If you support our national security issues, you may love and appreciate the United States of America, our Constitution with its’ freedoms, and our American flag.
If you support and practice our fiscal issues, you may value worldly possessions.
If you support and value our social issues, you may love Judeo-Christian values.
If you support and practice all these values, that is all good; an insignia of “Wisdom” . - Oscar Y. Harward
National Debt Clock-Click Here-Real Time
Saturday, July 31, 2010
In a stunning development that could potentially send the nation into a Constitutional crisis, an astute attorney who is well-versed in Constitutional law states that the ruling against the state of Arizona by Judge Susan Bolton concerning its new immigration law is illegal.
The attorney in question submitted her assertion in a special article in the Canada Free Press. Her argument states in part,
"Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.
"Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction."
In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled. As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can issue rulings that involve a state.
This means that neither Judge Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to which the case is being appealed, have any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue.
Thus, U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder filed the federal government's lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case.
The attorney whose heads-up thinking concerning the Constitution provides the legal remedy for dealing with this blatant disregard for Constitutional law in the article at Canada Free Press, which can be accessed at the link above.
In a related development, another explosive discovery was made by those who actually take the Constitution seriously. The Constitution specifically allows an individual state to wage war against a neighboring country in the event of an invasion, should there be a dangerous delay or inaction on the part of the federal government. This information was cited by United Patriots of America.
From Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, we find these words: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
No one who is actually familiar with the crisis at the southern border can deny that Arizona is endangered by the relentless assault of lawless Mexican invaders who ignore our laws, inundate our schools and medical facilities with unpaid bills, and even endanger the very lives of citizens with criminal drug cartels that engage in kidnapping, murder, human trafficking, and other mayhem, including aiming missile and grenade launchers directly at U.S. border cities from just across the Mexican border.
This is every bit as much of an invasion as the nation of Iran sending in a fleet of warships to the Port of Charleston.
The Constitution that forms the basis of the rule of law in this country says that Arizona has legal right to protect itself in the case of inaction or delay on the part of the federal government, including waging war in its self-defense.
This, when coupled with the clear Constitutional mandate that only the Supreme Court hear cases involving the states, should be ample legal basis for attorneys representing Arizona to go after the federal government with a vengeance.
Governor Jan Brewer and the stalwart members of the Arizona legislature have ample legal reason to stand firm against the illegal bullying of an arrogant, lawless federal government.
Be sure to catch my blog at The Liberty Sphere.
Friday, July 30, 2010
By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
One of Washington, D.C.'s most feared and fearless corruption watchers has told WND he intends to file an ethics complaint to have Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan disbarred from practicing before the court she aspires to join – and possibly subjected to criminal prosecution – for her role in an escalating controversy over partial-birth abortion.
Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch USA, is bringing the complaint, alleging Kagan altered an official scientific report used as evidence by the Supreme Court to persuade the justices to overturn bans on partial-birth abortion.
As WND reported, dozens of pro-life organizations are already asking the Senate to investigate Kagan's 1997 amendment to an American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists report, which was then used by the Supreme Court as justification for overturning Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000.
In her confirmation hearings, Kagan defended the amendment, saying, "My only dealings with (the College) were about talking with them about how to ensure that their statement expressed their views."
Several analyses have concluded, however, that Kagan's amendment dramatically changed the meaning of the organization statement, and court records show the statement was passed off on the Supreme Court as official scientific opinion, even though the organization's panel of scientists never approved Kagan's wording.
Klayman told WND he believes Kagan's behind-the-scenes work constitutes "conspiracy to defraud the Supreme Court," and he intends to take the evidence that has been compiled by the pro-life groups to file a complaint before the clerk's office of the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to have Kagan disbarred as a practicing lawyer in front of the Supreme Court.
But Klayman said he isn't stopping there.
"Then I'm going to ask the Supreme Court to refer the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation and possibly prosecution of obstruction of justice," he told WND, "because it was reasonably foreseeable that her altering that ... report would ultimately be used in court proceedings, including but not limited to the Supreme Court."
Klayman concludes, "Elena Kagan should not be a justice of the Supreme Court when she's defrauded the Supreme Court. In fact, she shouldn't even be allowed to practice in front of the Supreme Court under these circumstances."
Klayman, a former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor whose battle against the seedy underbelly of Washington" is chronicled in his book "Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment," is the only lawyer ever to have obtained a court ruling that a U.S. president committed a crime.
He is still known in Washington as the biggest enemy of the city's elite, having made a name for himself suing Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and foreign dictators such as Castro, Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His battles against corruption in the Clinton administration became so well-known that a character in the hit TV series "West Wing" was based on him, Harry Klaypool.
Now, Klayman says, even if Kagan is confirmed by a vote in the Senate, he doesn't plan on giving up the fight.
"If she is ultimately confirmed – and we can hope that she will not be – then we will go to phase two, which will be impeachment," Klayman told WND.
Working to stop Kagan's nomination
While the pro-life groups are petitioning U.S. senators to investigate Kagan's amendment and Klayman is turning to the Department of Justice, other organizations are drafting efforts to pressure the Senate into rejecting Kagan's nomination outright.
Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, is offering constituents a "take action" option on his website, while a "Stop Kagan Campaign" also is under way.
"We will continue to put every member on notice – Republicans and Democrats – that a vote for Kagan is a vote against the U.S. military, a vote against the Constitution, a vote against free speech and a vote for ultra-partisan extremism and activism on the bench," said Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND who is orchestrating the "Stop Kagan" effort that has generated tens of thousands of individual letters to senators.
The "Stop Kagan Campaign" allows any American citizen to generate 100 individually addressed letters to every U.S. senator, each including the name of the sender and all delivered by FedEx for the low price of just $24.95.
According to Farah, Kagan disqualified herself from serving on the Supreme Court with her statement under oath that she has no view of "natural rights."
