTA, and its passage through Congress would allow Obama to hit the 2012 campaign trail with something to tout to businesses.
Despite the breakdown in talks, Obama said he is confident he can still get the trade deal done in “a matter of weeks.”
On the debt panel chairman’s recommendations, Obama offered a much different reaction than unions and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has emerged since the Democrat’s midterm election losses as a standard bearer for the left.
Pelosi described the proposals as “unacceptable” and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said the chairmen had told “working Americans to ‘drop dead.’”
“Some people are saying this is plan is just a 'starting point.' Let me be clear, it is not,” Trumka added.
But Obama on Friday, while carefully saying he would not comment on the report until it is finalized, warned, “before anybody starts shooting down proposals, I think we need to listen, we need to gather up all the facts.
“I think we have to be straight with the American people," Obama said. “If people are, in fact, concerned about spending, debt, deficits and the future of our country, then they’re going to need to be armed with the information about the kinds of choices that are going to be involved, and we can’t just engage in political rhetoric.”
None of that suggests Obama will back changes to Social Security, but for unions, they are worrying signs nonetheless.
The contents of this site are © 2010 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.
Monday, November 15, 2010
School Makes Boy Take American Flag Off Bike
Note : This is why every vote in every election counts, even the local elections.
Elissa Harrington
FOX40 News, KTXL-TV, Sacramento
November 12, 2010
DENAIR -
13-year-old Cody Alicea rides with an American flag on the back of his bike. He says he does this to be patriotic and to honor veterans, like his own grandfather, Robert. He's had the flag on his bike for two months but Monday, was told to take it down.
A school official at Denair Middle School told Cody some students had been complaining about the flag and it was no longer allowed on school property.
"In this country we're supposed to be free," said Cody. "And I should be able to wave my flag wherever I want to. And they're telling me I can't." Cody had to take the flag off his bike and put it in his backpack, where he kept it all week.
Cody's grandfather says the school was concerned about racial tensions or uprisings because of the flag. He feels if there was really a problem it should have been brought up two months ago, not during Veterans week. And if it was an issue of safety, parents should have been contacted.
"No action should be taken. We don't want any repercussion," said Roger Alicea. "We just want Cody to be proud of what he's doing." Roger says the family is not planning to take any legal action, but they do want to meet with school staff.
Cody says he wants to serve in the military some day, and is raising money for a trip to Washington, D.C. in the Spring.
After being contacted by FOX40 Friday morning, Denair's Superintendent says Cody will be allowed to keep the flag on his bike. He told FOX40 he and the school are patriotic, but their main priority is keeping students safe; the school will focus on the students who are causing uprisings. Riding a bike is still not allowed on school campus, but when Cody rides his bike to school he can now fly the flag.
Elissa Harrington
FOX40 News, KTXL-TV, Sacramento
November 12, 2010
DENAIR -
13-year-old Cody Alicea rides with an American flag on the back of his bike. He says he does this to be patriotic and to honor veterans, like his own grandfather, Robert. He's had the flag on his bike for two months but Monday, was told to take it down.
A school official at Denair Middle School told Cody some students had been complaining about the flag and it was no longer allowed on school property.
"In this country we're supposed to be free," said Cody. "And I should be able to wave my flag wherever I want to. And they're telling me I can't." Cody had to take the flag off his bike and put it in his backpack, where he kept it all week.
Cody's grandfather says the school was concerned about racial tensions or uprisings because of the flag. He feels if there was really a problem it should have been brought up two months ago, not during Veterans week. And if it was an issue of safety, parents should have been contacted.
"No action should be taken. We don't want any repercussion," said Roger Alicea. "We just want Cody to be proud of what he's doing." Roger says the family is not planning to take any legal action, but they do want to meet with school staff.
Cody says he wants to serve in the military some day, and is raising money for a trip to Washington, D.C. in the Spring.
After being contacted by FOX40 Friday morning, Denair's Superintendent says Cody will be allowed to keep the flag on his bike. He told FOX40 he and the school are patriotic, but their main priority is keeping students safe; the school will focus on the students who are causing uprisings. Riding a bike is still not allowed on school campus, but when Cody rides his bike to school he can now fly the flag.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
20 Rock-Hard Proposals for the New Congress
Written By: Gary DeMar 11-13-2010
( PLEASE NOTE THAT ITEM # 6 I CHANGED THE WORD AUDIT TO ELIMINATE. )
1. Repeal ObamaCare . . . Now!
2. Keep the about-to-expire Bush Tax Cuts and push for more cuts.
3. Implement a 15 percent across-the-board spending cut
4. Implement an immediate government hiring freeze and cut all wages by 15 percent, including Congress.
5. Implement the following test on all legislation: 1.) Is it CONSTITUTIONAL? 2.) If it’s Constitutional, do we NEED it? 3.) If it’s Constitutional and we need it, can we AFFORD IT? 4.) Is it best left to the STATES to implement?
