China Warns United States: Stop Printing Money; Situation May Cause U.S. Loss Of AAA Rating

I find it very disturbing that major news outlets here in the United States are not following this story more closely. Perhaps because to do so would mean casting Obama and his cronies in a negative light.

The story is that in order to finance the massive debt we are running up (5 times larger than what the Bush Administration ran up) we are prining money at a break-neck pace. And it is causing concern among those who are floating our debt right now, namely, the Chinese government.

From the Telegraph UK:

Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, said: "Senior officials of the Chinese government grilled me about whether or not we are going to monetise the actions of our legislature." "I must have been asked about that a hundred times in China. I was asked at every single meeting about our purchases of Treasuries. That seemed to be the principal preoccupation of those that were invested with their surpluses mostly in the United States," he told the Wall Street Journal.

What happens when the Chinese call us on these loans? We won't be able to pay and our monetary systems collaspses.

More:

Mr. Fisher, the Fed's leading hawk, was a fierce opponent of the original decision to buy Treasury debt, fearing that it would lead to a blurring of the line between fiscal and monetary policy – and could all too easily degenerate into Argentine-style financing of uncontrolled spending.

I think we are already at the "uncontrolled spending" stage with the Democrats feverishly trying to squander our children's and grand-children's future by saddling them with huge debts and liabilities in order to waste money on ear-mark and pork projects now.

The Oxford-educated Mr. Fisher, an outspoken free-marketer and believer in the Schumpeterian process of "creative destruction", has been running a fervent campaign to alert Americans to the "very big hole" in unfunded pension and health-care liabilities built up by a careless political class over the years. "We at the Dallas Fed believe the total is over $99 trillion," he said in February. "This situation is of your own creation. When you berate your representatives or senators or presidents for the mess we are in, you are really berating yourself. You elect them," he said. His warning comes amid growing fears that America could lose its AAA sovereign rating.

Massive spending will not get us out of this. Nor will increasing the size of the government. In fact, those two actions in tandem will cause the situation to get worse and worse which is precisely why the United States is in danger of losing the AAA sovereign rating.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

China Warns Federal Reserve Over 'Printing Money'
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Telegraph UK
May 27, 2009

North Korea Nuclear Crisis Raises Tensions

Just a week or so ago, Barack Obama pledged to begin a unilateral scrapping of our nuclear weapons. Since then, North Korea has been taking some very provocative steps. Again, I have to wonder if North Korea's actions were calculated based based on Obama's stance and words.

Now, the situation has become worse. North Korea announced that it was pulling out of the treaty that ended the Korean War more than 50 years ago. This has lead to heightened tensions in the region and U.S. and South Korean troops have gone on high alert.

Apparently, North Korea sees our efforts at controlling nuclear proliferation and preventing terrorists from getting their hands on a nuclear weapon as an "act of war."

From BBC News:

Pyongyang has blamed its decision on South Korea's decision to join a US-led initiative to search ships for nuclear weapons, calling it a "declaration of war". "Any hostile act against our peaceful vessels, including search and seizure, will be considered an unpardonable infringement on our sovereignty," said a spokesman for the North's army. "We will immediately respond with a powerful military strike."

So, how does the Obama administration respond to this? Read what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did:

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the North's violation of Security Council resolutions, but also held out hope that North Korea would return to six-nation disarmament talks.

I'm sure that the communists in Pyongyang are quaking with fear over Clinton's statement. The truth is that with a President who is weak on national security and even weaker on dealing with rogue nations seeking nuclear weapons, North Korea and Iran have become emboldened in their actions.

The longer Obama and company maintain a weak dispostition towards DPRK and the Islamic Republic, the closer we will come to having a nuke snuck into our country and detonated.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Alert Level Raised On North Korea
BBC News
May 28, 2009

North Korea Tests Nukes And Iran Deploys Bluewater Navy

I'd bet my next paycheck that back during the 2008 Presidential Campaign, when Barack Obama pledged to sit down with Iran without any pre-condidtions, that the governments of Iran and North Korea were listening very intently even if the voters who voted for Barack Obama were not.

In fact, recent developments lead me to believe that the governments of Iran and North Korea took their current actions precisely because of what Obama promised.

First, North Korea tested more nukes and the missiles necessary to deliver them, most likely as a test of the how strongly the Obama administration would respond. From Reuters:

The nuclear test was a major diplomatic challenge to Obama at a time when he is facing a global economic crisis and working to curb Iran's nuclear enrichment program, which the West fears is aimed at producing nuclear arms but Tehran says is for energy. Obama vowed when he took office to extend a hand to troublesome countries "willing to unclench your fist" but so far he has had little success with North Korea or Iran, which have continued to advance their nuclear programs and showed little interest in renewed dialogue.

And then the Iranians decided to flex their naval "muscle" in the Gulf of Aden, yet another test of Obama's resolve to stand-up to regimes that oppose the goals of the United States. From Fox News:

The deployment is "a signal of military strength, resolve and continued defiance to U.S. and U.N. Security Council efforts to end the impasse over Iran's nuclear program," said Jim Phillips, senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Heritage Institute. "What's very important here is the timing of this move — and this naval muscle flexing comes after Iran's missile test earlier this week, which was saber rattling that was meant to send the same signal as this naval dispatch." Phillips said Ahmadinejad was using the opportunity to thumb his nose at the U.S. and U.N. to advance his own popularity in Iran ahead of the country's hotly contested June 12 election.

A coincidence that these things are happening on the watch of an American President whose international policies are soft on terror? I think not. These were calculated moves. It now remains to be seen whether or not Obama has his nation's best interests at heart, or the interests of those who want to see the U.S. weakened and even attacked again.

I'm willing to bet that Obama will put politics above the national interest.