"In all my years of observing Washington, I don't think I've ever been more stunned and disappointed by the testimony of a Supreme Court nominee than I was with Elena Kagan," said Farah. "This is someone, who, from her own testimony, doesn't believe in the Declaration of Independence, which we just celebrated and commemorated for the 234th time in our nation's history. This is someone who claims she doesn't have a view about 'natural rights' – those that real Americans believe are unalienable and God-given."
Farah is asking all of his constituents to join his "Stop Kagan Campaign", which delivers personalized, individually addressed, anti-Kagan letters to all 100 U.S. senators by FedEx for only $24.95.
The statements by Kagan came in an exchange with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. Farah said most of the press failed to cover her responses, which he deemed as newsworthy as any she made during the hearings:
Coburn: Do you believe it is a fundamental, pre-existing right to have an arm to defend yourself?
Kagan: Senator Coburn, I very much appreciate how deeply important the right to bear arms is to millions and millions of Americans. And I accept Heller, which made clear that the Second Amendment conferred that right upon individuals, and not simply collectively.
Coburn: I'm asking you, Elena Kagan, do you personally believe there is a fundamental right in this area? Do you agree with Blackstone [in] the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense? He didn't say that was a constitutional right. He said that's a natural right. And what I'm asking you is, do you agree with that?
Kagan: Senator Coburn, to be honest with you, I don't have a view of what are natural rights, independent of the Constitution. And my job as a justice will be to enforce and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
Coburn: So you wouldn't embrace what the Declaration of Independence says, that we have certain God-given, inalienable rights that aren't given in the Constitution that are ours, ours alone, and that a government doesn't give those to us?
Kagan: Senator Coburn, I believe that the Constitution is an extraordinary document, and I'm not saying I do not believe that there are rights pre-existing the Constitution and the laws. But my job as a justice is to enforce the Constitution and the laws.
Coburn: Well, I understand that. I'm not talking about as a justice. I'm talking about Elena Kagan. What do you believe? Are there inalienable rights for us? Do you believe that?
Kagan: Senator Coburn, I think that the question of what I believe as to what people's rights are outside the Constitution and the laws, that you should not want me to act in any way on the basis of such a belief.
Coburn: I would want you to always act on the basis of the belief of what our Declaration of Independence says.
Kagan: I think you should want me to act on the basis of law. And that is what I have upheld to do, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, is to act on the basis of law, which is the Constitution and the statutes of the United States.
"This woman apparently thinks our rights descend from our Constitution, which is crazy," said Farah. "The Constitution is there to protect our unalienable, God-given human rights – not to define our rights or to invent them."
The campaign to deny Kagan confirmation in the Senate, however, began long before the hearings.
"This woman, as president of her university, banned the U.S. military from recruiting on campus," Farah reminds. "Just contemplate rewarding that kind of vehemently anti-American action with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Elena Kagan must be stopped."
He devised the "Stop Kagan Campaign" based on previous successes in generating heavy volumes of mail to members of Congress.
"It's a phenomenal bargain," says Farah. "It makes it easy for you to sound off on this historically bad nomination. It's a small investment. And I am convinced that if enough Americans take advantage of it, Kagan will be stopped – even by this Senate."
But time is short, Farah says. America is distracted by a floundering economy, a disastrous oil spill and a government that creates new crises on a daily basis, he explains.
Calling Kagan "an activist who wants to govern from the bench," Farah says there's a way to give senators a "spine transplant" and prepare them for the most contentious confirmation fight since Clarence Thomas.
"Kagan is a radical antimilitary and proabortion zealot," said Farah. "This selection by Barack Obama reveals once again his extremist agenda of leaving America undefended, elevating alternative lifestyles to sainthood and exterminating the most innocent human life with reckless abandon and persecuting anyone who tried to stand in the way. In a nutshell, that's who Elena Kagan is."
Farah's goal is to inundate senators with 100,000 letters calling for her rejection for a lifelong appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The letter campaign is based on previously successful efforts in which nearly 10 million "pink slips" were delivered to members of Congress opposing nationalization of health care, cap-and-trade legislation, hate-crimes laws and other bills, as well as the current campaign to stop amnesty in the U.S. Senate.
The letter to the senators reads:
"In a few months, the American people will have a chance to speak at the polls again. Almost every analyst and every public-opinion survey suggests the electorate is angry about the direction of the country. I strongly urge you not to show contempt for the will of the people and the Constitution by confirming the Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan.
"Kagan is not what Americans want and she is not what the country needs.
"At a time when federal central control is strangling the American economy, she calls for more regulatory authority not just in Washington, but for the president himself.
"At a time when American security is facing internal and external threats and our nation is still engaged in two foreign wars simultaneously, she advocates banning military recruitment on campuses because of her compulsion to see open homosexual behavior flaunted in the ranks.
"At a time when Americans have been stripped of their ability to write their own laws protecting the lives of the unborn, she advocates the creation of task forces to investigate and prosecute peaceful pro-life activities.
"At a time when Americans are recognizing the unique blessings of their Constitution, she advocates the consideration of foreign laws in shaping Supreme Court rulings.
"For all of these reasons and more we will surely learn about in the days ahead, please reject the nomination of Elena Kagan."
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
It appears that almost all Democrats are following President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi down a path of America’s destruction.
View how each and every member in US Congress and the US Senate voted on the issue “Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010” as Democrats on Capitol Hill have now removed “public exposure” for Americans.
US Congress vote: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-968
US Senate vote:
God Bless America
Oscar Y. Harward
SEC Says New FinReg Law Exempts It From Public Disclosure
By Dunstan Prial
Published July 28, 2010
So much for transparency.
Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial -reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities." Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.
That argument comes despite the President saying that one of the cornerstones of the sweeping new legislation was more transparent financial markets. Indeed, in touting the new law, Obama specifically said it would “increase transparency in financial dealings."