6. Eliminate the Federal Reserve. [****NOTE***]
7. Stop the bailout of union and government pensions and end tax-payer funded retirement programs for all government employees.
8. Support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
9. Keep the Internet from being regulated by bureaucrats.
10. Test all future and present judges on the content of the Constitution and publish the results online.
11. Pass the following law: “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.”
12. Block the implementation of Sharia law in the United States.
13. Protect Our Second Amendment Rights.
14. Support State anti-illegal immigration legislation.
15. Abolish the Department of Education.
16. Return all Federal lands to the states.
17. Protect the Life of the Unborn.
18. Implement the Fair Tax, end the income tax, and abolish the IRS.
19. Work for the privatization of Social Security.
20. Abide by the legal strictures outlined in the Tenth Amendment.
( PLEASE NOTE THAT ITEM # 6 I CHANGED THE WORD AUDIT TO ELIMINATE. )
1. Repeal ObamaCare . . . Now!
2. Keep the about-to-expire Bush Tax Cuts and push for more cuts.
3. Implement a 15 percent across-the-board spending cut
4. Implement an immediate government hiring freeze and cut all wages by 15 percent, including Congress.
5. Implement the following test on all legislation: 1.) Is it CONSTITUTIONAL? 2.) If it’s Constitutional, do we NEED it? 3.) If it’s Constitutional and we need it, can we AFFORD IT? 4.) Is it best left to the STATES to implement?
6. Eliminate the Federal Reserve. [****NOTE***]
7. Stop the bailout of union and government pensions and end tax-payer funded retirement programs for all government employees.
8. Support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
9. Keep the Internet from being regulated by bureaucrats.
10. Test all future and present judges on the content of the Constitution and publish the results online.
11. Pass the following law: “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.”
12. Block the implementation of Sharia law in the United States.
13. Protect Our Second Amendment Rights.
14. Support State anti-illegal immigration legislation.
15. Abolish the Department of Education.
16. Return all Federal lands to the states.
17. Protect the Life of the Unborn.
18. Implement the Fair Tax, end the income tax, and abolish the IRS.
19. Work for the privatization of Social Security.
20. Abide by the legal strictures outlined in the Tenth Amendment.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Glenn Beck, George Soros and the Puppet Master.
11.13.2010
For anyone who watches Glenn Beck on A regular basis, and I recommend that you do, Tuesday thru Thursday of this past week, 11.9 to 11.11, were incredible shows.
I have been following Glenn Beck for eight years now. I started listening to his radio program at work in 2002.
I felt that Glenn's style mixing real information with lots of humor was great, it broke up the day.
Enter 1.19.09 ( I hope I have that date correct.) Glenn started working for the Fox News Network. Fox has made it an art form, taking talent from other cable networks and giving them a home. Take note, Fox only takes the cream of the crop.
I admit, I watch Fox on a very regular basis, Fox is as advertised fair and balanced, I know because there are a few select liberals on Fox that drive me up a tree !
Enter this week, Tuesday 11.9 10. Glenn started a three part series on how he thought George Soros, a self-made billionaire who has endless ties with extremely far left media think tanks which he either started or is funding.
By Thursday Glenn made a rock solid point that George was operating a "Shadow Government" whose intention it was, was to destroy the United States from within.
He hit a home run with these shows.
George's strategy was to de-value the dollar systematically ( presently happening. ), rapidly increase inflation making U.S. markets unstable ( just starting. ).
create unrest and riots amongst the people ( coming ? )
Influence elections. ( Acorn, 2008. )
You get the picture. The man has the means , the network, and the knowhow how to do this....he's done it four times already. He has stated in no un-certain terms he believes in a "World Government."
He has said in his own words that the only thing stopping a world government is the U.S. He wants us to be part of this one world-one government system.
Don't believe me ? Google the name George Soros.
I urge you to go to glennbeck.com or the blaze.com for more resources.
Let's protect our Country, our Constitution, and our sovereignty. Let's stop George Soros in his tracks !
Bob Yeager
Let's Fix D.C. ! ! !
For anyone who watches Glenn Beck on A regular basis, and I recommend that you do, Tuesday thru Thursday of this past week, 11.9 to 11.11, were incredible shows.
I have been following Glenn Beck for eight years now. I started listening to his radio program at work in 2002.
I felt that Glenn's style mixing real information with lots of humor was great, it broke up the day.
