IT IS TOO BAD THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE DID NOT THINK CHRYSLER BOND HOLDERS DESERVED THE SAME PRO

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

Saturday, November 28, 2009

If the American public had any doubt where the loyalties of the Obama administration were before yesterday. There is no doubt about it today.

As you will recall when we had the controversy over the government take over of General Motors less than a year ago. During the GM process the issue of bankruptcy for Chrysler was not allowed, by Obama’s Car Czar, to go through the normal bankruptcy process, but a “special” government bankruptcy was pushed through by the Car Czar that was in direct violation of the Constitution!

This travesty ignored the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution that guarantees that the bond holders are prime recipients for any payment that results from reorganization. But in the Chrysler manipulation, the CAR CZAR appointed by, and beholden to only Obama, decided that the bond holders came last and the workers of the auto union came first. A direct violation of the Constitution! In fact Obama called the Bond holders unpatriotic because they were not willing to accept 20 cents on a dollar for their bonds and had threatened to sue to get what they thought they were due !

Now the issue of contracts between the government and ACORN has been addressed by the Attorney Generals office.The issue is, should the government pay monies owed ACORN for services that were contracted(arranged) before the President signed a Bill forbidding the payment of taxpayers money to this corrupt organization.

Remember that when they were contracted to register voters they not only registered dead people, they registered Mickey Mouse!!

In a direct contrast to the Chrysler bond holders deal, the Attorney General’s office ruled that ACORN must be paid because the contracts were in force before Obama signed the Bill forbidding payments to ACORN

The following is an excerpt from an article on the internet written by Charlie Savage.

“Acorn, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has received about $53 million in federal aid, much of it grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for providing various services related to affordable housing.

But the group has become a prime target for conservative critics, and on Oct. 1, President Obama signed into law a spending bill that included a provision that said no taxpayer money — including money authorized by previous legislation — could be “provided to” the group or its affiliates.

A Housing and Urban Development Department lawyer asked the Justice Department whether the new law meant that pre-existing contracts with Acorn should be broken. And in a memorandum signed Oct. 23 and posted online this week, Mr. Barron said the government should continue to make payments to Acorn as required by such contracts.

The new law “should not be read as directing or authorizing HUD to breach a pre-existing binding contractual obligation to make payments to Acorn or its affiliates, subsidiaries or allied organizations where doing so would give rise to contractual liability,” Mr. Barron wrote”.

The deputy director of national operations for Acorn, Brian Kettenring, praised Mr. Barron’s decision.

Of course he would and so should all the recipients for the government (tax payer funded) bail outs including the Wall Street bankers, Brokerage houses(AIG,etc.) and other Obama supporters who helped elect Obama, and now are being paid back!

The decision by the acting assistant Attorney General reminds me of the testimoney of Bill Clinton when he was questioned whether he had sex with “ML”. He said it all depends on the meaning of the word is, is? Of course I am paraphrasing his words, but the result is the same. The parsing of words using Semantics to confuse the issue.

Here is what the AAG said: “Mr. Barron said he had based his conclusion on the statute’s phrase “provided to.” This phrase, he said, has no clearly defined meaning in the realm of government spending — unlike words like “obligate” and “expend.”

Citing dictionary and thesaurus entries, he said “provided to” could be interpreted as meaning only instances in which an official was making “discretionary choices” about whether to give the group money, rather than instances in which the transfer of money to Acorn was required to satisfy contractual obligations.

Since there are two possible ways to construe the term “provided to,” Mr. Barron wrote, it makes sense to pick the interpretation that allows the government to avoid breaching contracts”.

I believe the reason why Obama and Democrats are pushing so hard for Health Care reform to be rushed through Congress is to reward large Unions and AARP and other ilk who will gain from Socializing 1/6th of our GNP. Not to cut the cost of health care or provide health insurance to those who cannot afford it!

Wake up Americans !! How long will this corrupt adminstration go without Americans marching in the millions on the Capitol screaming enough already!!

THERE ARE TWO BASIC PRINCIPLES THAT THIS BLOG ADDRESSES

There are two items of interest that I will address in the blog today. The Economy and Patriotism!

First I am compelled to comment on the asinine statement of Senator Conrad of North Dakota. I hate to cast aspersions on people whom I know little about, but I am compelled to ask the question: What were you people thinking when you sent the elitist stupid man to Washington.

Apparently he does not understand that the Bill of rights gives us freedom of speech, and the uniform code of military justice reigns over all persons regardless of rank that wear the uniform of the United States!

His statement yesterday that impugned all who believe if you commit a crime of the massive effect that was the plotting of flying our airplanes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and is captured on foreign soil by military personnel he is a prisoner of war.

AS such he is entitled to trial by a military tribunal as were the Nazis in Nuremberg, not in the civilian court.

But this paragon of Liberal progressive thinking had this to say about those of us who protest the decision by the attorney general to bring KSM to New York for a civil trial.

"CNSNews.com) – Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) told CNSNews.com that civilian courts are well-suited to prosecute al Qaeda terrorists and that "if people don't believe in our system, maybe they ought to go somewhere else.”
Conrad also dismissed a question about the rights of terrorists captured on foreign battlefields and the rules of evidence in terms of a civilian court trial as not serious.

If Senator Conrad was a patriotic American he would want the confessed plotter of the worst destruction committed on U.S. soil in the history of our Nation, to receive his just punishment. If for no other reason than to avenge the lives of the almost three thousand people who lost their lives in this heinous act, but if this mockery of a trial proceeds it is an almost certainty that the five terrorists will be acquitted if not released by dismissal before the trial begins by the judge because of this Supreme Court Ruling.

According to the Supreme Court in Weeks v. United States (1914), the government cannot use evidence obtained without a search warrant.

“The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures and enforced confessions, the latter often obtained after subjecting accused persons to unwarranted practices destructive of rights secured by the Federal Constitution, should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts, which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution, and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights,” the Court found.

I believe, as most Americans believe, that when an appointed or elected official of the Government, either locla, state or federal does something that is either un-constitutional or just not in the interests of the people whom the official is supposed to represent. They should speak out ! Not quietly, but in a loud voice that gets the attention of the elected and appointed official. It is still a free Country and you can still say anything that is not presently treasonous or inciting to riot!
Senator Conrad should apologize to the American people for his statement!

The second and not necessarally less important is the U.S. Economy. It is heading south rapidly and the number one cause is the massive spending by the Congress to satisfy President Obama's quest to socialize the USA! They say they are doing it to reverse the downward spiral of the economy, but despite and because of the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars, the economy has nose dived that has resulted in an unemployment rate of 17% ,if you count the people who no longer are looking for work!

The fall of the US dollar is turning into an avalanche that I and others could be the downfall of the USA fre-enterprise system!.

The following is an interesting article printed in the English version of Pravda that illustrates my point.
"On Tuesday, the American currency lost nine kopeks in Russia and reached a new minimum mark this year - 29.5 rubles per dollar. Within six months (April through September) the dollar lost over 10 percent at the world foreign exchange trading, which marked the sharpest decline since 1991. Some experts believe that the American currency is close to collapse, which may lead to a new financial crisis.

The tendency of the US dollar devaluation has been observed for a few years, but the current rate of decline is unprecedented. Some jokesters even rushed to re-read the letters of Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels written during the US financial panic of 1857 discussing the collapse of America. It would have been funny if it wasn’t so serious.

The chief economist of HSBC Bank Stephen King believes that if the US officials fail to stop the fall of American currency, it may provoke another financial crisis. “A dollar collapse would be a disaster all round… It would leave the international monetary system short of stability and long of fear. It would unleash economic upheavals on a similar scale to those seen in the 1970,” King wrote for The Independent.

American officials don’t seem to be overly concerned since nothing is being done about it. The US hasn’t done anything to support the currency since 1955. But is a collapse inevitable? From the viewpoint of macroeconomic indicators, the US state of affairs is, indeed, scary: record budget deficit of $1.4 trillion, record state debt that now exceeds $11.9 trillion, high unemployment and weak currency. Huge inflows of capital into the economy that Obama is proud of haven’t yet shown results.
But on the other hand, weak currency may be good for the US.

“The economy is supported by industrial orders based on the current weak dollar and higher prices in the future. Key players in the market are ready to support their manufacturers by weakening the currency,” says Alexander Kuptsikevich, FxPro financial analyst.

If the state debt is growing, it means that the US continues to obtain loans.
“Market participants prefer to borrow money in dollars, and dollar loans are relatively affordable. They invest into more active instruments denominated in currencies of developing countries,’ explains Yevgeny Nadorshin, chief economist of Trust Investment Bank.

This causes growth of stock index. For example, Russian Trading System increased by 34 percent within two and a half months.

Shall we sit by while Obamphiles destroy our Republic?