You can access both articles on-line here:

Obama Says North Korea Nuclear Test A "Grave Concern"
David Alexander
Reuters
May 25, 2009

Iran Sends 6 Warships To International Waters In 'Saber Rattling' Move
Fox News (from Reuters)
May 25, 2009

Memorial Day - Remember The Fallen Who Purchased Your Freedom With Their Lives

Former Gitmo Inmates Returning To Terrorism; Obama Administration Supresses Report

Here is something that every American should be aware of when it comes to the issue of releasing terrorists back in the world. A report describing how these former detainees are going back to militant and radical terrorist groups was supposed to be released back on February 2, 2009. It has not yet been released and according to the New York Times, Obama administration officials were the ones behind keeping the report under wraps:

The Pentagon promised in January that the latest report would be released soon, but Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said this week that the findings were still “under review.” Two administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said the report was being held up by Defense Department employees fearful of upsetting the White House, at a time when even Congressional Democrats have begun to show misgivings over Mr. Obama’s plan to close Guantánamo.

And writing for the Weekly Standard, Thomas Joscelyn has this:

But the contents of the report deal with a hotly contested issue--one that is being debated throughout the media and is not going away any time soon. Therefore, the public has a right to know the facts and evidence accumulated by the DOD regardless of the implications for the Obama administration. This is especially true because the Pentagon had previously released a similar report on June 13, 2008. The report we’ve been expecting since earlier this year, and which only the New York Times now has a copy, is merely an update of that June 2008 report, which is freely available online. There is no good reason the updated report, as well as further updates, cannot be released in a similar fashion. Indeed, the differences between the June 2008 report and its successors are especially troubling. Perhaps those differences explain why an updated version of the June 2008 report would be especially problematic for the Obama administration as it attempts to close Gitmo. The June 13, 2008, report noted that 37 former detainees were “confirmed or suspected” of returning to terrorism. On January 13, 2009, seven months later, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said that number had climbed to 61. Now, according to the Times, the DOD has found that same metric has risen further to 74--exactly double the Pentagon’s estimate just 11 months ago. ... Critics point out that even with 74 recidivists the total number of former detainees who have returned to terrorism is “only” 14 percent of the 534 total detainees who have been released from Guantanamo. But this ignores the fact, as explained above, that the recidivism rate is continuously increasing.

And what would be the main reason for this recidivism rate increase? Simple. Terrorists no longer fear what the American government will do to them if captured. No, this didn't start with the Obama administration.

Democrats had been working to undermine the anti-terrorism efforts of the Bush administration long before Obama got elected. Those efforts are now paying off for the terrorists who see a Democrat-controlled U.S. government that is weak on terrorists, but hard on those who would protect us from terrorists.

Not only have the Democrats been undermining those would who protect us from terrorists, but they are also undermining our security by pretending that such terrorists are not that big of a threat to us. Hence, the supressed report.

Any Democrats reading this blog can feel free to defend their party by commenting on this post.

You can access the original Weekly Standard article on-line here:

See No Evil
Thomas Joscelyn
The Weekly Standard
May 20, 2009

And you can access the original New York Times article on-line here:

Later Terror Link Cited for 1 in 7 Freed Detainees
Elizabeth Bumiller
New York Times
May 20, 2009

Democrat Admits On Tape That 'Cap and Trade' Is Really A 'Huge Tax'

Check out the video at the following link. If there was any question that the libs were using the global warming issue as a means for taking greater contro over our lives and livelihoods, that question has now been answered:

Democrat Admits On Tape That “Cap & Trade Is A Huge Tax”
912 Project
April 25, 2009

Airlines Are Hiring Mechanics Who Can't Speak English Or Even Read The Maintenance Manuals

If you've never had a fear of flying before, you ought to consider developing one now. Here we have yet another impact of illegal immigration, not only on our economy, but on the safety of travelers who fly our major airlines.

From Fox News:

Aircraft repair requires even experienced mechanics to frequently consult manuals that are written in English and leave a detailed record of what repairs they have made, according to WFAA-TV. Still, hundreds of mechanics working in the more than 236 FAA-certified aircraft repair stations in Texas were not familiar enough with the English language to even read the manuals that coincide with the kinds of planes they were expected to fix, WFAA reported. "There are people [where I work] who do not know how to read maintenance manuals as they are spelled out, because they don't have a clue," one Texas aircraft mechanic told the station. But hiring a certified mechanic in Texas costs upwards of $25 an hour, compared to the less than $10 technicians who can't speak English will do the work for.

So, allowing illegals to come in and depress the wages of legitimate American mechanics is more important than the safety of airline passengers?

One thing you can be sure of. The next airline crash that occurs here in the U.S. is going to be followed by lawsuits from victims families demanding to know if the plane had been serviced by illegals who couldn't speak English.

You can access the Fox news story on-line here:

Report: Airlines Are Hiring Mechanics Who Can't Speak English, Read Manuals
Fox News
May 19, 2009

You can access the WFAA report on-line here:

News 8 Investigates: Airline Mechanics Who Can't Read English (Video Included)
Byron Harris
WFAA Dallas/Ft. Worth
May 16, 2009

New York Times Kills Story Detailing Obama/ACORN Relationship And Violation Of Campaign Finance Laws

Now, you know that if this had happened to a Conservative Republican, the NYT would have run it as front page news for two weeks. But because Obama is a leftist socialist, the NYT spiked it.

Back in 2008, the Obama campaign conspired with the voter-fraud group ACORN to violate campaign finance laws. When the NYT learned of the story, they immediately buried it.

Powerline Blog has a very comprehensive report:

Times reporter Stephanie Strom was looking into ACORN, and she had a source, a former ACORN employee named Anita Moncrief. Moncrief told Strom that she had evidence of "constant contact" between ACORN's Project Vote and both the Obama and Clinton campaigns: On Sept. 7, Moncrief wrote to Strom that she had donor lists from the campaigns of Obama and Hillary Clinton and that there had been "constant contact" between the campaigns and Project Vote, an Acorn affiliate whose tax-exempt status forbids it to engage in partisan politics. Moncrief said she had withheld that information earlier but was disclosing it now that the conservative columnist Michelle Malkin was "all over it." "I am sorry," she wrote, "but I believe in Obama and did not want to help the Republicans." A key part of Moncrief's story was that the Obama campaign had furnished ACORN with lists of maxed-out donors so that ACORN could mine them for contributions. In fact, Moncrief provided the Times reporter, Strom, with such a list that ACORN allegedly obtained from the Obama campaign. Hoyt does not dispute that this story, if true, was evidence of violation of the campaign finance laws.