Enter 1.19.09 ( I hope I have that date correct.) Glenn started working for the Fox News Network. Fox has made it an art form, taking talent from other cable networks and giving them a home. Take note, Fox only takes the cream of the crop.
I admit, I watch Fox on a very regular basis, Fox is as advertised fair and balanced, I know because there are a few select liberals on Fox that drive me up a tree !
Enter this week, Tuesday 11.9 10. Glenn started a three part series on how he thought George Soros, a self-made billionaire who has endless ties with extremely far left media think tanks which he either started or is funding.
By Thursday Glenn made a rock solid point that George was operating a "Shadow Government" whose intention it was, was to destroy the United States from within.
He hit a home run with these shows.
George's strategy was to de-value the dollar systematically ( presently happening. ), rapidly increase inflation making U.S. markets unstable ( just starting. ).
create unrest and riots amongst the people ( coming ? )
Influence elections. ( Acorn, 2008. )
You get the picture. The man has the means , the network, and the knowhow how to do this....he's done it four times already. He has stated in no un-certain terms he believes in a "World Government."
He has said in his own words that the only thing stopping a world government is the U.S. He wants us to be part of this one world-one government system.
Don't believe me ? Google the name George Soros.
I urge you to go to glennbeck.com or the blaze.com for more resources.
Let's protect our Country, our Constitution, and our sovereignty. Let's stop George Soros in his tracks !
Bob Yeager
Let's Fix D.C. ! ! !
Friday, November 12, 2010
Underappreciated: How Thoroughly Fox News Trounced CNN, MSNBC on Election Night
BROUGHT TO YOU BY NEWS BUSTERS (COPYRIGHTED)
By Tom Blumer
November 10, 2010
15:19
The politicians who received more votes than their opponents weren't the only winners on Election Night.
Fox News's dominance on Election Night was overwhelming. If the competition between Fox, CNN, and MSNBC had instead been an electoral contest, they would have called it 30 seconds after the polls closed.
The graphic that follows illustrates just how big Fox's gains were in 2010 compared to 2006, after a mediocre 2006 compared to 2002:
(Sources: Media Bistro -- 2010, 2006)
Fox had over 60% of the total cable news Election Night audience, and not far from 60% of the 25-54 demographic. CNN's audience share dropped almost 16 percentage points (over 13 points in the 25-54 demo), while MSNBC's share dropped by over 7 points (9.5 points in the demo).
It looks like lots of viewers preferred their election coverage fair and balanced. After some of the Election Night shenanigans reported at NewsBusters relating to MSNBC, I can't say I blame them.
By Tom Blumer
November 10, 2010
15:19
The politicians who received more votes than their opponents weren't the only winners on Election Night.
Fox News's dominance on Election Night was overwhelming. If the competition between Fox, CNN, and MSNBC had instead been an electoral contest, they would have called it 30 seconds after the polls closed.
The graphic that follows illustrates just how big Fox's gains were in 2010 compared to 2006, after a mediocre 2006 compared to 2002:
(Sources: Media Bistro -- 2010, 2006)
Fox had over 60% of the total cable news Election Night audience, and not far from 60% of the 25-54 demographic. CNN's audience share dropped almost 16 percentage points (over 13 points in the 25-54 demo), while MSNBC's share dropped by over 7 points (9.5 points in the demo).
It looks like lots of viewers preferred their election coverage fair and balanced. After some of the Election Night shenanigans reported at NewsBusters relating to MSNBC, I can't say I blame them.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
John Boehner's "GobGop" Plan to Sell Out the Tea Party in 2013. It Will Begin in January 2011.
Gary North
Nov. 6, 2012
First, you must understand that Boehner is a GobGop: a Good Old Boy of the Grand Old Party. The GobGops' goal is to keep the present system funded by the Bigs: Big Business, Big Pharma, Big Oil, and Big Banking. If you do not understand this, then you are as naive as a Democrat who thinks Obama speaks for The Common Man.
Boehner shilled for Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs by begging the Republicans to vote for the $750+ billion Big Bank Bailout in 2008. Watch his emotional performance here. "We just have to do it!" No, they didn't. Ron Paul told it straight. He is no GobGop.
Boehner is going to do it again. He has already told us what he intends to do.
The obvious target is Obamacare. The Tea Party voters hate it. They regard it as an affront.
You've probably seen this. It's all over the Web. It's supposedly from Maxine, the cartoon character who speaks for geezerdom.
Let me get this straight . . . . We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan
we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't,
Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor,
but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,
written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,
passed by a Congress that didn't read it
but exempted themselves from it,
and signed by a President who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,
for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect,
by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese,
and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!
'What the heck could possibly go wrong?'
This is all true. Tea Party people know it's all true. They threw the rascals out . . . but left enough of them behind to sell us out.
Boehner told a Fox News interviewer what he plans to do: (1) repeal Obamacare; (2) pass another heath care law. You can see the video here. Here is a direct quote:
"This health care bill will ruin the best health care system in the world, and it will bankrupt our country. We are going to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with common sense reforms that will bring down the cost of health insurance."
Big Pharma is not threatened by this. Big Pharma will clean up either way.
If Boehner is politically savvy, he will have the Republicans introduce a repeal bill as soon as he takes over as Speaker of the House. The following will then take place.
1. A straight party vote will pass it.
2. In the Senate, the Democrats will not pass it.
3. Boehner will then begin a two-year campaign:
"The Republican Party is committed to a repeal of Obamacare. In 2012, you will have another opportunity to vote the Democrats out of power in the Senate, and give the Republicans a President who will sign this bill."
He will play to the Tea Party. He will gain their trust. He will throw down the gauntlet on health insurance from day one. He will hammer relentlessly on this for two years.
The goal here is to get the Tea Party voters into his camp. He is a GobGop. But it's obvious that he will score lots of points by doing this.
In 2012, the Republicans will take over the Senate and elect a President. It will repeal Obamacare. Then the Republican GobGops will introduce another huge bill that they promise will cut medical costs.
They will not cut spending. They will not raise taxes. They will preside over a gigantic deficit.
The pork will continue to flow.
The Tea Party people will sense betrayal. Then we will see how committed they are to getting the spending under control . . . in 2015. Too late, I think.
The sell-out is coming. It will be business as usual. The GobGops now control the House. They can posture all they want, knowing the Senate will block their token spending cuts. The GobGops will scream: "If we only controlled the Senate! If we only controlled the White House! Then we could get spending under control!" You know: the way they did under Bush.
It will make great political theater. Punch and Judy will perform a real donnybrook. A good time will be had by all.
Nov. 6, 2012
First, you must understand that Boehner is a GobGop: a Good Old Boy of the Grand Old Party. The GobGops' goal is to keep the present system funded by the Bigs: Big Business, Big Pharma, Big Oil, and Big Banking. If you do not understand this, then you are as naive as a Democrat who thinks Obama speaks for The Common Man.
Boehner shilled for Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs by begging the Republicans to vote for the $750+ billion Big Bank Bailout in 2008. Watch his emotional performance here. "We just have to do it!" No, they didn't. Ron Paul told it straight. He is no GobGop.
Boehner is going to do it again. He has already told us what he intends to do.
The obvious target is Obamacare. The Tea Party voters hate it. They regard it as an affront.
You've probably seen this. It's all over the Web. It's supposedly from Maxine, the cartoon character who speaks for geezerdom.
Let me get this straight . . . . We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan
we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't,
Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor,
but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,
written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,
passed by a Congress that didn't read it
but exempted themselves from it,
and signed by a President who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,
for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect,
by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese,
and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!
'What the heck could possibly go wrong?'
This is all true. Tea Party people know it's all true. They threw the rascals out . . . but left enough of them behind to sell us out.
Boehner told a Fox News interviewer what he plans to do: (1) repeal Obamacare; (2) pass another heath care law. You can see the video here. Here is a direct quote:
"This health care bill will ruin the best health care system in the world, and it will bankrupt our country. We are going to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with common sense reforms that will bring down the cost of health insurance."
Big Pharma is not threatened by this. Big Pharma will clean up either way.
If Boehner is politically savvy, he will have the Republicans introduce a repeal bill as soon as he takes over as Speaker of the House. The following will then take place.
1. A straight party vote will pass it.
2. In the Senate, the Democrats will not pass it.
3. Boehner will then begin a two-year campaign:
"The Republican Party is committed to a repeal of Obamacare. In 2012, you will have another opportunity to vote the Democrats out of power in the Senate, and give the Republicans a President who will sign this bill."
He will play to the Tea Party. He will gain their trust. He will throw down the gauntlet on health insurance from day one. He will hammer relentlessly on this for two years.
The goal here is to get the Tea Party voters into his camp. He is a GobGop. But it's obvious that he will score lots of points by doing this.
In 2012, the Republicans will take over the Senate and elect a President. It will repeal Obamacare. Then the Republican GobGops will introduce another huge bill that they promise will cut medical costs.
They will not cut spending. They will not raise taxes. They will preside over a gigantic deficit.
The pork will continue to flow.
The Tea Party people will sense betrayal. Then we will see how committed they are to getting the spending under control . . . in 2015. Too late, I think.