ANOTHER REASON TO WORRY IF YOU LIVE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS

Wednesday, November 25, 2009


EM crews that respond to emergency 911 calls will only take you to he nearest hospital. Even if you travel to the city to see an internist or cardiologist who is affiliated with a major metropolitan hospital for a chronic medical condition that suddenly becomes acute. The EMT crews who man the ambulances are required to take you to the nearest hospital.

This is a good idea if you are suffering a heart attack, but if you end up in the emergency room of a rural or small city hospital, you better have them transfer you to the Big city hospital as soon as you are stabilized. If you do not the “TAB” for your treatment will cost you very much more because of provisions in the Pelosi House Health Care Bill.

A rural town’s only hospital very likely has the only outpatient surgery unit, the only radiology unit and the only clinical laboratory. Its outpatient clinic may be the only primary care practice in town, and it may have the only ambulance service and the only home health agency.

If the House health care bill becomes law, the Democrats’ plan stipulates below-market payment rates and a new government-run insurance company that would compete with cash-strapped rural hospitals.

Rural hospitals, which are normally small and operate on a tight budget, could be put in further financial jeopardy because the House-passed version of health care reform does not fix the disparity in Medicare reimbursements between rural and urban hospitals. Rural hospitals usually are paid far less than their urban counterparts, despite facing comparable rates of chronic illnesses such as heart disease or diabetes.

Currently, Medicare reimburses hospitals based on how their average labor costs – adjusted to account for the hospital’s geographic location – relate to the national average. This geographic location adjustment is supposed to represent an area that has relatively uniform costs.

However, if a hospital’s geographic area does not have uniform costs, hospitals can be short-changed and may end up having to pass the excess cost on to patients who carry private insurance.

The disparities are caused by Medicare’s “metropolitan/non-metropolitan” classification system. Under this system, hospitals located in metropolitan areas are paid at one rate and hospitals in non-metropolitan areas – usually the entire area of a state that is not within a particular city’s limits – are paid at a lower rate.

Rural hospitals are often placed in financial straits because costs in the non-metropolitan areas, and financial difficulty translates into shoddy care and the transfer of the lost reimbursement from the Federal government to the patient. This is a double “whammy” courtesy of the Democrats and Rhinos who eventually will pass this travesty if Americans do not wake up and stop it!!

Maggie Elehwany the VP for NRHA told CNSNews.com; “Because these are small facilities, they often operate at a very narrow margin. Many of them are the only access to care for patients within miles and miles and miles,” she said. “They generally have a low [patient] volume but they still have to have a basic level of equipment and update their HIT [Health Information Technology] and things like that.”

“Medicare’s way of saving money is sort of bit like a Costco purchase – the more you do, you’ll make out okay because you’re doing such a high volume of business – that just doesn’t work in rural areas,” she said.

These disparities mean that rural hospitals are forced to pass the costs of Medicare patients not covered by government on to patients with private insurance, a system put at risk by a government-run public option, one that could siphon off those privately insured customers.

If this does not convince you people, who like I do, live in a small city not close to a BIG crime ridden city that the politicians consider US as only “fly over” communities. This provision in the Pelosi Bill should awaken you to the fact that they do not care about us except at election time when they beg for our votes!

Posted in THREATS TO US
Tags: commentary, cuts, PELOSI BILL, RURAL HOSPITALS

WILL MORAL LEGITIMACY BE QUESTIONED IN NEW YORK TRIAL?

WILL HUMAN RIGHTS FOR TERRORISTS BE THE ISSUE IN NEWYORK?

Ali Dayan Hassan, senior South Asia researcher for the US-based rights watchdog Human Rights Watch is at work in the United Kingdom. He is also the British HRW South East Asia consultant to the the Lord Chilcot inquiry that will try to decide what was the overriding factor that took Britain into the Iraq war. This is a “crucial secret” the Chilcot inquiry could unlock. Key could be what assurances Tony Blair gave George Bush in a series of bilateral meetings, notably at the president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002.


The five man investigation committee that is holding a hearing that the leader says will last most of a year to investigate what actually was the reason for the Iraq war, and was Britain complicit in the torture of captured terrorist suspects.

The session will be televised on the BBC so it appears London will have a “circus” to watch on the “Tellee”about the same time that we have the travesty called a trial in New York for KSM and his four co-conspirators!

It appears the British have the same Human Rights “shill” as we have here in the USA.
What troubles me is the fact he may be called as a witness for the defense of the Terrorist Five” scheduled by Obama and his Attorney General in New York.

The following is an article that Hasan wrote for Dawn, Pakistan’s only English newspaper.

“ISLAMABAD will be sealed off so that President Musharraf can welcome US President George Bush to his capital. Bush is making the journey to compliment and compensate Musharraf on services rendered in the ‘war on terror’.

Musharraf is hosting Bush to bask in the glory of a renewed alliance with the United States and to strengthen his faltering grip on power. Nowhere is human rights on the agenda.

In the run up to the trip, Bush has praised general Musharraf’s “vision for a democratic Pakistan” and his commitment to “free and open elections” Unless Bush knows something that Pakistanis do not, it appears that the continued disregard and undermining of the Pakistani Constitution, the marginalization of mainstream political parties, and the failure to hold a credible election is an odd formula for a democratic Pakistan and the Bush administration’s broader commitment to “fostering democracy in the Muslim world.”

The skewed view of President Musharraf held by Bush is certainly based on shared values. But rather than the shared value of democracy that Bush likes to speak about, what Musharraf and Bush have in common is a shared commitment to the priority, above all else, of the ‘war on terror.’ Bush has been gushing about Musharraf’s role therein, appreciating his “commitment to joining the world in dealing with Islamic radicals who will murder innocent people to achieve an objective.”

Bloggers note: this is the same Musharraf that identified the man scheduled to be tried with four other terrorists in New York as ” the man who had been recruited by the 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, who had trained a 12-man suicide squad intended to hit US interests around the world, and conducted reconnaissance of Heathrow airport in preparation for a possible attack” Source: BBC News.

“Given the conduct of the Bush administration in this context, the US president’s appreciation of the Musharraf government is hardly surprising. International human rights law contains no more basic prohibition than the absolute, unconditional ban on torture and “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.” To date, the Bush Administration’s understanding of the term “torture” remains uncleared. My comment is that torture and beheading by the terrorists is no problem for this Leftist humanist!

And to make your blood boil even more I offer an excerpt from an article written by Ali Dayan Hasan for the Dawn Internet. The only Pakistan Newspaper that is printed in English”.

DOES THIS SOUND LIKE IT MAY BE USED AS A DEFENSE ARGUMENT IN THE TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR NEW YORK?
”British officials knew that Pakistani intelligence agencies routinely used torture, were aware of specific cases and did not intervene,” HRW’s senior South Asia researcher, Ali Dayan Hasan, said.

Such complicity had been confirmed by unnamed UK and Pakistani officials, the report said.
bloggers note: unnamed sources is a way to say this cannot be verified!

”A key lesson from the past eight years of global efforts to combat terrorism is that the use of torture and ill-treatment is deeply counter-productive,” Mr Hasan went on.
”It undermines the moral legitimacy of governments that rely on it and serves as a recruiting tool for terrorist organisations. ”The evil of terrorism does not justify participating in or using the results of torture. Until an independent inquiry is held and those responsible held accountable, Britain’s reputation as a rights-respecting nation will stand tarnished.”

Some one ought to inform Mr Hasan that all WAR is immoral, but unfortunately there is only one option–to surrender to our attackers! Remeber 9/11/01!!

I would remind the reader that those who blow themselves up to kill innocent people, chop heads off Journalists, and plant IEDs to kill anyone who drives the road are religious zealots dedicated to kill anyone they feel is not Islamic! And need I remind you of the Zaccarias Moussaoui trial as an example of the bad result that can happen in the New York trial?.

But a better case for an accurate preview of what can go wrong is that of USA v. Karim Koubriti and his other co-defendants in the Detroit terror trial. As I’ve noted in excruciating detail, after Koubriti was found guilty by a federal jury in Detroit, his lawyers and PC prosecutors conspired to get the verdict overturned. The Justice Department (yes, it was President BUSH’s Justice Department) indicted the prosecutor (who beat the absurd charges). Terrorist Koubriti is now living in my hometown making his way to becoming a U.S. Citizen (with the DOJ’s help). And he’s suing the prosecutor, Richard Convertino. That’s what can happen here with KSM and his buddies.

Winston Churchill said something that is worth quoting at this point. He said; “A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him!

WHILE POTUS BOWS AND SCRAPES IN THE FAR EAST THE SENATE PREPARES TO RIP UP THE CONSTITUTION

While in Tokyo, Japan Obama was photographed kowtowing to Emperor Akihito of Japan last weekend, by the middle of the week he was accused of being almost supine when dealing with the new capitalist emperors of China, whom he allowed to stifle his star qualities at every turn.

From the “town hall” meeting in Shanghai stuffed with carefully schooled patsies of the Communist Youth League to the joint press conference with President Hu Jintao at which no questions were allowed, Mr Obama cut an uncharacteristically wooden, stilted figure. As one American columnist acidly observed, at times it was “hard to tell who was Hu.”

Reading from pre-prepared 1,200-word statements, the two men spoke as if from their parallel policy universes, unable even to feign agreement on most key issues. On trade, currency, Iran, climate change and human rights Mr Obama failed to win so much as an inch of ground from his hosts.

And yet two hours later the two governments released a “Joint Statement” which is now being hailed as the most significant step forward in US-China relations since Richard Nixon reopened relations 30 years ago.

The statement – mentioned by neither leader at the press conference – left even the most seasoned China watchers perplexed.

”It was paradoxical,” said Richard Baum, professor of Chinese politics at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The press conference confirmed every low expectation we had for the meeting, but when I saw the statement, I said, ‘Wait a minute, are we talking about the same event?’ It is the most extensive document in 20 years, maybe ever.”

Running to more than 4,000 words, it promised a breadth and depth of co-operation that was unthinkable even two or three years ago. On more than 40 key areas, including military and security ties, global financial governance, climate change and the economy China and America agreed to put their much publicised differences to one side and work together.

From the general (including China’s significant first ever “welcome” to the US as an Asia-Pacific nation contributing stability to the region) to the particular (a pledge to put “millions” of electric cars on the roads of both countries) the document was described as “incredible”.

The substance of the Joint Statement has already caused some to reassess the merits of Mr Obama’s strategy in Beijing. Perhaps, by giving China so much “face”, Mr Obama may in time be judged to have saved his own.

”It was surprising that the White House should roll over to Chinese demands to control the agenda as they did,” said Professor David Shambaugh, director of the China Policy Programme at George Washington University and visiting scholar at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

”He(Obama) met no Chinese people, no CEOs, not even the US Chamber of Commerce. He didn’t give a speech at a university or even visit a wind farm.

“However the Joint Statement is a most extraordinary document, a blueprint for global partnership that opens a new chapter in the China-US relationship.” It was, he said, “a major accomplishment”.

On this view, Mr Obama’s softly softly approach paid a significant dividend, as he traded media opprobrium at home for the chance to take what a White House official called “an important first step” in a new relationship with China. It is a step that the White House hopes will be viewed positively in “the scope of history”, if not in the New York Times – which memorably said Mr Obama had been “squelched” by his Chinese hosts.

Doubters of Mr Obama’s low-key strategy point to China’s failure to give ground on a single major issue this week – not even faintly tougher language on Iran, for example – and wonder if China will ever make the compromises required to turn the grand aspirations of the Joint Statement into reality. Where Mr Obama sees statesmanship, his opponents see weakness which the Chinese are ready and waiting to exploit.

But both governments have asked for patience, saying they are determined to focus on positives not negatives.

“I did not expect, and I can speak authoritatively for the President on this, that we thought the waters would part and everything would change over the course of our almost two and a half day trip to China,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary.

In essence, said veteran Chinese commentator, Shi Yinhong, professor of International Relations at Renmin University in Beijing, both sides have “agreed to disagree” over their core positions, which is itself an important step forward in the context of US-China relations.

“The joint statement clearly places co-operation as the primary aspect of the US-China relationship, relegating their rivalry and competition to a secondary position. This is a position that would have been impossible perhaps even two years ago,” he said. Source: London Telegraph
I say the co-operation will be done by the Obama administration and his MINIONS in Congress, and the ChiCOMS will do the dictating to the USA because they hold all the T-bonds!

While this charade was occurring in China the Senate was violating the Bill of Rights once again, by passing the vote to consider and debate their Health Care travesty called reform 60-39!

The Constitution that was ratified on 12/15.1791 contains section nine(9) that defines the LIMITS of Congress.

This section contains the language that I believe makes the so-called fines on individuals and families that choose not to buy health insurance subject to a fine and possible Jail term.

I am no Constitutional lawyer, but I think the word fine could easily be interpreted as a tax as it applies to the proposed bill.

The language in the Constitution in Section nine (9) is this: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Attainder: The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime. [< OFr. attaindre, to convict] Source: AHD
In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder!

I also believe the Senate Bill violates the 5th amendment of the Bill of Rights that says:

Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If your hard-earned money is not your property,what is?