Now, you would think that a news outlet that claims to be the "watchdog of government" would have been all over this story and reporting it to the people. Not the NYT. They immediately began to cover it up in an effort to help Barack Obama get away with breaking the law during his run for the presidency.

New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt had been "investigating" the whole situation, but what he was looking at seemed to be completely different from what everyone else was seeing.

More:

The story became public because a Republican lawyer named Heather Heidelbaugh testified, apparently based on information she got from Anita Moncrief, that the Times had been working on an Obama-ACORN story but that "Ms. Strom reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at The New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, 'it was a game-changer.'" Hoyt undertakes to show that this charge was false. He admits, though, that Strom's editor, Suzanne Daley, "called a halt to Strom's pursuit of the Obama angle." So the Times did kill the investigation and any further reporting. The only question is why. Hoyt uncritically accepts Daley's explanation: "We had worked on that story for a while and had come up empty-handed," Daley said. "You have to cut bait after a while." She said she never thought of the story as a game-changer and never used that term with Strom. But wait! Hoyt also relates that shortly before Daley pulled the plug, "Moncrief finally agreed to go on the record" and Strom had scheduled a meeting with her. It was when she called Moncrief to cancel the meeting that Strom allegedly told her that her bosses had killed the investigation to protect Obama. Obviously, if Strom was about to hit pay-dirt with an on-the-record witness, Daley's assertion that she killed the story because Strom "had come up empty-handed" is false.

As I've said before. Only the most naive and gullible would believe that leftist news outlets like the NYT are fair and objective.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Killing A Story: How It's Done
Power Line
May 17, 2009

You can read about Anita Moncrief's involvement on-line here:

Fired ACORN Affiliate Staffer Links Donor List To Obama
Brad Bumsted
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
October 30, 2008

You can also watch a good video about this story over at Hot Air:

O’Reilly: How The NYT Buried An Obama/ACORN Expose Just Before The Election
Hot Air
May 18, 2009

As The Nation’s Workforce Suffers, Government’s Thrives

There are basically two camps in the debate about how to stimulate an economy. On the one hand you have the capitalists who hold that economies are driven by the private sector and that it is most important for the people to have money to spend. On the other hand you have the socialists who think that government spending drives an economy and that it is more important for the government to raise taxes in order to have money to spend.

Right now, the socialists are in power and they are doing everything they can to implement their agenda no matter how disastrous it may be.

Writing for Publius Forum, Warner Todd Huston looks at what is happening in the private sector versus how the Federal government is growing:

Our stern and earnest president told us that it is time for Americans to sacrifice. Gone are the good times, he’s told us. We are in for austere days, he says. Sacrifice, people, sacrifice. That is the word of the day. Well, it’s the word for we commoners, anyway. For if you happen to be looking at government don’t expect to find any “sacrifice” going on at any level. In fact, government seems to be a boom business under the president of change and “sacrifice.”

There is no sacrifice at the Federal level. Government workers can see their pay increase from an average of $72,800 in 2008 to $75,419 in 2009. And as one who lives in the D.C. area, I can honestly tell you that for that money, we taxpayers are getting very little in return.

Warner even quotes from CBS News to show how fast the Federal government is growing:

Some of the Feds’ hiring increases have been stunning. If you look at the four-year period from 2006 to 2010, the number of Homeland Security employees has grown by 22 percent, the Justice Department has increased by 15 percent, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can claim 25 percent more employees. (These figures assume that Congress adopts Mr. Obama’s 2010 budget without significant changes.)

Now, those of us in the private sector are struggling and we pray on a daily basis that we will still have a job tomorrow. Out pay raises haven't been anything like the Federal workers are getting. Where is the government getting the money from to pay for those raises? Taxes. Tax money that if left in the private sector would do more to grow our economy than any bloated government would ever be able to do. The tax money the Feds confiscate to give out pay raises to government employees could very well have been money that employers could have used to give private sector employees bigger pay raises.

Keep in mind that the only region of the nation that benefits from higher taxes is the Washington D.C. Metro area and parts of Northern Virginia and Southern/Central Maryland. The rest of the nation suffers economic decline.

Warner's parting shot:

What we see here is that President Obama is not helping the economy at all. He is helping inflate the power of government. And, since government is only a drag on the economy, he is making matter far worse than they were. What we have here with this perpetual Obama political campaign is not a president that is a savior of the economy, but one that is the patron saint of the expansion of big government.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

As The Nation’s Workforce Suffers, Government’s Thrives
Warner Todd Huston
Publius Forum
May 19, 2009

John Boehner: Pelosi Should Show Proof Or Apologize

Remember during the Valerie Plame non-scandal when the Dems thought that the CIA was the best thing since sliced bread? Well, it looks like the CIA is back in the Dem dog-house. How does a government agency gain and then fall out of favor so quickly? Well, when dealing with liberals Dems like Nancy Pelosi, it is all about political advantage. During the Plame case, it was politically advantageous to embrace the CIA. Now, the politcal wind in Washington D.C. is such that the CIA is to be shunned.

But, people who are intelligent and clear thinking can see what is really going on here. Pelosi told some rather large untruths and falsehoods about what the CIA breifed her on concerning enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT) including waterboarding, the technique that yielded information which in turn may have saved thousands of American lives.

And now, she is being called on those lies. According to CNN:

A key Republican leader demanded Sunday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi produce evidence to back up her assertion that she was misled by the CIA on the use of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques." ... "Lying to the Congress of the United States is a crime," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said on CNN's "State of the Union." "If the speaker is accusing the CIA and other intelligence officials of lying or misleading the Congress, then she should come forward with evidence and turn that over to the Justice Department so they be prosecuted. And if that's not the case, I think she ought to apologize to our intelligence professionals around the world."

It has already been established that Pelosi and some of her aides knew exactly what was going on. But, none of them ever spoke out against these EITs back in 2002 and 2003. No, instead they waited seven years for the issue to become politcally favorable for them.

It should also be noted that Jane Harmon (D-CA) has not to come to Nancy Pelosi's defense. Harmon did protest the use of waterboarding back in 2003.