The SEC cited the new law Tuesday in a FOIA action brought by FOX Business
Network. Steven Mintz, founding partner of law firm Mintz & Gold LLC in New York, lamented what he described as “the backroom deal that was cut between Congress and the SEC to keep the SEC’s failures secret. The only losers here are the American public.”
If the SEC’s interpretation stands, Mintz, who represents FOX Business Network, predicted “the next time there is a Bernie Madoff failure the American public will not be able to obtain the SEC documents that describe the failure,” referring to the shamed broker whose Ponzi scheme cost investors billions.
The SEC didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Criticism of the provision has been swift. “It allows the SEC to block the public’s access to virtually all SEC records,” said Gary Aguirre, a former SEC staff attorney-turned-whistleblower who had accused the agency of thwarting an investigation into hedge fund Pequot Asset Management in 2005. “It permits the SEC to promulgate its own rules and regulations regarding the disclosure of records without getting the approval of the Office of Management and Budget, which typically applies to all federal agencies.”
Aguirre used FOIA requests in his own lawsuit against the SEC, which the SEC settled this year by paying him $755,000. Aguirre, who was fired in September 2005, argued that supervisors at the SEC stymied an investigation of Pequot – a charge that prompted an investigation by the Senate Judiciary and Finance committees.
The SEC closed the case in 2006, but would re-open it three years later.
This year, Pequot and its founder, Arthur Samberg, were forced to pay $28 million to settle insider-trading charges related to shares of Microsoft (MSFT: 25.86 ,-0.30 ,-1.13%). The settlement with Aguirre came shortly later.
“From November 2008 through January 2009, I relied heavily on records obtained from the SEC through FOIA in communications to the FBI, Senate investigators, and the SEC in arguing the SEC had botched its initial investigation of Pequot’s trading in Microsoft securities and thus the SEC should reopen it, which it did,” Aguirre said. “The new legislation closes access to such records, even when the investigation is closed.
“It is hard to imagine how the bill could be more counterproductive,” Aguirre added.
FOX Business Network sued the SEC in March 2009 over its failure to produce documents related to its failed investigations into alleged investment frauds being perpetrated by Madoff and R. Allen Stanford.
Following the Madoff and Stanford arrests it, was revealed that the SEC conducted investigations into both men prior to their arrests but failed to uncover their alleged frauds.
FOX Business made its initial request to the SEC in February 2009 seeking any information related to the agency’s response to complaints, tips and inquiries or any potential violations of the securities law or wrongdoing by Stanford.
FOX Business has also filed lawsuits against the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve over their failure to respond to FOIA requests regarding use of the bailout funds and the Fed’s extended loan facilities. In February, the Federal Court in New York sided with FOX Business and ordered the Treasury to comply with its requests.
Last year, the network won a legal victory to force the release of documents related to New York University’s lawsuit against Madoff feeder Ezra Merkin.
FOX Business’ FOIA requests have so far led the SEC to release several important and damaging documents:
•FOX Business used the FOIA to obtain a 2005 survey that the SEC in Fort Worth was sending to Stanford investors. The survey showed that the SEC had suspicions about Stanford several years prior to the collapse of his $7 billion empire.
•FOX Business used the FOIA to obtain copies of emails between Federal Reserve lawyers, AIG and staff at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in which it was revealed the Fed staffers knew that bailing out AIG would result in bonuses being paid.
Recently, TARP Congressional Oversight Panel chair Elizabeth Warren told FOX Business that the network’s Freedom of Information Act efforts played a “very important part” of the panel’s investigation into AIG.
Warren told the network the government “crossed a line” with the AIG bailout.
“FOX News and the congressional oversight panel has pushed, pushed, pushed, for transparency, give us the documents, let us look at everything. Your Freedom of Information Act suit, which ultimately produced 250,000 pages of documentation, was a very important part of our report. We were able to rely on the documents that you pried out for a significant part of our being able to put this report together,” Warren said.
The SEC first made its intention to block further FOIA requests known on Tuesday. FOX Business was preparing for another round of “skirmishes” with the SEC, according to Mintz, when the agency called and said it intended to use Section 929I of the 2000-page legislation to refuse FBN’s ongoing requests for information.
Mintz said the network will challenge the SEC’s interpretation of the law.
“I believe this is subject to challenge,” he said. “The contours will have to be figured out by a court.”
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
By Pat Boone
"We're no longer a Christian nation." - President Barack Obama, June 2007
"America has been arrogant." - President Barack Obama
"After 9/11, America didn't always live up to her ideals."- President Barack Obama
"You might say that America is a Muslim nation."- President Barack Obama, Egypt 2009
Thinking about these and other statements made by the man who wears the title of president. I keep wondering what country he believes he's president of.
In one of my very favorite stories, Edward Everett Hale's "The Man without a Country," a young Army lieutenant named Philip Nolan stands condemned for treason during the Revolutionary War, having come under the influence of Aaron Burr. When the judge asks him if he wishes to say anything before sentence is passed, young Nolan defiantly exclaims, "Damn the United States! I wish I might never hear of the United States again!"
The stunned silence in the courtroom is palpable, pulsing. After a long pause, the judge soberly says to the angry lieutenant: "You have just pronounced your own sentence. You will never hear of the United States again... I sentence you to spend the rest of your life at sea, on one or another of this country's naval vessels - under strict orders that no one will ever speak to you again about the country you have just cursed."
And so it was. Philip Nolan was taken away and spent the next 40 years at sea, never hearing anything but an occasional slip of the tongue about America. The last few pages of the story, recounting Nolan's dying hours in his small stateroom - now turned into a shrine to the country he fore swore - never fail to bring me to tears. And I find my own love for this dream, this miracle called America, refreshed and renewed. I know how blessed and unique we are.