The sell-out is coming. It will be business as usual. The GobGops now control the House. They can posture all they want, knowing the Senate will block their token spending cuts. The GobGops will scream: "If we only controlled the Senate! If we only controlled the White House! Then we could get spending under control!" You know: the way they did under Bush.
It will make great political theater. Punch and Judy will perform a real donnybrook. A good time will be had by all.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Boehner under fire: First cut should be lawmakers' salaries.
THANK YOU *THE HILL* AND *VISION 2AMERICA,*
By Jordy Yager - 11/05/10 11:38 AM ET
Soon-to-be Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) is being pressed by taxpayer groups to slash the salaries of House lawmakers.
Cutting member pay would show voters the new GOP majority in the House is going to lead by example in their efforts to rein in spending and start with their own wallets, say officials with three prominent taxpayer advocacy groups in Washington, D.C.
“There has to be a visible gesture that people can immediately relate to,” said Pete Sepp, the executive vice president of the conservative National Taxpayers Union.
“And cutting pay would be one of the best symbols, because unlike virtually anything else the federal government does, when Congress spends money on its own salaries and benefits, people can make a direct comparison to their own situation,” Sepp said.
The last three House Speakers swept into the leadership role with the issuance of symbolic gestures, which typically correlates to the campaign platform that delivered them to power, said Sarah Binder, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.
“[The symbolic moves] create images that build the party’s reputation and say, ‘This is what Republican rule means and these are things we stand for,’” Binder said. “These are symbolic things that a Speaker would want to do to set a tone or a message.
Boehner is slated to receive a $30,100 pay increase next year when he becomes Speaker of the House. His annual salary will be $223,500. The base pay for House and Senate lawmakers is $174,000, while majority and minority leaders each make $193,400 per year.
Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, said that no decision has been made to slash members' salaries, but pointed to the promises the GOP made in its "Pledge to America" in September.
"The Pledge to America calls for cutting Congress' budget, but no specific decisions have been made about how that will be done at this time," said Steel.
Republicans gained about five dozen House seats Tuesday largely by running campaigns based on promises to scale back government spending, reform how the House operates and increase jobs for Americans.
“It’s pretty clear that the American people want a smaller, less costly, more accountable government here in Washington,” Boehner said to reporters the day after Election Day.
Tom Schatz, the president of Citizens Against Government Waste, said that by cutting the paychecks of members, Boehner would send the right message to voters.
Schatz explained that Republican lawmakers coming into Congress for their first term would likely support the move.
“[A salary cut] would at least indicate some greater level of understanding of the suffering that people have been subject to during this recession,” said Schatz.
“A lot of the new members, in particular, are coming in with a mindset of cutting spending wherever they think it’s reasonable, and I think starting with their own pay makes sense. They haven’t had that salary in the first place, so members on both sides would just consider it the starting point.”
Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, said he supports members taking a pay cut, but when he spoke with Republican leadership aides recently, they were not quick to jump on the idea. However, Norquist said, Republicans might want to unveil the pay cut in a ceremonial fashion and not have their limelight stolen.
“I heard the rumor — and this may be true, but they just aren’t ‘fessing up to it,” he said.
Norquist added, “I talked to people around Boehner and they didn’t say, ‘No we’d never do that.’ They just weren’t saying ‘Yes.’ And if I were them, I would not tell me if they had some plan to do it because they want to announce it themselves.”
Members of Congress froze their salary in 2011 and did so this year as well, as they have on six other occasions since the law requiring lawmakers to vote against a cost-of-living increase was created in 1990, according to the Congressional Research Service. But the last time members of Congress took an actual pay cut was in the midst of the Great Depression on April 1, 1933.
And with more than 450,000 Americans experiencing joblessness, according to the Department of Labor’s latest numbers released Thursday, voters are going to be looking to Republicans for signals and symbols of actual change on Capitol Hill, Sepp said.
“The Republicans have set the bar very high for their re-ascendency to power, and that means they need to come up with a direct symbol to the public that’s just as strong,” said Sepp.
“When you think back to the last time when Congressional salaries were reduced in the early 1930s, the parallel becomes even stronger,” said Sepp. “If you wanted to make a big splash and say, ‘We’re doing something that Congress hasn’t contemplated since the days of the Great Depression.’ Well, this is the exact thing to do.”
Sepp said it would be “political suicide” to oppose a pay cut if proposed by Boehner, who as Speaker could easily bring a measure outlining the salary slash to the floor. And Democrats would be compelled to support such a bill, he said, especially because Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.) sponsored a measure in this Congress that would have cut member salary by 5 percent. The legislation received 34, mostly Democratic, co-sponsors.
After taking back the House for Democrats, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — a staunch environmental advocate from San Francisco — banned smoking from the Capitol halls and established the chamber’s environmentally friendly “Green the Capitol” program, which included compostable cutlery and a carbon offset program.
And former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), following the wave election of 1994 in which the GOP took the House using the campaign platform of smaller government, pushed to privatize the chamber’s internal services, like the barbershop, and do away with its ice delivery service in an effort to show voters that Republicans wanted to shrink the role of government and its egregiousness.
Similarly, former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was known in the House as a behind-the-scenes dealmaker and a former wrestling coach who was a high school teacher. As his first move as the leader of the chamber in 1999, Hastert responded to the increasingly vocal concerns of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle and eased a ban on gifts they were allowed to receive. Since Republicans took over in 1995, members had not been allowed to accept even minor gifts such as t-shirts. Under Hastert’s change, lawmakers could receive gifts of up to $100 from one person or company in a year.
By Jordy Yager - 11/05/10 11:38 AM ET
Soon-to-be Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) is being pressed by taxpayer groups to slash the salaries of House lawmakers.
Cutting member pay would show voters the new GOP majority in the House is going to lead by example in their efforts to rein in spending and start with their own wallets, say officials with three prominent taxpayer advocacy groups in Washington, D.C.
“There has to be a visible gesture that people can immediately relate to,” said Pete Sepp, the executive vice president of the conservative National Taxpayers Union.
“And cutting pay would be one of the best symbols, because unlike virtually anything else the federal government does, when Congress spends money on its own salaries and benefits, people can make a direct comparison to their own situation,” Sepp said.
The last three House Speakers swept into the leadership role with the issuance of symbolic gestures, which typically correlates to the campaign platform that delivered them to power, said Sarah Binder, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.
“[The symbolic moves] create images that build the party’s reputation and say, ‘This is what Republican rule means and these are things we stand for,’” Binder said. “These are symbolic things that a Speaker would want to do to set a tone or a message.
Boehner is slated to receive a $30,100 pay increase next year when he becomes Speaker of the House. His annual salary will be $223,500. The base pay for House and Senate lawmakers is $174,000, while majority and minority leaders each make $193,400 per year.
Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, said that no decision has been made to slash members' salaries, but pointed to the promises the GOP made in its "Pledge to America" in September.
"The Pledge to America calls for cutting Congress' budget, but no specific decisions have been made about how that will be done at this time," said Steel.
Republicans gained about five dozen House seats Tuesday largely by running campaigns based on promises to scale back government spending, reform how the House operates and increase jobs for Americans.
“It’s pretty clear that the American people want a smaller, less costly, more accountable government here in Washington,” Boehner said to reporters the day after Election Day.
Tom Schatz, the president of Citizens Against Government Waste, said that by cutting the paychecks of members, Boehner would send the right message to voters.
Schatz explained that Republican lawmakers coming into Congress for their first term would likely support the move.
“[A salary cut] would at least indicate some greater level of understanding of the suffering that people have been subject to during this recession,” said Schatz.
“A lot of the new members, in particular, are coming in with a mindset of cutting spending wherever they think it’s reasonable, and I think starting with their own pay makes sense. They haven’t had that salary in the first place, so members on both sides would just consider it the starting point.”
Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, said he supports members taking a pay cut, but when he spoke with Republican leadership aides recently, they were not quick to jump on the idea. However, Norquist said, Republicans might want to unveil the pay cut in a ceremonial fashion and not have their limelight stolen.
“I heard the rumor — and this may be true, but they just aren’t ‘fessing up to it,” he said.
Norquist added, “I talked to people around Boehner and they didn’t say, ‘No we’d never do that.’ They just weren’t saying ‘Yes.’ And if I were them, I would not tell me if they had some plan to do it because they want to announce it themselves.”
Members of Congress froze their salary in 2011 and did so this year as well, as they have on six other occasions since the law requiring lawmakers to vote against a cost-of-living increase was created in 1990, according to the Congressional Research Service. But the last time members of Congress took an actual pay cut was in the midst of the Great Depression on April 1, 1933.
And with more than 450,000 Americans experiencing joblessness, according to the Department of Labor’s latest numbers released Thursday, voters are going to be looking to Republicans for signals and symbols of actual change on Capitol Hill, Sepp said.
“The Republicans have set the bar very high for their re-ascendency to power, and that means they need to come up with a direct symbol to the public that’s just as strong,” said Sepp.
“When you think back to the last time when Congressional salaries were reduced in the early 1930s, the parallel becomes even stronger,” said Sepp. “If you wanted to make a big splash and say, ‘We’re doing something that Congress hasn’t contemplated since the days of the Great Depression.’ Well, this is the exact thing to do.”
Sepp said it would be “political suicide” to oppose a pay cut if proposed by Boehner, who as Speaker could easily bring a measure outlining the salary slash to the floor. And Democrats would be compelled to support such a bill, he said, especially because Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.) sponsored a measure in this Congress that would have cut member salary by 5 percent. The legislation received 34, mostly Democratic, co-sponsors.
After taking back the House for Democrats, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — a staunch environmental advocate from San Francisco — banned smoking from the Capitol halls and established the chamber’s environmentally friendly “Green the Capitol” program, which included compostable cutlery and a carbon offset program.
And former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), following the wave election of 1994 in which the GOP took the House using the campaign platform of smaller government, pushed to privatize the chamber’s internal services, like the barbershop, and do away with its ice delivery service in an effort to show voters that Republicans wanted to shrink the role of government and its egregiousness.
Similarly, former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was known in the House as a behind-the-scenes dealmaker and a former wrestling coach who was a high school teacher. As his first move as the leader of the chamber in 1999, Hastert responded to the increasingly vocal concerns of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle and eased a ban on gifts they were allowed to receive. Since Republicans took over in 1995, members had not been allowed to accept even minor gifts such as t-shirts. Under Hastert’s change, lawmakers could receive gifts of up to $100 from one person or company in a year.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Communist Party covers up support for Obama.
ELECTION 2008
Radical group previously mapped out strategy for president's 1st term in office.
Posted: November 07, 2010
7:18 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The Communist Party USA has scrubbed its website of references that stated it "actively supported" President Obama's election.
An article posted on the party's official website on Dec. 30, 2007, previously stated, "Our Party actively supported Obama during the primary election."
The article was referring to Obama's 2004 election to the Senate. It detailed how the African-American community and trade unionists played key roles in defeating the "ultra right."
"This was also reflected in the historic election of Barack Obama. Our Party actively supported Obama during the primary election," stated the article, a screen shot of which was captured by the New Zeal blog.
The website has since been scrubbed of the reference to the Community Party USA aiding Obama, with the article now reading simply, "This was reflected in the historic election of Barack Obama."
WND previously reported the official magazine of the Communist Party USA had lauded the important role of labor unions in electing Obama to the presidency in 2008.
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, or AFL-CIO, sponsored a poll showing union members supported Obama by a 68-30 margin and strongly influenced their family members. According to the survey, Obama won among white men who are union members by 18 points. Union gun-owners backed Obama by 12 points, while union veterans voted for Obama by a 25-point margin. In the general population, Obama lost these groups by significant margins.
Political Affairs, the Community Party USA's magazine, quoted AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, a longtime member of the Boston chapter of the Democrat Socialists for America, expressing hope labor unions can continue working with Obama.
"The election is just step one in delivering the change we need," Sweeney said. "Working men and women are poised to keep the energy pumping to help the Obama administration lead the change we need. There will be no gap or letdown."
The communist magazine said priorities for labor unions are "regulating Wall Street and restoring fairness to international trade," as well as "health-care reform" to provide coverage to "nearly 50 million people without insurance and make medical care affordable for all."
Communists map out Obama agenda
Immediately following the November 2008 presidential election, WND reported the Communist Party USA mapped out policies crucial for Obama to push through in his first term, including a "single payer" socialist health-care system; laws to make joining a labor union easier; raising the minimum wage and increasing labor union support.
In May 2009, WND reported the leader of the Communist Party USA declared that with Obama as president, health care and the economy can be "reformed," U.S. troops can be evacuated from the Middle East, a second stimulus bill can be passed, the criminal justice system can be overhauled and union rights can be expanded.
"All these – and many other things – are within our reach now!" exclaimed Sam Webb in a New York banquet speech for the People's Weekly World, the official newspaper of the Communist Party USA.
Radical group previously mapped out strategy for president's 1st term in office.
Posted: November 07, 2010
7:18 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The Communist Party USA has scrubbed its website of references that stated it "actively supported" President Obama's election.
An article posted on the party's official website on Dec. 30, 2007, previously stated, "Our Party actively supported Obama during the primary election."
The article was referring to Obama's 2004 election to the Senate. It detailed how the African-American community and trade unionists played key roles in defeating the "ultra right."
"This was also reflected in the historic election of Barack Obama. Our Party actively supported Obama during the primary election," stated the article, a screen shot of which was captured by the New Zeal blog.
The website has since been scrubbed of the reference to the Community Party USA aiding Obama, with the article now reading simply, "This was reflected in the historic election of Barack Obama."
WND previously reported the official magazine of the Communist Party USA had lauded the important role of labor unions in electing Obama to the presidency in 2008.
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, or AFL-CIO, sponsored a poll showing union members supported Obama by a 68-30 margin and strongly influenced their family members. According to the survey, Obama won among white men who are union members by 18 points. Union gun-owners backed Obama by 12 points, while union veterans voted for Obama by a 25-point margin. In the general population, Obama lost these groups by significant margins.
Political Affairs, the Community Party USA's magazine, quoted AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, a longtime member of the Boston chapter of the Democrat Socialists for America, expressing hope labor unions can continue working with Obama.
"The election is just step one in delivering the change we need," Sweeney said. "Working men and women are poised to keep the energy pumping to help the Obama administration lead the change we need. There will be no gap or letdown."
The communist magazine said priorities for labor unions are "regulating Wall Street and restoring fairness to international trade," as well as "health-care reform" to provide coverage to "nearly 50 million people without insurance and make medical care affordable for all."
Communists map out Obama agenda
Immediately following the November 2008 presidential election, WND reported the Communist Party USA mapped out policies crucial for Obama to push through in his first term, including a "single payer" socialist health-care system; laws to make joining a labor union easier; raising the minimum wage and increasing labor union support.
In May 2009, WND reported the leader of the Communist Party USA declared that with Obama as president, health care and the economy can be "reformed," U.S. troops can be evacuated from the Middle East, a second stimulus bill can be passed, the criminal justice system can be overhauled and union rights can be expanded.
"All these – and many other things – are within our reach now!" exclaimed Sam Webb in a New York banquet speech for the People's Weekly World, the official newspaper of the Communist Party USA.
Monday, November 8, 2010
‘It’s Not Me. It’s You.’
THANK YOU RED STATE AND ERICK ERICKSON
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Monday, November 8th at 6:00AM EST
Mr. Obama has made up his mind. The voters did not reject him or his policies on Tuesday. They just rejected the economy. Never mind that it is his policies that have made things worse.
We’ve heard this now since last Wednesday. Mr. Obama has taken it as his mantra that “it’s the economy stupid” and also that people are too stupid to understand what awesome things he has been doing for them.
More significantly, Mr. Obama has taken to repeating that he was just responding to a crisis. He thinks there was no “overreach” just a “perception” of an overreach.
It was, therefore, the message not the policy.
Let’s be clear here — this is the administration with the internal mantra of “never let a crisis go to waste.”
Mr. Obama may believe he was just responding to a crisis, but much of what he did was not part of the crisis. Bailing out and expanding unions was not part of the crisis. Propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was not part of the crisis — heck, they caused the crisis.
Attacking American job creators with language harsher than that used to attack Al Qaeda, Iran, and North Korea was not part of the crisis.
And, most obviously, taking over the American health care system was not part of the crisis. That was part of not letting the crisis go to waste.
For two years now, the Democrats have told us that Barack Obama is the best communicator since God first said “Let there be light.”
Today, they and Mr. Obama himself, would have you believe was a communications problem, not a policy repudiation.
According to Tuesday’s exit polls, a majority of Americans blame Wall Street Bankers for causing the economic collapse. It looks like they got Barack Obama’s message. The problem for Barack Obama is that those people voted overwhelmingly for the Republicans.
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Monday, November 8th at 6:00AM EST
Mr. Obama has made up his mind. The voters did not reject him or his policies on Tuesday. They just rejected the economy. Never mind that it is his policies that have made things worse.
We’ve heard this now since last Wednesday. Mr. Obama has taken it as his mantra that “it’s the economy stupid” and also that people are too stupid to understand what awesome things he has been doing for them.
More significantly, Mr. Obama has taken to repeating that he was just responding to a crisis. He thinks there was no “overreach” just a “perception” of an overreach.
It was, therefore, the message not the policy.
Let’s be clear here — this is the administration with the internal mantra of “never let a crisis go to waste.”
Mr. Obama may believe he was just responding to a crisis, but much of what he did was not part of the crisis. Bailing out and expanding unions was not part of the crisis. Propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was not part of the crisis — heck, they caused the crisis.
Attacking American job creators with language harsher than that used to attack Al Qaeda, Iran, and North Korea was not part of the crisis.
And, most obviously, taking over the American health care system was not part of the crisis. That was part of not letting the crisis go to waste.
For two years now, the Democrats have told us that Barack Obama is the best communicator since God first said “Let there be light.”
Today, they and Mr. Obama himself, would have you believe was a communications problem, not a policy repudiation.
According to Tuesday’s exit polls, a majority of Americans blame Wall Street Bankers for causing the economic collapse. It looks like they got Barack Obama’s message. The problem for Barack Obama is that those people voted overwhelmingly for the Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)