More:

On Thursday, Pelosi said the briefing she received from the CIA was incomplete and inaccurate, and she called on the agency to release a full transcript of the briefing. She also accused Republicans of jumping on reports of the briefings to cause a distraction. The speaker's comments prompted CIA Director Leon Panetta to stand up for the agency on Friday and challenge Pelosi on her assertion that the CIA had misled her. "There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I'm gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress." Panetta said in a letter to agency employees.

When faced with such a scathing backlash from the CIA, Pelosi simply switched her criticism from the CIA to the Bush Administration.

Cleary, Pelosi is in a tail-spin and can no longer hide the fact that she has been lying all along. Now that so many people have called her on her lies, she is getting desperate to save whatever is left of her face.

And this little tidbit shows how deeply into the lie Pelosi is willing to go:

Pelosi wants the classified notes of her 2002 briefing on waterboarding declassified because, she has said, they will show that she wasn't told that harsh techniques such as waterboarding were being used. The top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee said he has read the notes from Pelosi's disputed 2002 briefing and insists to CNN that she's wrong. "The record shows Speaker Pelosi was briefed that the techniques were used on Abu Zubaydah," Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, said in a written statement. That appears to back up CIA records declassified last week, which say that on September 4, 2002, Pelosi and Republican Rep. Porter Goss of Florida were briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques.

My personal view? If it is a choice between saving thousands of American lives or worrying about the comfort level of one worthless, waste of flesh terrorist, then I choose saving American lives. It seems as though the average Democrat is more concerned for the terrorist.

Pelosi should not only apologize, but she should at the very least step down as Speaker of the House for lying to the American people. I understand that Democrats would normally call for a politician to step down when caught lying. I wonder if they would apply that same standard to one of their own.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

GOP Leader: Pelosi Should Show Proof Or Apologize
CNN
May 17, 2009

Majority Of Americans Now Identify Themselves As 'Pro-Life'

Looks like the Culture of Life is winning out over the pro-abortionists. 51% of Americans now consider themselves to be pro-life while only 42% call themselves pro-abortion.

From the Associated Press:

The Gallup Poll reported Friday that 51 percent of Americans now call themselves "pro-life" rather than "pro-choice" on the issue of abortion, the first time a majority gave that answer in the 15 years that Gallup has asked the question. The findings, obtained in an annual survey on values and beliefs conducted May 7-10, marked a significant shift from a year ago. A year ago, 50 percent said they were pro-choice and 44 percent pro-life — in the new poll, 42 percent said they were pro-choice. The new survey showed that Americans remained deeply divided on the legality of abortion — with 23 percent saying it should be illegal in all circumstances, 22 percent saying it should be legal under any circumstances, and 53 percent saying it should be legal only under certain circumstances.

People are beginning to realize that abortion as a means of birth control is reprehensible and that responsible personal decisions before a pregnancy occurs are the policies that would best suit our younger generation.

I am happy to be a member of the Culture of Life and will never sway from my convictions.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Majority Of Americans Now ‘Pro-Life,’ Poll Says
Associated Press via MSNBC
May 15, 2009

A Look At Socialized Medicine Through The Eyes Of A British Oncologist

Now that health care reform is back in the news, let's look at what is happening in countires that already have socialized health care, or more accurately, rationed health care.

The best way to do that is to get the information straight from someone who works within such a system. In this case, we have Dr. Karol Sikora, a practicing oncologist and professor of cancer medicine at Imperial College School of Medicine in London.

Dr. Sikora writes:

One of the more unproductive elements of President Obama's stimulus bill is the $1.1 billion allotted for "comparative effectiveness research" to assess all new health treatments to determine whether they are cost-effective. It sounds great, but in Britain we have had a similar system since 1999, and it has cost lives and kept the country in a kind of medical time warp. As a practicing oncologist, I am forced to give patients older, cheaper medicines. The real cost of this penny-pinching is premature death for thousands of patients -- and higher overall health costs than if they had been treated properly: Sick people are expensive.

And dead family members exact a heavy price from the heart. I've previously posted about many of the horror stories that come out of countries with nationalized health care systems. Here are a few:

Another Example Of The Horrors That Socialized Medicine Will Bring Us
84rules
March 19, 2009

A Look At Three Socialized Health Care Systems: Dr. Walter Williams Column
84rules
March 4, 2009

Socialized Medicine: Enforcing Your Duty To Die
84rules
February 16, 2009

Clearly, there is a major problem with socialized health care systems. Now, some of you libs would respond that the same thing is happening here in the U.S. with our privatized system. I say that would be a misrepresentation. You see, if 400 patients died at a U.S. hospital that way they did at Britain's NHS run Stafford and Cannock Chase hospitals, it would be the lead story on CNN and other leftist leaning networks for at least two weeks. But CNN isn't running any such story. From this we can conclude that the problems of a socialized health care system have not manifested themselves in our privatized system.

Continuing on with Dr. Sikora's analysis:

As the government takes increasing control of the health sector with schemes such as Medicare and SCHIP (State Children's Health-care Insurance Program), it is under pressure to control expenditures. Some American health-policy experts have looked favorably at Britain, which uses its National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to appraise the cost-benefit of new treatments before they can be used in the public system. If NICE concludes that a new drug gives insufficient bang for the buck, it will not be available through our public National Health Service, which provides care for the majority of Britons. ... Partly as a result of these restrictions on new medicines, British patients die earlier. In Sweden, 60.3 percent of men and 61.7 percent of women survive a cancer diagnosis. In Britain the figure ranges between 40.2 to 48.1 percent for men and 48 to 54.1 percent for women.

And it is not only the restriction on new drugs that are having an effect. Delayed detection and delayed treatment also contribute the the low cancer survival rates in the U.K. These delays result from control of treatment procedures being passed from patient/doctor to some bureaucrats sitting in some air-conditioned office somewhere and none of whom have a medical degree.

Where do the bureaucrats get that control from? Read on:

Having a centralized "comparative effectiveness research" agency would also hand politicians inappropriate levels of control over clinical decisions, a fact which should alarm Americans as government takes ever more responsibility for delivering health care -- already 45 cents in every health-care dollar.

And would socialized medicine really mean universal coverage? No. It would mean rationed coverage with the most politically powerful ailments getting the most treatment:

In Britain, the reality is that life-and-death decisions are driven by electoral politics rather than clinical need. Diseases with less vocal lobby groups, such as strokes and mental health, get neglected at the expense of those that can shout louder. This is a principle that could soon be exported to America.

So, are you ready for the government to deny treatment to your pneumonia-suffering child because the gay lobby demanded that more resources go to treat (i.e. be rationed for) AIDS patients? Or are you ready to see your wife, mother or sister suffer from breast cancer because the government delayed the tests that could have detected the disease, delayed the treatments and denied the medicines that could have cured the disease?

If so, you are ready for socialized (rationed) medicine.

The majority of us do not want this to happen.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Karol Sikora: This Health Care 'Reform' Will Kill Thousands
Dr. Karol Sikora
New Hampshire Union Leader
May 12, 2009

E.P.A.’s Greenhouse Gas Proposal Critiqued

This comes from the New York Times. Yes, the New York Times.

An internal government memo critiques the Envirnomental Protection Agency's proposal to regulate CO₂. The memo, prepared by the White House Office of Management and Budget says that the issue behind the proposal was "not based on a systematic analysis of costs and benefits and fell short of scientific rigor."

According to John M. Broder:

[T]he E.P.A.’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act would have “serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.” The document also raised questions about the E.P.A.’s inclusion of gases that are believed to contribute to global warming without proving that they have direct health effects.

It didn't take long for Congress to get wind of this document.

Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, waved the nine-page document at Lisa P. Jackson at a hearing of the Environment and Public Works committee this morning. He called it a “smoking gun” that proved the proposed finding was based on politics, not science. “This misuse of the Clean Air Act will be a trigger for overwhelming regulation and lawsuits based on gases emitted from cars, schools, hospitals and small business,” Mr. Barrasso said. “This will affect any number of other sources, including lawn mowers, snowmobiles and farms. This will be a disaster for the small businesses that drive America.”

But don't expect the socialist Obama administration to start looking into the real science behind climate change. It would only muddle the emotionalisms they want to exploit.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

E.P.A.’s Greenhouse Gas Proposal Critiqued
John M. Broder
New York Times
May 12, 2009

New State Sovereignty Movement Mobilizing

The tea parties were only the beginning, it seems. Now, state governments are stepping up and showing that they can hear the voices of the people, especially the voices of the Forgotten Man.

Consider the following:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If you went to elementary school back in the 1970's, like I did, then you will recognize from your 4th grade history lessons the words of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the Unites States of America.

Apparently, not everyone learned that lesson or their teachers failed to teach it. Whichever it is, several states are forcing that lesson back to the national forefront.

Henry Lamb wrote the following for Right Side News:

Nowhere among the enumerated powers is there authority for the federal government to be in the mortgage loan business - as in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Nowhere is there authority for the federal government to be in the banking, or insurance business - as in Citibank, and AIG. Nowhere is there authority for the federal government to be in the health care business, or the animal identification business, or in the energy business, or in most of the places where the federal government is now flexing its regulatory muscles.

Many states are trying to remind the Democrat-controlled Congress and President Obama (a lawyer who should understand the Constitution) of this very thing.

Oklahoma said it very plainly and unambiguously in their resolution of sovereignty:

"...the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States."

So far, 21 states have passed similar resolutions or are planning to. Among those states are Washington, Minnesota and Michigan, none of which is a Republican stronghold. This indicates that this is not a left vs. right or Democrat vs. Republican issue. It is a people vs. the government issue.

The Federal government would do well to pay attention to what is happening. They ignore this issue and the tea parties at their own peril. Likewise if they continue to ignore the Forgotten Man.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

New State Sovereignty Movement Mobilizing
Henry Lamb
Right Side News
May 9, 2009

View From The British Media: Why Does Obama Hate America?

I've got to give the Brits credit for one thing. Their mass media isn't afraid to tell it like it is. Whereas here in America our mass media is acting like Obama's cheerleading squad, the Brits are not afraid to bring hard facts to the forefront and ask questions that would surely embarrass Obama.

Gerald Warner is one such journalist and penned the following column for the Telegraph back on April 24:

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter. Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail. That is why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley, Virginia to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda. "Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them - or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed. So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers. Obama promised his CIA audience that nobody would be prosecuted for past actions. That has already been contradicted by leftist groups with a revanchist ambition to put Republicans, headed if possible by Condoleezza Rice, in the dock. Talk about playing party politics with national security. Martin Scheinin, the United Nations special investigator for human rights, claims that senior figures, including former vice president Dick Cheney, could face prosecution overseas. Ponder that - once you have got over the difficulty of locating the United Nations and human rights within the same dimension. President Pantywaist Obama should have thought twice before sitting down to play poker with Dick Cheney. The former vice president believes documents have been selectively published and that releasing more will prove how effective the interrogation techniques were. Under Dubya's administration, there was no further atrocity on American soil after 9/11. President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America's enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

If only American reporters had such courage and fortitude to stand up to the socialist Obama like that. But, they will never ask hard, reality-based questions of The One.

You can access the original column on-line here:

Barack Obama And The CIA: Why Does President Pantywaist Hate America So Badly?
Gerald Warner
Telegraph UK
April 24, 2009

Pelosi Lied About Not Being Briefed On Waterboarding

Man! If it isn't lying on their taxes, the Dems will find other things to lie about.

The latest lie comes from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Although she claims she never knew about the enhanced interrogation technique known as waterboarding, newly released CIA documents now show she did indeed know.

Oh, and if you are one of those who keep repeating that this is some sort of right-wing conspiracy, check out the names of the sources first.

From the New York Times:

The new chart of briefings, prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, was the first full listing of briefings to members of Congress and their aides. It appears to call into question the longstanding assertion of Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she was never told that waterboarding and other methods were actually used, only that the Central Intelligence Agency believed they were legal and could be used. ... The chart shows that in addition to Ms. Pelosi, Democrats briefed on the methods included former Senator Bob Graham of Florida in 2002 and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Representative Jane Harman of California in 2003.