But reading and hearing the audacious, shocking statements of the man who was recently elected our president - a young black man living the impossible dream of millions of young Americans, past and present, black and white - I want to ask him, "Just what country do you think you're president of?"
You surely can't be referring to the United States of America, can you? America is emphatically a Christian nation, and has been from its inception! Seventy percent of her citizens identify themselves as Christian. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were framed, written and ratified by Christians. It's because this was, and is, a nation built on and guided by Judeo-Christian biblical principles that you, sir, have had the inestimable privilege of being elected her president.
You studied law at Harvard, didn't you, sir? You taught constitutional law in Chicago? Did you not ever read the statement of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and an author of the landmark "Federalist Papers": "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers - and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation - to select and prefer Christians for their rulers"?
In your studies, you surely must have read the decision of the Supreme Court in 1892: "Our lives and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."
Did your professors have you skip over all the high-court decisions right up till the mid 1900's that echoed and reinforced these views and intentions? Did you pick up the history of American jurisprudence only in 1947, when for the first time a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson about a "wall of separation between church and state" was used to deny some specific religious expression - contrary to Jefferson’s intent with that statement?
Or, wait a minute. Were your ideas about America’s Christianity formed during the 20 years you were a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ under your pastor, Jeremiah Wright? Is that where you got the idea that “America is no longer a Christian nation"? Is this where you, even as you came to call yourself a Christian, formed the belief that “America has been arrogant"?
Even if that's the understandable explanation of your damning of your country and accusing the whole nation (not just a few military officials trying their best to keep more Americans from being murdered by jihadists) of "not always living up to her ideals," how did you come up with the ridiculous, alarming notion that we might be "considered a Muslim nation"?
Is it because there are some 2 million or more Muslims living here, trying to be good Americans? Out of a current population of over 300 million, 70 percent of whom are Christians? Does that make us, by any rational definition, a "Muslim nation"?
Why are we not, then, a "Chinese nation"? A "Korean nation"? Even a "Vietnamese nation"? There are even more of these distinct groups in America than Muslims. And if the distinction you're trying to make is a religious one, why is America not "a Jewish nation"? There's actually a case to be made for the latter, because our Constitution - and the success of our Revolution and founding - owe a deep debt to our Jewish brothers.
Have you stopped to think what an actual Muslim America would be like? Have you ever really spent much time in Iran? Even in Egypt? You, having been instructed in Islam as a kid at a Muslim school in Indonesia and saying you still love the call to evening prayers, can surely picture our nation founded on the Quran, not the Judeo-Christian Bible, and living under Shariah law. Can't you? You do recall Muhammad's directives [Surah 9:5,73] to "break the cross" and "kill the infidel"?
It seems increasingly and painfully obvious that you are more influenced by your upbringing and questionable education than most suspected. If you consider yourself the president of a people who are "no longer Christian," who have "failed to live up to our ideals," who "have been arrogant," and might even be "considered Muslim" - you are president of a country most Americans don't recognize.
Could it be you are a president without a country?
Monday, July 26, 2010
Some of you may be wondering what Judge Roy Moore has been doing since he was removed from the bench for refusing to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom wall. Please read the poem he wrote. It’s below his picture.
The following is a poem written by Judge Roy Moore from Alabama Judge Moore was sued by the ACLU for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom foyer. He has been stripped of his judgeship and now they are trying to strip his right to practice law in Alabama! The judge’s poem sums it up quite well.
America the beautiful,
or so you used to be.
Land of the Pilgrims’ pride;
I’m glad they’ll never see.
~~Judge Roy Moore~~
Babies piled in dumpsters,
Abortion on demand,
Oh, sweet land of liberty;
your house is on the sand.
Our children wander aimlessly
poisoned by cocaine
choosing to indulge their lusts,
when God has said abstain.
From sea to shining sea,
our Nation turns away
From the teaching of God’s love
and a need to always pray.
We’ve kept God in our temples,
how callous we have grown.
When earth is but His footstool,
and Heaven is His throne.
We’ve voted in a government
that’s rotting at the core,
Appointing Godless Judges
who throw reason out the door.
Too soft to place a killer
in a well deserved tomb,
But brave enough to kill a baby
before he leaves the womb.
You think that God’s not angry,
that our land’s a moral slum?
How much longer will He wait
before His judgment comes?
How are we to face our God,
from Whom we cannot hide?
What then is left for us to do,
but stem this evil tide?
If we who are His children,
will humbly turn and pray;
Seek His holy face
and mend our evil way:
Then God will hear from Heaven;
and forgive us of our sins,
He’ll heal our sickly land
and those who live within….
But, America the Beautiful,
If you don’t – then you will see,
A sad but Holy God
withdraw His hand from Thee.
by Johnny Alamo
You may have received an e-mail like this recently, as relayed to me by the World-Famous Amazing Buck Ashcraft:
Very Interesting Statistics
A recent “Investor’s Business Daily” article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in “excellent health”:
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want “Universal Healthcare” comparable to England or Canada.
Moreover, it was Sen. Harry Reid who said, “Elderly Americans must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age.”
Being intrigued, and being the kind of guy who doesn’t want to look silly when some spam e-mail turns out to be a hoax, I did a little research, and found the apparent source article at Investor’s Business Daily HERE. The true, unedited statistics are even MORE frightening:
How U.S. Health Care Really Stacks Up
Facts: A movie has been made solely to criticize it. The left treats it as if it’s an invader that must be repelled. Most Americans, however, are satisfied with this object of so much hate — America’s health care industry.
Manipulative filmmaker Michael Moore says “we have the worst health care in the Western world” and has offered up Cuba as a paradigm for the U.S. to follow.
Former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle, who was nearly named the administration’s health and human services secretary, says the “flaws in our health care system are pervasive and corrosive.”
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a former Democratic presidential candidate, called the current health care market “predatory capitalism.” Some Democrats go so far as to say the system is racist.
The kindest thing most Democrats will say about health care in the U.S. is that it’s broken. Their talking points to back up the claim revolve around costs, America’s low position (37th) in World Health Organization rankings and the number of uninsured.
The last is a useless measure, since only a small portion of the uninsured are chronically without coverage. So are the WHO rankings, which can’t be trusted because of disparities in how countries compile statistics, demographic and cultural differences, and the WHO’s leftist bias.
Which leaves us with the issue of costs.
Yes, with $2.5 trillion expected to be spent this year, health care in the U.S. is more expensive than in any other country, including Great Britain and Canada, whose nationalized, universal care systems are held up as models .
But what we spend isn’t thrown down a rathole. The National Center for Policy Analysis has published a study, “10 Surprising Facts About American Health Care,” that shows how Americans get something for the extra dollars they lay out. To wit:
“Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.” Breast cancer mortality: 52% higher in Germany and 88% higher in the United Kingdom than in the U.S. Prostate cancer mortality: 604% higher in the U.K., 457% higher in Norway. Colo-rectal cancer mortality: 40% higher among Britons.
“Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.” Rates for breast cancer (9%), prostate cancer (184%) and colon cancer among men (10%) are higher than in the U.S.
“Americans have better access to treatment of chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.” Roughly 56% of Americans who could benefit are taking statin drugs. Only 36% of the Dutch, 29% of the Swiss, 26% of Germans, 23% of Britons and 17% of Italians who could benefit receive them.
“Americans have better access to preventive cancer screenings than Canadians.” Nine of 10 middle-aged American women have had a mammogram; 72% of Canadian women have. Almost every American woman (96%) has had a pap smear; fewer than 90% of Canadian women have. Roughly 54% of American men have had a prostate cancer test; fewer than one in six Canadian men have. Almost a third of Americans (30%) have had a colonoscopy; only 5% of Canadians have had the procedure.
“Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.” Nearly 12% of U.S. seniors with below-median incomes self-report being in “excellent” health, while 5.8% of Canadian seniors say the same thing.
“Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom.” Canadians and Britons wait about twice as long, sometimes more than a year, to see a specialist, have elective surgery or get radiation treatment.
“People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.” More than seven in 10 Germans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and Britons say their health systems need either “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.”
“Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.” More than half (51.3%) of Americans are very satisfied with their health care services, while 41.5% of Canadians hold the same view of their system.
“Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K.” There are 34 CT scanners per million Americans. There are 12 per million in Canada and eight per million in Britain. The U.S. has nearly 27 MRI machines per million. Britain and Canada have 6 per million.
“Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.” The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed nation; the most important recent medical innovations were developed here.
Can the nationalized, universal systems in Britain, Canada or anywhere else improve on this? No, but we can ruin our health care by following the policies of countries where medical treatment is far below the American standard.
My apologies who will throw a conniption fit for my reprinting the article in toto, but it **IS** a year-old article.
Call you congressman now – TODAY. Yes, it’s Sunday — they’re in the
Capital right now awaiting the vote.
On a Sunday. During Lent. To hide the stink of what they’re doing.
Call them Call them now. 877-762-8762, or 202-224-3121, or 202-225-3121.
Remind them strongly that when we vote their sorry butts out in November, they have to come LIVE in your district.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
What is so much of a concern to Conservatives is that the denial of open Prayer is a frequent event. Weekly, we hear of others across America where law-abiding citizens are denied the right to practice Judeo-Christian values in the schools, colleges, universities, in local, state, and national governments, and in other areas of our life.
It all started when SCOTUS removed our Bible from our “public schools”. Furthermore, whenever one of our liberal politicians loses their elections at the state and national level, many are employed as professors, counselors, etc. at the colleges and universities. There, they may continue to teach their political “poison” to our children.
At the same time, members of these same radical Islamic Muslim organizations who attacked America on 9/11 are being allowed to build a Mosque as Ground Zero. Folks, most of these misuses of power are created and/or allowed mostly by elected members of the Democrat Party and their appointed representatives. Why is President Obama not denying the Mosque to be built at Ground Zero? What percentage of Democrat Party members on Capitol Hill are speaking out against the Mosque at Ground Zero?
Many Conservative members of the Republican Party have spoken out to prevent the Mosque from being built at Ground Zero. President Obama and the Democrat Party on Capitol Hill are again going to “cram this down out throats”.
On November 2, help us all clean up their failures. – Oscar Y. Harward
By Lauren Green
Published July 23, 2010
Arizona school children are told they can't pray in front of the Supreme Court building ... Two University of Texas Arlington employees are fired for praying over a co-worker's cubicle after work hours ... In Cranston, R.I., a high school banner causes controversy when a parent complains it contains a prayer and demands that it be removed.
There are more legal challenges to prayer in the United States than ever before, says Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist organization whose business is booming as Americans increasingly tackle church vs. state issues.
"We've never had more complaints about government prayer," Gaylor says. "We have just hired a second staff attorney in July. It's turned into a cottage industry for our attorneys."
The foundation has had a huge volume of complaints about prayer in the public sector, including numerous issues involving civic and government meetings where sessions have traditionally begun with a prayer or moment of silence.
In Augusta, Ga., the city's law department just issued a legal opinion defending the city's practice of a pre-meeting prayer, saying it does not violate federal law. The statement was in response to the Freedom From Religion Foundation's letter to the mayor's office urging him to stop the invocations at the start of meetings. The foundation sent similar letters to three cities in South Carolina.
"These are flagrant violations of the laws," Gaylor says.
Not so, says Nate Kellum, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the Arizona school children and their teacher, Maureen Rigo, who say they were told they couldn't pray on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington.
"Religious liberties are under attack across the country," Kellum says. "My sense is that there's some type of knee-jerk reaction, almost an allergic reaction, if someone sees the expression of religion," he says.
And the bulk of the complaints are directed at Christians, he says.
"There's an overreaching presumption that there's something wrong," he says.
But Gaylor says there's no country in the world where religion flourishes as much as in the United States, and she says conflicts over public expression are going to increase.
"Fifteen percent of the people are not religious," she says. "There's an increasing plurality of faiths. It's inevitable there's going to be this clash with more people being offended."
Kelly Shackelford, president of the Liberty Institute, represents the two University of Texas employees who were fired for praying over a co-worker's desk after hours. The co-worker was not there at the time and didn't know until months later why the employees were fired.
The university, in legal documents, said it the employee's prayer had been deemed harassment. Judge Terry Means of the U.S. Federal District Court in Ft. Worth rejected that argument.
"One of the women just said 'amen' while the other prayed," Shackelford said. "So she was fired for just saying 'amen.'"
"It's just so crazy!" he said. "There's a hostility, and there are folks who want to change this country and want to engage in some kind of religious cleansing."
Shackelford is also part of the legal team that filed a brief on Thursday defending the National Day of Prayer, which a federal judge ruled unconstitutional in April. Though the Justice Department announced one week later that it planned to appeal the judge's ruling, and despite President Obama's proclamation of National Prayer Day the next month, the Liberty Institute along with the Family Research Council took legal action because of what they claim is "the Obama Administration's weak defense of the NDP."
The council's president, Tony Perkins, issued a statement saying, "The President's attorneys failed to cite any of the key cases that would require immediate dismissal of this lawsuit because the plaintiffs lack standing to bring it. FRC plans to mount a robust defense of this important national event that a liberal judge has attempted to scrub from the public square."
Shackelford says, "The thing that makes [America] unique is that we believe our freedoms don't come from government, they come from God."
But it's exactly beliefs about God that form the core of the legal conflicts, and will continue to do so -- because whether people believe in God is something no court can have jurisdiction over.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
When Obama needed a Republican vote in the Senate Judiciary to advance SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor onto the floor of the US Senate, ‘Flimsy’ Graham voted with Obama, and against the GOP Judiciary Senators. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/28/sotomayor.panel.vote/index.html
Further, ‘Flimsy’ Graham votes to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, and against the majority of GOP Senators and the GOP Platform. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00262
As ‘illegal immigration’ is the issue, President Obama works with ‘Flimsy’ Graham for a vote for ‘amnesty’. While a majority of South Carolinians oppose ‘illegal immigrants’, ‘Flimsy’ Graham works against South Carolinians and with Obama. He works against the GOP Senators and the GOP Platform. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/27/gops-graham-no-immigration-bill-until-2012/
When Obama needed a Republican vote in the Senate Judiciary to advance SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan onto the floor of the US Senate, ‘Flimsy’ Graham voted with Obama, and against the GOP Judiciary Senators. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/20/AR2010072000559.html
South Carolinians support ‘life’. Both of President Obama’s SCOTUS nominees support ‘abortion’. Obama’s polls are deteriorating. As you and I become upset over Graham’s voting issue for ‘abortion’, keep in mind ‘Flimsy’ Graham supported both ‘pro-abortion’ nominees with Obama, and against the majority of GOP Senators for ‘lifetime appointments’ to the US Supreme Court.
Replacing one retiring ‘pro-abortion’ justice with another ‘pro-abortion’ nominee is not, and should not be the issue at all. There are only nine at any one time on the ‘Bench’. America must hold each and every ‘Justice’ chair as ‘honored’ for Holy truthfulness.
Oscar Y. Harward
Monday, July 19, 2010
While most will say America is a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws, many will now say that President Obama is turning America into a nation of “illegal immigrants” and a “nation of the lawless”. – Oscar Y. Harward
Imagine arriving at your neighborhood polling place on Election Day and seeing two men guarding the entrance, dressed in paramilitary uniforms, wielding a deadly billy club, shouting racial epitaphs and menacing voters. Would you walk through the door? Now imagine political appointees in the Department of Justice (DOJ) refusing to pursue the case, the U.S. Attorney General stonewalling and refusing to enforce lawful subpoenas in the face of questions about that decision, and the mainstream media remaining silent on the story for a year.
This isn't a case of pure imagination. This is, in a nutshell, the true story of the New Black Panther (NBPP) voter intimidation case, and it's one dramatic example of the increased politicization of the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama's administration.
The story begins on Election Day 2008 in Philadelphia, when two Panthers engaged in a "textbook case of voter intimidation" in violation of the 1965 Voter Rights Act. Their actions were caught on video, and witnesses offered sworn statements that one of the Panthers called poll watchers a "white devil" and a "cracker" who would be "ruled by the black man."
Enter the DOJ in early January 2009, which sued the two Panthers, the head of the national NBPP and the party itself (on the grounds that it endorsed the intimidation in Philadelphia and planned to deploy 300 of its members on Election Day, as The Weekly Standard reports). The defendants didn't respond to the lawsuit, the DOJ won a default judgment against them, and it appeared to be an open and shut case - until Obama's political appointees got their hands on it.
In May 2009, acting Obama political appointees inexplicably ordered career lawyers in the DOJ's Civil Rights Division to dismiss the case against all but the billy-club-wielding defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, who is now under a joke of an injunction that allows him to intimidate voters anywhere except at polling places in the City of Philadelphia. And the NBPP, which is an identified hate group, has suffered no consequences. (Read our timeline of the case and a summary of the parties involved for more details.)
The Justice Department's decision not to pursue the case against the defendants is shocking considering the clear cut facts at hand. As the DOJ trial team of career attorneys who prosecuted the case noted:
We strongly believe that this is one of the clearest violations of Section 11(b) [of the Voting Rights Act] the Department has come across. There is never a good reason to bring a billy club to a polling station. If the conduct of these men, which was video recorded and broadcast nationally, does not violate Section 11(b), the statute will have little meaning going forward.
So why was this open-and-shut case all but dropped? Some very revealing testimony might explain why. On July 6, J. Christian Adams, one of the DOJ attorneys who brought the lawsuit against the Panthers, testified under oath before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission of a culture of hostility to the race-neutral enforcement of civil rights laws at the DOJ Civil Rights Division. The most dramatic example came after the suit was dismissed, when Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes gave instructions that no more cases would be brought against black defendants. Ironically, Fernandes, who is an Obama appointee, is responsible for voting rights enforcement.
There is more to the story. Much more. Thomas J. Perrelli, the associate attorney general who approved the decision to dismiss the NBPP defendants, visited the White House nine times when key decisions about the case were being made. What did he discuss with the Obama White House officials? The DOJ has ordered two of its attorneys who were subpoenaed by the Civil Rights Commission not to comply, even though a separate statute requires all federal agencies to "comply fully" with Civil Rights Commission requests. Why is DOJ acting like it has something terrible to hide? Why was the award-winning career attorney who led the DOJ effort against the NBPP relieved of his position and transferred to South Carolina? There are also other examples of a highly political Justice Department being openly hostile toward enforcing the Voting Rights Act fairly, in a race-neutral manner. The Civil Rights Commission is continuing its investigation, and The Heritage Foundation's Todd Gaziano - a member of the Commission - is playing a leading part in the effort.
In Sunday's Washington Post, ombudsman Andrew Alexander lamented the paper's long silence on the NBPP story, said that "ideology and party politics are at play," and noted that the paper's national editor "wished The Post had written about it sooner." Alexander concluded, "Better late than never. There's plenty left to explore."
He's right. It's about time this story gets the attention it deserves. Voting rights enforcement is no laughing matter, politics should be put aside, reporters, Congress and the American people should start asking questions, and Attorney General Holder better have some answers.
We could and would support SCOTUS nominees who support the fiscal, social, and national defense issues. It is burdensome to see any President’s nominee fail the test of supporting our Judeo-Christian values as referenced to by our founding fathers in our US Constitution.
Contact (y)our US Senators and insist on each of them to vote “NO” on Senate the confirmation vote. - Oscar Y. Harward
By Wes Vernon
Democrats have filibustered Republican court nominees without the slightest hesitation — for purely political reasons, as leaked memos have indicated. Senate Republicans should muster a talkathon against confirming Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. Not for political payback — but because she is a one-woman threat to the Constitution.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has said that option is not off the table. It should remain firmly on the table "until the last dog is hung," to quote the metaphor.
Constitution hanging by a thread
President Obama openly displayed his contempt for the Constitution when he characterized even the radical Earl Warren Court as not radical enough. Why? Because it did not make law so as to redistribute the wealth. This from a onetime adjunct professor of constitutional law. Heaven help his students.
This president is determined to remake the courts in his philosophically socialist image. From that standpoint, he has the perfect nominee in Solicitor General Kagan.
Ms. Kagan is perhaps less qualified to sit on the Supreme Court (potentially for the next 40 years) than anyone ever contemplated for the post in the nation's history.
A public person's sympathies can usually be detected by taking note of the people he or she admires. In Kagan's case, we have a very telling roadmap in the name of Judge Aharon Barak of the Israeli Supreme Court. She introduced him as a speaker when she was Dean of Harvard Law.
Judge Barak has publicly written that a judge should make and create law so as to give it "new meaning that suits new social needs."
Judge, I wouldn't presume to tell Israel how to order its court system, but under the U.S. Constitution, our courts have no — no, nein, zip, nada — no legislative authority. That is the prerogative of our elected members of Congress and the state legislatures and local legislative bodies. Whether the statutes as written conform to any "new meaning that suits new social needs" is a decision to be made by legislators — not by courts.
Further, anyone who considers Judge Barak to be her "judicial hero" is not fit to sit on any American court, let alone be elevated to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.
Adding insult to injury is that Ms. Kagan has said she believes the court can apply "reasonable foreign law" as the basis for its decisions.
Again — if U.S. legislators deem some foreign law as ideal for implementation in this country, they are free to adopt it — "reasonable" or otherwise. If the latter, they can argue their case to the voters in the next election. If it is unconstitutional, then the courts can make a judgment if a relevant case is brought before them.
That is precisely why so huge a responsibility should never be entrusted to jurists who admire a foreign "hero" who has said (ala Judge Barak) that a judge is "subject to no authority" other than his own whims.
And on and on
The reasons for rejecting the Kagan nomination are so numerous, one could write a full-length book on it:
— She has been less than straightforward with the Judiciary Committee regarding her exerting undue influence on medical organizations in connection with the partial-birth abortion issue.
There are discrepancies between her committee testimony and the written record clearly showing she lobbied the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Medical Association (AMA) to change their positions to reflect her agenda favoring the sheer infanticide charitably called "partial birth." (For details, see AULAction.org, including remarks by Charmaine Yost — CEO of Americans United for Life Action).
— There are questions about Kagan's role in legal strategies related to challenges to the president's health care bill. Attorney General Eric Holder holds regular meetings with his senior staff. Any claim that Solicitor General Kagan remained silent through those discussions and offered no strategy proposals would strain credulity. If she is confirmed, will she recuse herself from participating in court cases involving the many legal challenges to the Obamacare law that will be brought before the High Court in future years?
— Speaking of Obamacare, Americans from coast to coast have expressed alarm at the inroads this administration is making into their lives — some of which carry overtones going beyond faint hints of the jack-boot mentality — a mindset totally foreign to the Founders and to the America we know. Herewith just a small sample of why Elena Kagan raises legitimate fears in that area:
During her confirmation hearings, in a colloquy with Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Ms. Kagan pointedly (and repeatedly) declined to say that passing a law requiring individuals to eat three fruits and three vegetables a day would be unconstitutional.
That is not a fleeting frivolity. First Lady Michelle Obama, in a speech the other day, laid out her ideas as to the ideal diet for us. Excuse me. What you or I choose to eat is none of the government's blue bloody business.
Elena Kagan is unqualified for the court. Judges who view intrusion into personal decisions with the nonchalance that she exhibits are a threat to our constitutional republic. Any failure by the Republicans in the Senate to mount a filibuster will raise serious leadership issues on their part.
Yes, the GOP minority status in the Senate raises the odds against Kagan's opponents. That does not mean they should not use every parliamentary maneuver at their disposal to see to it that every person in the country is aware of her disqualifications for the job. (Polls are showing diminished support for her in the nation at large). Let any senator voting to confirm her explain him/her-self to the voters this fall.
Win or lose, this case needs to be made to the electorate.
© Wes Vernon
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Without spending a single dime, the Obama administration did more yesterday to create jobs for the U.S. economy than it has throughout its entire existence. With the single stroke of a pen, President Barack Obama signed the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill that set in motion 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies. Each of the 243 rule-makings will employ hundreds of banking lobbyists as they try to shape what the final actual laws will look like. And when the rules are finally written, thousands of lawyers will bill millions of hours as the richest incumbent financial firms that caused the last crisis figure out how to game the new system. Yesterday, the Washington law firm Jones Day snapped up the Securities and Exchange Commission head enforcement division lawyer, and J.P. Morgan Chase, one of the biggest U.S. banks by assets, assigned more than 100 teams to examine the legislation. University of Massachusetts political science professor Thomas Ferguson tells The Christian Science Monitor:
By delegating so much to the regulators, Congress is inviting everyone interested in the outcome to make more campaign contributions, as they intervene in the regulatory process to influence the regulators. Nothing is settled. It’s a gold mine for members of Congress.
So if the richest big banks, lawyers, lobbyists and Congress were the big winners yesterday, who are the losers? Small banks, entrepreneurs and you.
Smaller community banks do not have the same resources that the Goldman Sachs of the world do to hire armies of lawyers and lobbyists to shape and comply with new regulations. The cost of compliance will eat up a much larger share of small bank revenue. Jim MacPhee, CEO of Kalamazoo County State Bank in Michigan and chairman of the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), told USA Today: “We weren’t part of the subprime (mortgage) meltdown. Why throw more regulations at us?”
Entrepreneurs take a double hit in the Dodd-Frank bill. First, by forcing banks to raise more capital it will now be more difficult for them to make new loans for small businesses. But more important is the regulatory threat for new products. Across the world mobile device and telecommunications firms are beginning to compete against credit card companies and banks to reshape how consumers buy products and manage their finances. Will the Dodd-Frank Consumer Financial Protection Bureau even allow these services to come to market? Will cell phone firms have to be regulated exactly like financial firms? Nobody knows the answer to these questions. Here is what we do know: it will be the banks and telco firms with the best lawyers and lobbyists – not the best entrepreneurs – that come out on top in this battle.
Then there is what the Dodd-Frank does not do: it does nothing to stop future government bailouts. Instead, it makes the TARP bailout system permanent. The bill’s “orderly liquidation” process empowers regulators to seize any firm they deem a threat to our financial system and liquidate them. These powers are subject to insufficient judicial review and do nothing to ensure that the firms’ creditors won’t receive 100% of their irresponsibly lent money back in future taxpayer funded bailouts. And speaking of taxpayer-funded bailouts, the bill does nothing to address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose activities were instrumental to the financial crisis.
Back in 1994, Jonathan Rauch wrote in his book Government’s End: “Economic thinkers have recognized for generations that every person has two ways to become wealthier. One is to produce more, the other is to capture more of what others produce. … Washington looks increasingly like a public-works jobs program for lawyers and lobbyists, a profit center for professionals who are in business for themselves.” The Dodd-Frank bill is the perfect extension of Washington as “a public-works jobs program for lawyers and lobbyists.” Instead of encouraging the U.S. economy to invest in engineers, technology and new products, it requires firms to invest in lawyers and lobbyists just to stay alive. It will do nothing to help create new wealth or new net jobs in the economy, but will transfer more wealth to lobbying and law firms in Washington, D.C.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
answered, 'God made Adam and Eve, they had children, and so was all mankind made.'
Two days later the girl asked her father the same question. Her father answered, 'many years ago there were monkeys from which the human
The confused girl returned to her mother and said, 'Mum, how is it possible that you told me the human race was created by God, and Dad said they developed from monkeys?'
Her mother answered, 'Well, Dear, it is very simple...'
'I told you about my side of the family, and your father told you about
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The plan may be to call on the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to vote and declare ‘Tea Party’ members/associates as ‘racists’. Several leaders in the Democrat Party have tried to plant this as an idea, but this scheme has not stuck with Americans. Just prior to passing of ‘ObamaCare’ on Capitol Hill, Democrat Party representatives of both houses marched, arm-in-arm, from the Cannon Office Building to the Capitol. A few Democrat Party members claimed racial remarks were made to two (2) of their members. It turns out there were a massive number of reporters from the TV networks and many other TV stations across America, as the march to Capitol Hill was made. On this March 20 march, and with all of their TV cameras on, there were ‘no’ videos or audios recorded to substantiate any of the claims. It appears the accusations were falsified erroneous reports from members on Capitol Hill themselves http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/protesting-obamacare-what-really-happened-on-march-20/. Why do these Democrats falsify these acts, except to embellish and cover up their own wrongdoings? Can they be trusted at all on their words?
For Democrats to win elections, minorities must cast their votes for the Democrat Party candidates by some 90% or more. Years ago, Rush Limbaugh personally renamed the group to NAALCP, with the L representing ‘Liberal’. Today, I am proposing it should be renamed NAALDCP with the ‘LD’ representing the ