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?

Today the Senate of the United States will have less than eight hours to debate a proposed Bill that will effectively turn over one-sixth of our economy to the Federal Government from the Free enterprise system.


Tonight the Democrats who have a majority of 60 senators will start the process of steam rolling this Socialist tax filled Bill over the objections of a majority of the American public who have expressed their disdain for the so-called “Government Option”.

Some of the Senators actually believe that they are doing something good, but unfortunately the majority of the “princely” elected representatives are doing the will of the “messiah” Obama!

And any thinking person who has read either of the books written by Obama and studied his legislative record and history in Illinois before he clawed his way into the U.S. Senate, will realize that we have as president a man who believes the Constitution is flawed because it limits what the Federal Government can do “and does not address the re-distribution of wealth”!

Where has this philosophy of government come from? I and many scholars who have studied the progress of the Leftists in the USA note that many of the ideas that Obama
has employed since he took over the Oval Office came from the same place where Obama took his pre-law education, Columbia University.

The following is an article about the two Phd.’s from Columbia who developed the “scheme” that I believe is the road map for Obama and his sycophants.

Social theorist, welfare rights activist, and political science professor Frances Fox Piven was born in 1932 in Calgary, Alberta. Raised in New York, she was naturalized in 1953, the same year she received a BA in city planning from the University of Chicago. After receiving an MA (1956) and a Ph.D. (1962) from that institution, she moved to New York where she worked as a city planner and then as a research associate for one of the country’s first antipoverty agencies, Mobilization for Youth (MFY) on New York’s Lower East Side.

In 1965 Piven and her MFY colleague Richard Cloward began a career of formulating the theoretical underpinnings of anti-poverty and welfare rights movements with the publication of a paper entitled “Mobilizing the Poor: How It Can Be Done”.

Cloward and Piven ”apply social analysis to organizing strategy” to find ways to take advantage of changing social, economic, and political conditions to benefit the poor. Their work was instrumental in the founding of such organizations as the National Welfare Rights Organization and HumanSERVE, a voter-registration project that culminated in the “Motor-Voter” Act of 1994. Piven has taught at Columbia University (1966-72), Boston University (1972-82), and the City University of New York (1982-). With Cloward, she has co-authored numerous articles and nine books including Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare (1971), Poor People’s Movements (1977), and Why Americans Don’t Vote (1988).

There is a liberal record of unmitigated legislative disasters, the latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress – with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?

Why? One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.Just a few examples are the Social Security , Medicaid and Medicare plans that are either bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy!

Then there is the Post Office, Amtrak and the failure of the Stimulus Bill to stem unemployment that is now at 10.2%!

I submit to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent – the failure is deliberate. Don’t laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer Saul Alinsky:
“Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)

Their strategy( and apparently Obama and the Congressional Democrats)is to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation’s wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of “crisis” they were trying to create:
By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Reform Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Wiley hired militant foot soldiers to storm welfare offices around the country, violently demanding their “rights.” According to a City Journal article by Sol Stern, welfare rolls increased from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s as a result, and in New York City, where the strategy had been particularly successful, “one person was on the welfare rolls… for every two working in the city’s private economy.”

Transferring the Health Care industry from the Free Enterprise system will create thousands if not millions of Federal and State administrators,aka beauracrats, replacing decision makers in the Insurance Industry and the Medical system that are now working in the private fee for service sector!

Posted in THREATS TO US
Tags: CLOWARD-PIVENS, CONGRESS, health care bill, obama, socialism

AFRICAN-AMERICANS SHOULD BE PRO-LIFE

I moved to South Florida in the late fifties, and was witness to the massive invasion of Cubans that were fleeing from the Communist Castro oppressive take over of Cuba. The thousands of young men and women arrived here with nothing but the clothes on their backs, and were desperate to find work, any kind of work to keep from starving. Many had relatives who had he foresight to leave Cuba before Castro took over, and they provided many with shelter, but many were put in camps for refugees under the massive bridge in downtown Miami. At the time the wave of Cuban immigrants hit South Florida. The bellhop, waiters, parking attendants and all service personnel were African-Americans. But the Cubans were willing to work for less money, and gradually they took most of the Hotel jobs.




Fast forward to the 1980s and the Mexicans seeking work and a better way of life started the illegal crossing of the borders of California, Arizona and Texas. At first it was a trickle but soon became a wave that has grown to and estimated 12 million illegals that successfully crossed the border into the USA! These mexicans also were willing to work for less than Americans in the fields and the many businesses that did not require particular skills.



What has this got to do with the pro-life issue? Well, many Blacks soon became a minority group that accepted abortion as a way to keep from having children despite their pastors protestations that abortion was wrong. Although many joined White people who embraced the concept of being a welfare mother who lived off the State and Federal government subsides. AS a result Hispanics outnumber blacks as the largest minority group in the USA for the first time since the government began counting the nation’s population more than two centuries ago. The U.S. Census Bureau’s anouncement confirmed what many have treated as fact for some time. Even so, it’s a symbolic milestone for a nation whose history has been dominated by black-white racial dynamics. Increased racial and ethnic diversity is adding a new dimension to everything from product marketing to political campaigning. There are 38.8 million Hispanics in the USA, according to the latest Census Bureau estimates released Wednesday. The figures, as of July 1, show a 9.8% increase since the Census was taken in April 2000. The U.S. population grew 2.5% to 288.4 million in the same period. Hispanics accounted for half of the national increase. Non-Hispanic blacks, including people who say they’re black and another race, grew at a much slower rate than Hispanics, up 3.1%, to 36.6 million. Hispanics make up 13% of the nation’s population. The number of Asians also surged. They’re up 9% to 13.1 million. The population gains by Hispanics reflect a society that has already embraced Spanish TV and election ballots in Spanish.



The Hispanic population is soaring because of immigration and higher birth rates. The above illustrates the clout that Hispanics have in Washington. Including the drive for amnesty! While the Hispanics have grown in numbers the Blacks have joined the genocide that is abortion. The following is a report printed in CNSNews.com today by a Black female gynecologist, “(CNSNews.com) – Abortion kills more black Americans than the seven leading causes of death combined, according to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2005, the latest year for which the abortion numbers are available. Abortion killed at least 203,991 blacks in the 36 states and two cities (New York City and the District of Columbia) that reported abortions by race in 2005, according to the CDC. During that same year, according to the CDC, a total of 198,385 blacks nationwide died from heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and chronic lower respiratory diseases combined. These were the seven leading causes of death for black Americans that year. A total of 49 jurisdictions reported their abortion numbers for 2005 to the CDC. These included all 50 states–except California, Louisiana, and New Hampshire–and New York City and the District of Columbia. Of these 49 jurisdiction, only 36 states plus New York City and the District of Columbia reported the number of abortions by race. Of these 36 states, Georgia reported the largest number of abortions–18,325–among African-Americans. Idaho and Montana reported the fewest, 16 and 17 respectively. Among the large states not reporting abortions by race–and thus where the number of blacks killed by abortions is not included in the national total of 203,991–are California, Florida, Illinois and the rest of New York state outside of New York City. According to the CDC, the total of 203,991 blacks killed by abortion in 2005 also does not include those aborted by “private physicians’ procedures.”



Every year since 1969, the CDC has amassed abortion data by state or area of occurrence, requesting information each year from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City. The CDC attempts to collect data on abortions by the age, race and marital status of the women who undergo them as well as the type of abortion procedure. In 2005, a total of 820,151 legal abortions were performed in the 49 jurisdiction that reported abortions to the CDC, according to the “Abortion Surveillance” report, which is published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, or MMWR, for Nov. 28, 2008. (Scroll up to top of report) The report states, “Approximately 1 in 5 U.S. pregnancies have ended in abortion,” and also notes some limitations on the data: “The overall number, ratio, and rate of abortions are conservative estimates; the total numbers of legal induced abortions provided by central health agencies and reported to the CDC for 2005 were probably lower than the numbers actually performed.” The report states that there were 203,991 blacks killed by abortion, which comprises 35.5 percent of all abortions reported for that year.



Rev. Clenard H. Childress, Jr., founder of BlackGenocide.org, told CNSNews.com that according to numbers gleaned from statistics provided by the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion group, 1,784 blacks are aborted each day. Also, he notes on his Web site that three out of five African-American women will obtain an abortion. Childress said the information and sources on his Web site have never been challenged by abortion-access supporters. “This is because they can see that themselves, and they know them probably to be far worse than we’re reporting. The facts come from the pro-abort/pro-choice community,” he said. “You want to go to a reliable source where people can’t dismiss what you’re saying,” Childress said. “Yet the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP, Urban League, and the National Action Committee of Al Sharpton fail abysmally to report not only the decimation but the health ramifications which are questionably very pertinent and provable,” said Childress. “It would be one thing if we were talking about something hypothetically, but these are actual empirical proofs. … We simply want the health issues of abortion to be discussed,” Childress added. Time for Blacks to decide that Right to Life is good for political clout if not just for the moral travesty that abortion is to the most unprotected children in the USA. A child in the mother’s womb!



Posted in THREATS TO US
Tags: abortion, AFRICAN-AMERICANS, HISPANICS, politics, STATISTICS

IT IS TIME TO ADMIT WE HAVE A LIAR IN CHIEF AS POTUS

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

Thursday, November 19, 2009

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” .GEORGE ORWELL

We expect and receive grandiose statements, promises that the person making them never can make during political campaigns. The truth is lost in the quest to win the votes of the electorate.

But once the campaign is over, we expect our elected representatives to talk straight to us. No lies are accepted. Except it appears from president Obama and his very large “inner circle”.

The following are direct quotes from the President within the last 18 months. Some I have commented on, the others, as they say at Harvard Law, res ipso loquitur.

1) ”…not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t — not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited — I am.” Speech to Congress, February 24, 2009

2) “And that is why I have ordered the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and will seek swift and certain justice for captured terrorists…” Speech to Congress, February 24, 2009

3) “My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs.” I wonder if the President knows he doesn’t have a line item veto.

4) “My immediate task is making sure that the second half of that money, $350 billion, is spent properly. That’s my first job.” Press conference February 9, 2009, talking about TARP money.

5) ”It also contains an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability, so that every American will be able to go online and see where and how we’re spending every dime. What it does not contain, however, is a single pet project, not a single earmark, and it has been stripped of the projects members of both parties found most objectionable.” Press conference February 9, 2009 talking about his own economic bill.

6) “Second is recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge’s job is to interpret, not make law, to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice…” I thought about putting this first because he was introducing Sotomayor who is on tape saying judges make policy, among other things.

7) “It’s not just enough to change the players. We’ve gotta change the game.” He has appointed over 150 recycled Clintionistas

”I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying.” Either this is a lie or his later position where he opposes gay marriage, take your pick for number eight.

9) “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.” In reference to Rev. Wright 42 days before he disowned him.

10) “To those Americans whose support I have yet to earn: I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President, too.”

Here’s a stimulus success story: In Arizona’s 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that’s what the Web site set up by the Obama administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says. The only problem is that there is no 15th district!
There are only eight (8) Congressional districts in the state of Arizona!
Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc, who chairs the powerful House appropriations Committee, issued a paper statement demanding that the recovery.gov Web site be updated.

“The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes.”

Obama and Democratic leaders say that wiping out waste and fraud in Medicare, including the elimination of more than $100 billion in government subsidies for the Medicare Advantage program in which private insurers supplement standard Medicare coverage, will reduce government health care costs by several hundred billion dollars.

HOW CAN WE BELIEVE OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS WHEN THEY SAY THE HEALTH CARE BILL WILL SAVE MONEY. However, the The federal government made $98 billion in improper payments in fiscal 2009, and we still have six weeks to go in 2009!

The 2009 total up to date for improper payments — from outright fraud to misdirected reimbursements due to factors such as an illegible doctor’s signature — was a 37.5 percent increase over the $72 billion in 2008, according to figures provided by Peter Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Yet anotther one of Obama’s campaign promises was he would cut waste and fraud to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit he inherited from Bush. Well It’s another record-high for the U.S. National Debt which today topped the $12-trillion mark. Divided evenly among the U.S. population, it amounts to $38,974.34 for every man, woman and child.

Technically, the debt hit the new high yesterday, but it was posted on the Treasury Department website just after 3:00 p.m. ET today. The exact calculation of the debt is a 16-digit tongue-twister and red-ink tsunami:.

The increase in the deficit and debt is attributed to government spending outpacing revenue – both exacerbated by the recession and the government response to it – including hundreds of billions in bailouts and stimulus spending and tax cuts along with decreased tax revenues due to rising unemployment

And there is another promise that Obama made that was broken. He promised that if the Stimulus bill was passed the unemployment would not exceed 8.5%. It is 10.2%!.

Mr. Obama has said he hopes the health care plan pending in Congress will serve to curb the growth in the debt by reducing the amount government spends on health care. But it’s a claim disputed by critics who say it will have the opposite effect.

Remember when the president, as a candidate, promised to post all bills online so we could read them first?

Remember when he promised transparency in all legislation? No more closed-door deals?

Remember when he promised to put government meetings with lobbyists online for everyone to see?

Did you remember he made all those broken promises — and more — in less than two minutes of the same speech? (And, actually, if they hadn’t applauded so much, he could have done it in under a minute flat.)

Peter Andrew the author of “Soda Head” lists 14 lies that Obama told when he had a press conference on his Health Care proposal.

President Barack Obama told no fewer than 14 healthcare lies during his press conference on the “ObamaCare nightmare.” From the Official Obama Administration Scandals List…

1.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 1 7/22/9 – Twice during his press conference, Obama lied saying he inherited from President Bush a $1.3-trillion federal budget deficit. Not true. On July 13th, we reported the deficit had just topped $1-trillion for the first time ever. That is Obama’s deficit. Bush never had a deficit anywhere near $1.3-trillion. Does Obama mean instead that the budget plan would have maybe created such a deficit for him in his own term? He’s certainly not wording it that way! For Obama to say so is an outright lie. Even the Associated Press noted: “Obama is…proposing a budget that assumes a jaw-dropping deficit of $1.75 trillion this year, a quadruple increase from the year before.” – More fuzzy math from this socialist administration.

2.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 2 7/22/9 Obama makes the outrageous claim that the USA is “no healthier than any other nation” despite the money we spend on healthcare. Clearly an unsubstantiated claim.

3.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 3 7/22/9 Obama says the “biggest driving force behind the federal deficit is the skyrocketing costs of Medicare and Medicaid.” Not True. Fox News reported on July 13th the real causes for Obama’s huge deficit: “the huge deficit is caused by, “the huge sum the government has spent to combat the recession and financial crisis, combined with a sharp decline in tax revenues. Paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also is a major factor.”

4.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 4 7/22/9 Obama repeated his pledge that his health care plan “won’t add to the deficit. And I mean it!” Later he even added his plan is “designed to lower it!” – So what of the Congressional Budget Office’s conclusion that the House bill does add to the deficit? Democrats and the Obama administration argue that the $245 billion included for doctors — the approximate 10-year cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don’t face big annual pay cuts — does not have to be counted in the overall cost of the health care bill. Their only in Washington reasoning is that they already decided to exempt it from congressional “pay-as-you-go” rules that require new programs to be paid for. In other words, it doesn’t have to be paid for because they decided it doesn’t have to be paid for“!!!!!

5.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 5 7/22/9 Obama says his plan “lowers healthcare expenses.” The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says that’s not true. How long until he starts firing the CBO guys just like the inspectors generals he has canned?

6.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 6 7/22/9 Obama says his plan will, “slow the growth of healthcare expenses.” What growth?! You just said it is going to lower the expenses! Apparently there will be growth in expenses just like the CBO said this plan would do.

7.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 7 7/22/9 Obama says the Obama care plan will “improve health care for seniors.” Not true. Rationing care means some get it and some don’t. Those with better chances (younger people) will get the care, the seniors won’t. Also, Obama says he’ll save money by getting rid of “things that don’t make you healthier.” HE gets to decide what those things are, not seniors or geriatric doctors!

8.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 8 7/22/9 Obama lies (David Axelrod repeated the lie on 7/23/9) saying his healthcare proposal “promotes choice.” wrong. The plan eliminates choice by 2013. Those seeking new health insurance will have no choice at all in 2013. They will HAVE TO go with the government-run, socialist healthcare plan. See the 7/21/9 scandal on the list where he said he’s “not familiar” with that part of the plan!!

9.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 9 7/22/9 Obama has the audacity to claim that he’ll pay for 2/3rds of his $1.5-Trillion healthcare plan by realizing “savings” from the fact the government will run healthcare!!! Has the government ever saved us a dime running anything?! What makes him think he can do so now? $600 hammer anyone?

10.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 10 7/22/9 Obama was dishonest with the american people when he claimed the “debt and deficit are deep concerns of mine.” We have demonstrated his deficit deception here. Democrats no longer care about deficits. Even the Associated Press noted: “Obama is not simply proposing a budget that assumes a jaw-dropping deficit of $1.75 trillion this year, a quadruple increase from the year before. He’s trying to redirect strong currents in American society.”

11.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 11 7/22/9 Obama used his own “new math” to claim he reduced the deficit! He said doing nothing would mean a budget deficit of $9.3-Trillion over ten years, something he can’t possibly know. But, he said with his changes it will only be $7.1 trillion in ten years. He is already up to $1-trillion in the first year (and climbing rapidly). So, how does he claim that it will go down so dramatically while he increases healthcare spending? CBS News Chip Reed asked him about it at an earlier press conference (click here to see the video) basically “asking what about years 6, 7, 8 and 9 of his budget when the deficits keep going up, up, up. The president said “we’ll make new budgets by then,” and basically not to worry about it since it is so far away!!” – So, the President is using fictitious future budget cuts from a time when he may not even be president to claim that he is reducing the budget deficit! More blazing deficit hypocrisy. We have been Leading the way Right on this story. Check out what we said on 3/21/9.

12.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 12 7/22/9 Obama again used his own “new math” to make the bizarre claim that he has “cut spending.” It’s more of the “Obama Gap” we reported on April 21st: “addressing congress he promised to get rid of government programs that don’t work and cut out that spending, then he proposes the biggest increase in government spending ever, now he asks his cabinet to cut $100-million in spending. He wants to increase the size of government to $4-Trillion a year, and asked for a cut FROM HIS HUGE BUDGET REQUEST of 1/35,000th of the amount he wants to spend.” – And that is how he claims he has “cut” spending…he cut the size of his gigantic increase.

13.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 13 7/22/9 Answering a reporter question from a very hot news babe (who was that lady?), Obama said he wasn’t actually lying about having health care meetings on C-Span. He had said in the past these types of meetings were held in secret but in his new era of transparency, he would put them on C-Span. The reporter babe saw right through that. Obama says it wasn’t a lie though because he put the first meeting about healthcare on C-Span. The rest were all held in secret. Uhmmmmmmmmm….As O’Reilly said, “I have a master’s degree from Harvard and I don’t understand what the president is trying to say.”

14.ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 14 – THE BIG ONE 7/22/9 Obama repeated his anti-Jim DeMint lie that the health care debate is “Not about me.” The Fox News Ticker earlier reported that U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley told them the president told a group of democrats, “You’re trying to destroy my Presidency!” The hot-headed response came after the president learned a “large number” of centrist democrats are against his socialist healthcare plan. It really is all about him.

OTHER SOURCES: CALVIN WOODWARD OF THE AP



Tags: potus quotes lies comments

WILL SOCIALISM REPLACE CAPITALISM IN THE USA?“

Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance”. – Winston Churchill


Obama’s decision not to build the Missile Defense System in Poland and the Czech Republic and his Noble Prize have not yet been comprehended from a philosophical viewpoint. It’s time to do it.
The last turning point similar to the current one happened approximately 400 years ago. The Western European society discovered a new hierarchy of values. Feudalism that valued service and chivalry was replaced with capitalism. Wealth became the measure of success, and everyone was to care about his own pocket only. The cult of money replaced all other values, including religious.

Capitalism turned everything upside down and made people more excited about stuffing their bank accounts than anything else. This system turned out to be extremely efficient in terms of production of goods, services, and comfort. America benefited from the system the most, and decided that the rest of the world has to adopt it as well. If some underdeveloped countries are unable to appreciate the benefits of capitalism, they should be forced to do it.
Meanwhile, philosophers say that capitalism is driven not by hard cash, but rather, striving for hard cash. It’s driven not by the production of goods, but rather, striving for consumption of these goods.
If everyone had these values, the “dog-eat-dog” principle would be the major principal in the world history. But America failed to do it. There are plenty of “underdeveloped” people in the world who continue to cherish spiritual values. There are not that many chances left to force them into worshiping money since these “underdeveloped” people adopt western technology and become stronger. The appeal to adopt American values doesn’t work either. Why would we adopt the system if the system is in crisis? Pragmatic America realized that billions of people are not willing to live in the kingdom of hard cash and decided that it would be better off leaving this kingdom itself. Now the USA is talking about introducing elements of socialism. Source: Pravda

What does Obama’s decision not to build the Eastern European Missile Defense System have to do with all of this? Well, it means that it’s not capitalism that’s undergoing the crisis, but the belief in its high-efficiency. And this, in turn, means that America, the bulwark of capitalism, is no longer the boss of the world. And if it’s not the boss any more, it has to be friends with everybody, including Russia. And it’s America’s turn to offer Russia to push the reset button. Or maybe it’s just tired of imposing its rules on others and felt that friendship is more valuable than money and power? If this is the case, we will soon witness another turning point in the world history. The preceeding article was written by an un-named reporter who wrote the article for Pravda, the Moscow version o the Washington Post and New York Times. The mouth piece for the Russian government.

This article portends the coming of Socialism to the USA not for the reasons my blog will outline, but because the American people have decided that capitalism cannot work. You would expect this from a person who lives and works in a totalitarian Marxist state. But the reference to American’s deciding that capitalism does not work is not the reason why we are racing toward the “nanny” welfare State.

The reasons are because we have a man in the Oval Office that is dedicated to attaining power and total control over the lives of Americans, and has a Congress that appears to be afraid to oppose any thing he and his ideologically committed Leftists who surround him!

If Congress passes the Democrat Bill for Universal health Care that leaves out at least 25 million people, but will add over one trillion dollars to the National debt. We will transform 1/6 th of the USA to government control from the Capitalism free enterprise system in a stoke of the pen!

And waiting in the wings of the Congress is the nail that will put the lid on the coffin that buries the free enterprise system The Cap and Trade Bill! This bill should properly be called the Cap and Tax bill, because it not only will give the Federal government control over our lives more fully. It will place limits on the energy output all walks of life starting with your homes and the industry that provides the engine that makes the Capitalism work.
To support the largesse that the Obama administration is providing to his supporters disguised as a Stimulus. The government is running the printing presses in the Treasury dept on a 24 hour cycle turning out paper money that has diminishing value!

If a miracle does not occur next November in the election that will return the Republicans if not to power to a number that can stop the stampede to Socialism by the Democrats and Obama. WE will be well on our way toward the “cradle to grave” Socialism!

Massive Federal debt( presently at 12.03 trillion$) has to eventually devalue our dollar to a point of collapse and roaring inflation that will allow those who have wanted the “New World Order” to attain their goal. With the collapse of the dollar and the inability of the Federal government to pay its way out of bankruptcy lost, and the destruction of the Free enterprising system that provides the taxes that allow the government to function . The people will grasp for anything or any body who will “save” them, and the United Nations is waiting anxiously in the wings for the demise of our system. The body that is controlled by Leftist Countries like Communist China, Russia and Third World South American and African nations would love to take control of the USA!

A KABUKI DANCE IN BEIJING

Kabuki dance is largely credited to Okuni, a miko (shrine maiden) from the province of Izumo. Her story is shrouded in both legends and truth, but she was famed for her skill in singing and dancing, and also for her beauty.The word kabuki is originally derived from the word kabuki, which literally means “to incline, or tilt to one side”. It also carried a connotation of unorthodoxy, which was disapproved of in 16th century feudal Japan. However, with time, it gradually took on the meaning of “avant-garde”, particularly in relation to kabuki dance’s extravagant, even ludicrous, stage costumes and skits.

In English usage, a Kabuki dance is an activity or drama carried out in real life in a predictable or stylized fashion, reminiscent of the Kabuki style of Japanese stage play. Source: Wikipedia

Following a summit meeting in Beijing on Tuesday, Hu Jintao and Barack Obama also spoke of their commitment to working more closely on other major issues like free trade, rebuilding the global economy and tackling nuclear proliferation.

They also agreed to hold joint talks next year on the sensitive issue of human rights, restarting a long-stalled dialogue on the subject.

Appearing at a joint press conference at the Great Hall of the People, the leaders of China and the US emphasised co-operation between the two powers as the only path to resolving some of the biggest issues facing the world.

In carefully scripted statements, Hu and Obama presented a broadly united front, although they did touch briefly on points of ongoing contention in the fields of trade and human rights.

Frank Sieren, an author on China, said the two leaders still do not trust each other.

“President Hu and Obama looked to me like two wrestlers hugging each other but don’t really get forward or backwards, and they were both kind of careful not to lose their face … they don’t want to press each other too much,”

“I think this is the first kind of meeting in China; they’ve met a few times before. So we have to wait [and see] how this relationship will develop, but they look like two guys who won’t have a barbecue soon.”

Hu warned of the need to “oppose and reject protectionism in all its manifestations” – hinting at growing concern in Beijing over recent moves by the US to impose tariffs and raise duties on some Chinese imports.

IN THE TYPE OF DOUBLE TALK THAT WE ARE ACCUSTOMED TO HEAR FROM OBAMA. Here is what Obama had to say about China’s horrid history of human rights violations.

Obama meanwhile reiterated his comments a day earlier about the importance of universal respect for human rights – long an issue of friction between the US and China.

Never the less, the US president said both nations’ joint interests far outweighed their differences, adding that the US-China relationship “goes far beyond any single issue”.

“I do not believe that one country’s success must come at the expense of another,” he said.

The addresses by both leaders were carefully worded, with no opportunity for questions in the joint news conference.

Looking ahead to Copenhagen, Obama said he had agreed with his Chinese counterpart that they should aim for global pact that has “immediate operational effect”.

This kind of comprehensive agreement would be an important step forward in our effort to rally the world around a solution to our climate challenge,” the US president said.

As evidence of joint efforts to reduce emissions, Obama pointed to a recent agreement between the US and China to create a joint clean energy research centre.

He added that both he and the Chinese president had agreed to take “significant” action to reduce carbon emissions, but gave no specific targets.Thus the Kabuki dance in Beijing!

”As the two largest consumers and producers of energy, there can be no solution to this challenge without the efforts of both China and the United States,” Obama said.

From the Chinese side, Hu reiterated Beijing’s insistence on the different “responsibilities” rich and poor nations have in addressing climate change. So, essentially he wants the USA to reduce its way of life and production, and let China keep churning out pollution!

But he added that China had agreed on the importance of working with other states “to help produce positive outcomes from the Copenhagen conference.”He will talk the talk, but will not walk the walk!!

Hu dedicated much of his statement to the ongoing uncertainty in the global economy, saying that while there was some cause for optimism, “the foundation for recovery is not firmly established”.

With that in mind, he said, it was important for both sides to avoid any moves towards protectionism.

In other words he expects that the USA will continue to accept cheap and sometime adulterated drugs, toys and trinkets as well as shoes, caps ,t-shirts and every sport you can think of wearing apparel from the Communist country that pays those who make the goods slave wages!

For his part, Obama said the two leaders had agreed that a sustained recovery depended on both countries following a strategy of more “balanced” economic growth. Let me translate this for you. If we pass Cap and Trade the USA will have no economic growth and that will make him and his Marxist friends happy!

That strategy, he said, would be one “where America saves more, spends less, reduces our long-term debt and where China makes adjustments across a broad range of policies to rebalance its economy and spur domestic demand”.In other words, do nothing concrete!!

Speaking after their meeting, Obama said China’s president had also agreed that Iran must “provide assurance to the international community that its nuclear programme is peaceful and transparent”.

”Iran has an opportunity to present and demonstrate its peaceful intentions but if it fails to take advantage of this opportunity, it will face consequences,” he said.

Hu made no specific mention of “consequences”, but said it was essential that the row over Iran’s nuclear programme was resolved through negotiations.

Communist China has large and growing economic ties with Iran and has been reluctant to support a tougher approach to restrict Iran’s nuclear programme. So once again no action all talk!!.

On sensitive Chinese domestic issues, Hu also called on the US to respect China’s “core interests” – a term that usually implies ending support for Taiwan and for the Dalai Lama, and his Tibetan government-in-exile.

Obama, in response, said that the US stood committed to the “one China principle, but urged China to restart talks with the Dalai Lama’s representatives. No mention by POTUS of the long-standing pact between Taiwan and aggression from Chinese Communists. The Bush administration had the 7th Fleet stationed in Japan and patrolling the Taiwan straights to ward off any attack by China. I guess that just changed!!

The Real Reason For The Trial in New York of Khalid Shaikh Mohammad


Monday, November 16, 2009

Given the availability of military commissions to try KSM and his co-terrorists., I ask why Obama has chosen to bring them to trial in federal court in New York. One searches in vain in Saturday’s Washington Post story on the decision for an explanation. And do not forget that the orders to the attorney General come directly from the White House in such a controversial matter!

No consideration of justice, history or tradition weighs in favor of treating KSM . as a criminal defendant. Against the predictable negative risks and negative consequences, advocates of Obama’s decision offer stupid considerations of public relations. Is this a trail or a public relations skit to make foreign governments like us??

Judging Obama’s treatment of KSM . by its predictable effects rather than its apparent intentions, one arrives at a harsh conclusion. If Obama sought to subvert fundamental American institutions or to confuse the understanding of the American people( upon both of which America’s future depends) he would proceed as announced.

It has been suggested that the Obama administration views KSM as its” allies” in its war against the Bush administration. Which seems to me to an ongoing vendetta!

Obama expects them to make their treatment by the Bush administration, real and imagined, the centerpiece of their defense, with the possible result that Bush, Cheney, and others may be indicted as war criminals by European countries or international courts, thereby satisfying the far left of the Democratic Party, which Obama represents.Think about it! The ACLU and most Leftists believe this lie already!


Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his terrorist co-conspirators ( the perpetrators of 9/11) are now afforded all the protections to which American law entitles them. Now Obama, to whom the decision must be attributable, regardless of the pretense that the buck stops with Eric Holder.Has chosen to bring KSM and his terrorist friends from “Gitmo”. to federal court in New York for a civilian trial as though he and his colleagues were common criminals. Why? Doing so carries with it certain necessary consequences and obvious risks that have already been the subject of informed comment:

Here are the risks and fallacies of trying this trash in New York!
1. Obama confuses the commission of crimes with acts of war. The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon constituted acts of war.

2. Obama cloaks KSM et al. with all the constitutional protections to which American citizens are entitled under the United States Constitution.

3. Obama affords KSM et al. a public forum for the waging of their war by other means.

4. Those who apprehended and detained KSM et al. treated them as enemy combatants from whom valuable intelligence was sought and received. Trying them in federal court creates otherwise unnecessary issues regarding the admissibility of this evidence and provides them another avenue of attack on those defending the United states against them.

5. The treatment of evidence in connection with the trial raises a serious threat that national security will be compromised.

6. The trial of KSM et al. in New York by itself raises severe security risks.
Source: PowerLine.com

One of many puzzling aspects of the Obama administration’s decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others in federal court is the fact that other terrorists will be tried by military tribunals. For example, Abd al-Rahim al Nashiri, who led the attack on the USS Cole, will be tried and sentenced by such a tribunal.

And what is happening in the pre-trail proceedings may be an indication of what is coming in New York.

“There is absolutely no reason for this court to presume that the facts contained in the government’s exhibits are accurate,” District Judge Gladys Kessler wrote in ordering the release of Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed. He was repatriated to Yemen after a seven-year stay at Guantanamo, where he was brought as a teenager.

“Much of the factual material contained in those exhibits is hotly contested for a host of different reasons ranging from the fact that it contains second- and third-hand hearsay to allegations that it was obtained by torture to the fact that no statement purports to be a verbatim account of what was said,” Kessler said. She ruled the government failed to prove the detainee was part of or substantially supported Taliban or al-Qaeda forces.There are approximately 250 more detainees in “gitmo” awaiting just this type of Liberal justice!

This raises two questions: If the administration acknowledges that military tribunals are an adequate and appropriate venue in which to try terrorists, why is it so necessary to bring some to the U.S. for a jury trial accompanied by the full load of Constitutional protections? And how did the administration decide which terrorists to give public trials, which inevitably will turn into media circuses, rather than trial by military commissions?

Eric Holder answered the second question, if not the first, in the press conference in which he announced the trials:
“In each case, my decision as to whether to proceed in federal courts or military commissions was based on a protocol that the Departments of Justice and Defense developed, and that was announced publicly in July”.
“Because many cases could be prosecuted in either federal courts or military commissions, that protocol sets forth a number of factors, including the nature of the offense, the location in which the offense occurred, the identity of the victims, and the manner in which the case was investigated. All of these things must be considered. In consultation, again, with the secretary of defense, I have looked at all of the relevant factors and made case-by-case decisions for each detainee”.

Mr. Holder elaborated later in the press conference:

QUESTION: How much of a factor for you was it that in the case of the five 9/11 detainees you’re returning them basically to the scene of the crime?

HOLDER: “Well, that is something that typically happens in the criminal law. The cases are typically tried in the place where the offense occurred, and so that was one of the factors.

There are a number of other factors that went into making that determination, including the nature of the people who were the victims: largely civilians in New York.

In addition to that, this is a matter that, as I said, happened in this country as opposed to overseas, which is different from what we might do with regard to those who are going to be tried in the military commissions.
But that is a fundamental tenet of American jurisprudence, that crimes are tried in the places where they occur”.

This illustrates the perversity of mindlessly applying the criminal law template to terrorist attacks. What is the implication of Holder’s criteria? Put yourself in the place of a would-be terrorist: If you want to garner maximum publicity; if you want to make yourself into a world-famous martyr; if you want an endless platform for disseminating jihadist propaganda; if you want to be treated with kid gloves at all times; what should you do? That’s right: you should organize an attack on American soil that kills thousands. You’ll be rewarded with top-flight legal representation at taxpayer expense and a forum in which to advance the cause of jihad.

Like so many things the Obama administration does, this creates exactly the wrong incentives and needlessly puts American lives in danger. source: John Hinderaker

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey is one of the many distinguished lawyers participating at the Federal Society’s annual national lawyers conference in Washington this past week.
Mukasey did not mince his words about the decison to try KSM in federal court. He called this decision “not only unwise, but based on a refusal to face the fact that what we are involved with here is a war with people who follow a religiously-based ideology that calls on them to kill us.” Mukasey viewed the administration’s approach as “a return. . .to the mindset that prevailed before Sept. 11 that acts like the first World Trade Center bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa and other such acts can and should be treated as conventional crimes and tried in conventional courts.”

Mukasey explained some of the difficulties of using civilian courts to try terrorists. These include the discovery process, the public presentation of evidence, and other elements of a trial that “could turn a criminal proceeding into a cornucopia of information for those still at large and a circus for those in custody.”

He also noted that when terrorists like KSM were captured, we did not gather information on the assumption that it would be presented in federal court. Thus, the prosecution is at a disadvantage in proceeding down this road now. (Some will glibly say that this is the Bush administration’s fault for the way it handled KSM, but at that time the adminisration was properly focused on preventing a follow-up attack to 9/11).

Mukasey also pointed to the obvious security issues that will be associated with the KSM trial. All things considered, he concluded: “It would take a whole lot more credulousness than I have available to be optimistic about the outcome of this latest experiment.” Source: Breitbart.com









Tags: commentary, holder, ksm, new york, threats to us, trial

WHAT ZEALOTS CAN DO TO AN ECONOMY!

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

ZEALOTS FOR ECOLOGY MAY DESTROY WORLD ECONOMY!
The Dutch government said Friday it wants to introduce a “green” road tax by the kilometre from 2012 aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent and halving congestion.


“Each vehicle will be equipped with a GPS device that tracks how many kilometres are driven and when and where. This data will be then be sent to a collection agency that will send out the bill,” the transport ministry said in a statement.

Ownership and sales taxes, about a quarter of the cost of a new car, will be scrapped and replaced by the “price per kilometre” system aimed at cutting the Netherlands’ carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent.

“Traffic jams will be halved and it helps the environment,” the ministry said.

Dutch motorists driving a standard family saloon will be charged 3 euro cents per kilometre (seven US cents per mile) in 2012. That would increase to 6.7 cents (16 US cents per mile) in 2018, according to the proposed law.

Every vehicle type will have a base rate, which depends on its size, weight and carbon dioxide emissions.

AND THE TELEGRAPH.UK IS REPORTING TODAY THAT A MEMBER OF THE lABOR PARTY IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS IS PROPOSING THAT ALL BRITISH CITIZENS HAVE A CARBON CREDIT CARD!

.It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel

LORD Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity.

Climate change commitments of different countries Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using.

If their “carbon account” hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.

Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit.

Lord Smith will call for the scheme to be part of a “Green New Deal” to be introduced within 20 years when he addresses the agency’s annual conference on Monday.

An Environment Agency spokesman said only those with “extravagant lifestyles” would be affected by the carbon allowances. Everyone in Britain should have an annual carbon ration and be penalised if they use too much fuel, the head of the Environment Agency will say.

Many In Britain realize that this is just another way of taking money from the earners to support the welfare programs that drag down the economy in England, and soon will destroy our economy here in the USA if Obama and his sycophants prevail in the Cap and Tax Bill.

We still do not know if Obama will visit Copenhagen for the meeting of the Worlds wealth distribution conference, masquerading as Kyoto II. I believe he will attend if his slippery tongue can convince China to go along with the conference agreement, even though they wil never in a million years abide by any agreement they sign.

At any rate, some USA representative will attend and agree to all the redistribitionists want. You can be sure it will cost millions if not billions of dollars from Americans tax payers to pay” tribute”( aka: ransom) to Third World nations for our “polluting the air” that they breath!

As Obama prepares to visit Communist China he made no reference to the lack of co-operation that China has demonstrated for air quality and only vaguely mentioning human rights in the speech he gave in Tokyo.

He said: “On China, Obama called for harnessing China’s clout to make progress on shared interests like weapons proliferation, a more solid global economy and climate agreements.Fat chance the Chinese will curtail their pollution at the cost of slowing down their quest for economic domination!

Obama will receive accolades and be treated in a royal way because the Chinese Communists recognize that he is a Marxist at heart, but the promises and prosaicisms he receives will be the same as he presently gives to his Commander in the field of war in Afghanistan–JUST empty words!

And while the hot air is coming out of the Obama administration, the UN is crafting a plan that makes blood spurt to my brain!

- A new United Nation’s global warming treaty is expected to give some of the world’s worst polluters–such as the communist People’s Republic of China–and some of the world’s wealthiest nations–such as the oil-rich United Arab Emirates–a license to continue freely pumping carbon into the atmosphere while restricting the emissions of the United States.

The United States will be joining other countries next month in attending “climate talks” in Bonn, Germany, in preparation for the United Nations’ Conference of the Parties 15 (COP15) climate-change summit that will take place in Copenhagen in December.

At the meeting, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will oversee the drafting of an international treaty that will allow some of the world’s wealthiest nations and worst polluters to avoid the legally binding regulations on carbon emissions and greenhouse gases expected in the document.

Countries categorized by the United Nations as Annex 1 Parties, including the United States and much of the industrialized world, are considered developed nations that will not be harmed by controlling carbon emissions. Non-annex I Parties, on the other hand, are countries considered to be “developing” or have “economies in transition.”

These Non-annex 1 countries such as China – which emits the most carbon emissions of any country in the world, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Top 20 Countries for CO2 Emissions–will be able “sign on” to the treaty but will not be legally bound by it. And some of the world’s wealthiest nations, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are on the Non-annex 1 Parties list.

“It’s very political,” Ben Lieberman, senior policy analyst on energy and the environment at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told CNSNews.com. “It has as much to do with what nations are willing to accept than per capita wealth or per capita usage of fossil fuels.”

“In an interconnected world, power does not need to be a zero-sum game, and nations need not fear the success of another,” he said.

He also said the United States “will never waver in speaking up for the fundamental values that we hold dear.” And yet, clearly hoping to avoid overly irritating Beijing, Obama named none of the many and serious specific human rights concerns with respect to China, including Tibet, where authorities have suppressed religious freedom and national aspirations. Except for the brutal regime in Myanmar, he spoke only generally about human rights and democratic values.