And the Washington Post has this:

A top aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attended a CIA briefing in early 2003 in which it was made clear that waterboarding and other harsh techniques were being used in the interrogation of an alleged al-Qaeda operative, according to documents the CIA released to Congress on Thursday. Pelosi has insisted that she was not directly briefed by Bush administration officials that the practice was being actively employed. But Michael Sheehy, a top Pelosi aide, was present for a classified briefing that included Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), then the ranking minority member of the House intelligence committee, at which agency officials discussed the use of waterboarding on terrorism suspect Abu Zubaida.

Clearly, despite Pelosi's attempt at spinning this situation, she knew about waterboarding at least 6 years ago and most likely, 8 years ago. She only came out against the technique when it became politically advantageous to do so.

But, I guess you should expect that from a Democrat. Political advancement above the security of the American people. That seems to be their new credo.

You can access both articles on-line here:

List Says Top Democrats Were Briefed On Interrogations
Scott Shane and Carl Hulse
New York Times
May 8, 2009

Top Pelosi Aide Learned Of Waterboarding In 2003
Paul Kane
Washington Post
May 9, 2009

A Few Items About Barack Obama: Immigration, Budget Reporting And Obamanomics

It's been a few days since I last posted. But, that is to be expected when you are the father of a four-and-a-half month old baby boy. Many times, your obligations to your family simply outweigh any other activity you engage in.

That said, let's catch up on a few things that are brewing out there. (In a later post today, I'll try to tackle Nancy Pelosi's lies about her being briefed on waterboarding and a little something about states declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.)

First, Obama appears to have reversed his position on immigration. Contrary to his many promises during the campaign last year, he now supports "enforcement first" immigration policies. From the Washington Times:

[Obama] now says he can't move forward with the type of comprehensive bill he wants until voters are convinced that the borders can be enforced. Having already backed off his pledge to have an immigration bill this year, Mr. Obama boosted his commitment to enforcement in the budget released Thursday. The spending blueprint calls for extra money to build an employee-verification system and to pay for more personnel and equipment to patrol the border. This security-first stance is not unlike that of President George W. Bush, Bush Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, who said their immigration bill failed in 2007 because voters didn't trust the government to be serious about enforcement.

But Obama is still trying to convince illegal immigrant support groups that he wants to legalize illegals. Somewhere along the line, Obama must have realized that if he stays the course on such an explosive issue, the Democrat majority in Congress will be in greater danger in 2010 than it already is.

You can read the complete article on-line here:

Obama Reverses Stance On Immigration
Stephan Dinan
Washington Times
May 8, 2009

---

Obama seems to have come to another realization about the economy and is taking steps to hide certain things. Despite what he or any other politician says about the way things are going, people can walk through the downtown shopping districts of their hometowns or cities and see the truth.

They see business owners doing everything possible to stretch a nickel into a dime while the Obama adminstration and the Democrat-controlled Congress run up huge national debts by spending way more money that they have to spend.

So, in an effort to stem the tide of public opinion, Obama is issuing instructions to the press about how to report on economic issues. Obama is betting that Joe and Jane Average American aren't smart enough to see reality and will instead believe whatever Old Media spoon-feeds them.

From the American Thinker:

Well, I guess it's better than the $100 million he asked his department heads to trim a couple of weeks ago. But $17 billion cut from a $3.4 Trillion budget is still a microscopic amount. Congress sneezes and spends $17 billion on Kleenex. But the truly weird part of this story is the president of the United States instructing journalists how to report this story. Brian Montopoli of CBS News quotes the president giving instructions in how to spin the miniscule budget cutting efforts of his administration: As Steve Chaggaris noted in Hotsheet's morning bulletin today, the news that the cuts totaled $17 billion "landed with a bit of a thud" in the media. Reporters stressed that the cuts made up "a tiny fraction" of the total budget and that they would be hard to push through; USA Today noted that the "proposed cuts are about one-fiftieth the size of this year's $787 billion economic stimulus package - all of which was added to the deficit." In his remarks today, the president sought to change that tenor of that coverage. He mocked the notion that smaller savings are considered "trivial" in Washington and stressed that "these savings, large and small, add up." And he told journalists directly that they should stress the fact that the cuts are "significant" - a surprisingly direct appeal to reporters concerning which angle they should take in their coverage. Update - Thomas Lifson adds: Well, now it is out there for all to see. Obama sees the press as his flacks. I applaud the President for his honest and forthright acknowledgement that the White House press corps exists to publish flattering information about him, and has given up any pretense of objectivity. And if any of them from Fox News or the Washington Times or Examiner break the rules, they won't ever get any more press conference questions. The New York Times will be enchanted to do his bidding.

It seems as if Obama would like to re-write economic history. He knows his policies will only lead to more dependency on the government and hence, greater government control over people's lives.

Lifson's remarks are right on the money.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Schools The Press On How To Report His 'Budget Cuts'
Rick Moran
American Thinker
May 8, 2009

---

And finally, we have to ask: Is Obama intentionally hurting our economy, or is he simply naïve?

Austin Hill over at Town Hall looks at that very issue:

Okay. Let’s consider the possibility that President Obama is, simply, “a little naïve.” So was it this presumed “naivety” that led him to defy U.S. bankruptcy law, and insert himself in between a corporation and its secured creditors? According to such law, a company in bankruptcy must pay its debts to its “secured creditors” before it pays its unsecured creditors. Not only that, in most cases, secured creditors can demand to be paid in full. In the case of Chrysler, several of the institutions to which it owes money are banks that accepted government bail-out funds last year and earlier this year. Those banks are now enslaved to whatever President Obama and the U.S. Treasury Department tell them to do. So when Obama tells, say, “bank X” to “accept twenty-eight cents on the dollar as payment of the debt Chrysler owes you,” well, those banks are obliged to obey Obama, whether or not it makes financial sense to do so, and whether or not bankruptcy law allows that bank to demand more.

You would think that a president who was also a lawyer would know these things, right? So why would he intentionally go against the law? Is it deliberate, or is Obama really that uninformed about such things?

More:

President Obama has now demonstrated to the world’s investors that rules and laws don’t matter - - his personal and political preferences are what matter, and he will get his way, even if investors are denied their rights and damaged in the process. If Obama’s objectve is to weaken the U.S., so as to make a “more fair world,” he’s well on his way to achieving that goal. Yet if Obama actually wants something other than a weaker U.S., then his naivety is something America cannot afford.

Amen.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obamanomics: Naive, Or Intentionally Destructive?
Austin Hill
TownHall.com
May 10, 2009

Oklahoma Votes To Claim It's Sovereignty

This is no joke! Essentially, Oklahoma just voted to secede from the Union! The Oklahome State House of Representatives voted 73-22 to override Gov. Brad Henry's veto of the resolution and now the State Senate is expected to pass it as well.

From NewsOK:

"We’re going to get it done one way or the other,” said the resolutions’ author, Rep. Charles Key, R-Oklahoma City. "I think our governor is out of step.” House Democrats objected, saying the issue already had been taken up and had been vetoed, but House Speaker Pro Tempore Kris Steele, R-Shawnee, ruled the veto is not final action. Key said he expects HCR 1028 will pass in the Senate. HJR 1003 earlier passed the House 83-18 and won approval in the Senate 29-18. Henry vetoed HJR 1003 because he said it suggested, among other things, that Oklahoma should return federal tax dollars. Key said HCR 1028, which, if passed, would be sent to Democratic President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress, would not jeopardize federal funds but would tell Congress to "get back into their proper constitutional role.” The resolution states the federal government should "cease and desist” mandates that are beyond the scope of its powers.

Will Oklahoma be the only one? Or will Oklahoma simply be the first? This is the first time since 1861 that any state has made any attempt at dissolving the Federal Union.

It will be interesting to see how Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress reacts.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

House Bypasses Governor’s Veto To Claim Oklahoma’s Sovereignty
Michael McNutt
NewsOK.com
May 6, 2009

Obama Tax Plan Will Not Create Jobs; Will Most Likely Destroy Jobs

Before anyone tries to dismiss this as some sort of right-wing propaganda, understand that this story comes from the leftist-leaning CNN.

In response to Obama's claims that his increase of taxes on multi-national corporations will somehow create new jobs, Jeanne Sahadi, a CNNMoney.com senior writer, has this:

Will it work? Tax policy experts and corporate lobbyists are dubious. They say that his proposals, if implemented, could raise revenue for the government but are not likely to spark an increase in U.S. jobs. Among the changes Obama wants is to require U.S.-based multinationals to defer taking deductions on expenses related to their foreign operations until they bring back the profits to the United States and pay U.S. income tax on them.

The money that the Obama administration wants to tax away is the same money that these corporations use to create jobs. If the government confiscates that money, no jobs will be created and in many cases, currently existing jobs that were created with that money will be lost.

More:

But U.S. tax policy is not the only factor a company weighs in deciding whether to invest beyond the borders. For instance, companies go abroad primarily to sell products abroad, said Rosanne Altshuler, co-director of the Tax Policy Center. In 2006, she noted, only 10.5% of sales of U.S. controlled foreign subsidiaries were sent back to the United States. "And there are a lot of advantages to having the production close to the place of final sale," Altshuler said. One is lower transportation costs. Indeed, total manufacturing cost is the most compelling reason to move operations abroad, and countries actively woo companies with tax holidays and other incentives, said Sang Kim, a partner in international tax practice of the global law firm DLA Piper.

In other words, companies and corporations will always move to where they can get the best deal and maximize their profits. If Obama is allowed to go through with this tax increase, American corporations will simply move their operations somewhere outside of the United States where their profits can be realized without the government coming in and taking a large portion of them.

Read on:

"Even if all this passes, will it create factories in the United States? Absolutely not," Kim said. Some say Obama's plan won't create jobs because tax policy has a limited influence on jobs. "Employment is determined by overall demand for goods and services, not by targeted tax and spending provisions," Eric Toder, a fellow at the liberal Urban Institute and former assistant secretary of tax analysis for the Treasury Department, wrote in the Tax Policy Center's blog Tax Vox.

Exactly. Those factories will end up somewhere else and provide employment for some other coutry.

If I had a choice between a 30% corporate tax in the United States and a 12% corporate tax in Ireland, I'd be setting up shop in Ireland right now.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Will Obama Tax Plan Really Save Jobs?
Jeanne Sahadi
CNN
May 6, 2009

Obama Takes Away Students' Scholarships; Parents Ask 'Why?'

Far from being a courageous leader, in many instances, Barack Obama has shown himself to be a coward and his administration just as cowardly.

Take for example the D.C. Scholarship Program which allows low-income students, who would otherwise have to attend woefully failing public schools that the D.C. School Board absolutely refuses to fix, to attend private schools that improve their chances for making a better life for themselves. Obama stopped this program even though he chose to use his own upper-class privilege to send his daughters to the prestigeous and private Sidwell Friends.

Reason has the story and video about this:

The program is wildly popular with parents and children—there are four applicants for every available slot—and a recent Department of Education study found that participants do significantly better than their public school peers. Indeed, after three years in private schools, students who entered the program at its inception were 19 months ahead in reading of applicants unlucky enough to still be trapped in D.C.'s public schools.

But, Obama and other Democrats killed the scholarships despite successes of the program:

Yet working with congressional Democrats and despite his pledge to put politics and ideology aside in education, the Obama administration has effectively killed the program through a backdoor legislative move. "[Education] Secretary [Arne] Duncan will use only one test in what ideas to support with your precious tax dollars," says the president. "It's not whether it's liberal or conservative, but whether it works."

And now the parents want to know why. I can guarantee you that Obama will never have the courage or integrity to answer that question. In his world it is okay for him to send his own children to a private school to get a superior education, but others must have their children recieve an abysmally lower quality education at the hands of failing public schools.

A mother asks of Obama:

"We voted for you, we walked, we went to the parade, we stood freezing. Why?...Can you get this tape over to Obama and have him answer our questions? Why, sir, why?"

Obama will never show any real courage until he looks that mother and her daughter in the eyes and answers their questions directly.

You can access the article and video on-line here:

Barack Obama & The DC School Voucher Program
Reason.tv
May 4, 2009

Manipulating The Terminology To Confuse People About Climate Change

So, when "global warming" turns out to be "global cooling" what is a leftist activist to do? The main thing they try to do is to muddle the argument by changing the terminology they use to describe their agenda and the reasons for their agenda.

The is why the United Nation talks about "climate change" rather than "global warming." When it became clear that the earth was in fact cooling down and the people of this planet were witnessing record snowfalls and record cold temperatures, the left-wing climate activists knew they had made a mistake with the "global warming" theory and needed a way to tidy things up so that they wouldn't lose their cause nor the millions of dollars in donations they use to pay their own salaries.



From the New York Times:

The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.” The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington. Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

That's right. Instead of admitting that they've bought into a flawed and scientifically untenable theory, they try to confuse people with new terminology in the hopes that the new words will somehow make people believe in the cause again.

And here is how they are doing it:

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders. Asked about the summary, ecoAmerica’s president and founder, Robert M. Perkowitz, requested that it not be reported until the formal release of the firm’s full paper later this month, but acknowledged that its wide distribution now made compliance with his request unlikely.

Not only are they doing research on how to make the issue more confusing, they do it in secret so that no one would have a chance to analyze what was really going on.

But why are they scrambling to do this? What changed so radically that they have to make this radical adjustment in their language?

Read on:

Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists.

Despite shrill claims that the oil and coal lobbies are causing this, the truth is that Americans can look outside their windows and see what is really happening. They do not see a world getting warmer as the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) alarmists predicted. They see a world getting cooler and are trying to find the real answers as to why. That is what scares the left-wing environmentalists the most: that the truth might actually be revealed by legitimate scientists.

And how far has this gone?

The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.” “Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study. Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington.

I hope you notice the following clause from EcoAmerica's quote: "... while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology."

They want to avoid the science behind the issue. The studies of climatology, meteorology and astrophysics are not to be allowed into the debate. Why would they want these aspects kept out of the discussion? Because it would allow people access to more information and more data, most of which shows that global warming, global cooling and climate change are natural phenomena rather than man-made.

Also note that they are briefing members of Congress to use the same words and terminology, just like trained parrots.

You can access an excellent webpage with loads of answers to questions about the global warming/cooling and/or climate change debate here:

The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'
JunkScience.org
August 2007

And you can access the New York Times article on-line here:

Seeking To Save The Planet, With A Thesaurus
John M. Broder
New York Times
May 1, 2009

The Prediction Of Norman Mattoon Thomas Is Coming True

Just read the following:



Today, even the most socialist Dems will still deny that their policies and the policies of Barack Obama are socialist.

Thomas was right. We Americans will never "knowingly" adopt socialism.

Are you ready to wake up yet?

You Ain't Abe Lincoln!

Love this picture:

"So I said to him, "Barack, I know Abe Lincoln, and you ain't Abe Lincoln!"

And this quote:

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

- Abraham Lincoln

New Hate Crimes Law Could Politically Target People Who Object To Homosexuality

One thing you can count on from the libs is that their sense of reasoning only makes sense to themselves and no one else. I guess the most prominent example would be taxes. They believe that taxes should always be raised so that the government always has money, but they forget that the people who pay those taxes need the money more than the government does. They also forget that when tax money goes to Washington DC, a good chunk of it stays there to make politicians and bureaucrats a little richer and less than 60 cents on the dollar actually makes back out to those who paid the tax to begin with.

Well, the libs still don't have any common sense, especially when it comes to writing legislation that promotes the agenda of one of their special interest groups. In this case, it is the gay and lesbian lobby. The new Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA), H.R. 1913, is one such case where the special interest group is considered more important than Joe and Jane Average American.

Jillian Bandes gives us some insight on this in her latest column from Town Hall:

One of the most pressing concerns is that the bill, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA), could target acts of violence that were carried out for reasons unrelated to sexual preference. Brian Walsh, senior legal research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said HCPA did not require any proof that a crime was committed because of a person’s sexual identity, so prosecution could be willy-nilly. The “amorphous standard would federalize almost all incidents of violent crime, even those that have nothing to do with bias, prejudice, or animus toward the victim because of his or her membership in a particular group,” he said.

In other words, a gay or lesbian could be the target of a completely random crime and this law would be used to inflict heavier prosecution and punishment than if the victim were a straight Christian. Now, that doesn't mean that I think such crimes should go unpunished, but it does mean that I think there should be a fair application of the law across the spectrum.

Even many Democrats are wary of what this bill could portend for the future. Read what Rep. Lamar Smith (D-TX) has to say:

“Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (D-Tex.), ranking member on the Judiciary Committee. Smith also said HCPA could target those who opposed gay marriage and forms of unconventional sexual expression. “Some of my colleagues on the other side claim that the bill protects religious speech. But religious leaders could still be subjected to criminal investigations, and be reluctant to preach the teachings of their faith as a result of this bill,” said Smith.

And that brings us to the true crux of this bill. It is an attempt by the gay and lesbian lobby to stamp out speech that isn't favorable or complimentary to the gay and lesbian lifestyle. If one were to say they opposed homosexuality on moral grounds, this legislation could be used as an excuse to charge such a person with a "Hate Crime" simply for giving their own personal opinion. George Orwell couldn't have come up with a better scenario of real-world thought police.

How can I say something that many on the left would deem as far-fetched? Read on:

Republican staff pointed to an amendment that Democrats rejected during the discussion of the bill, which would have prohibited prosecution of those who simply spoke about sexual identity issues. Because of this exclusion, the prohibition against prosecuting speech had no teeth.

That amendment was killed specifically at the behest of the gay and lesbian lobby. There is no other logical reason for tossing that amendment out.

But this will be the first bill that reaches into a church to censor the content of the service.

“It’s going to cause at a critical moment in American history a chilling effect on the pulpit where we cannot preach about biblical morality and sexuality,” said Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md.

(Photo: Bishop Harry Jackson)

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Hate Crimes Law May Have Loopholes
Jillian Bandes
TownHall.com
April 30, 2009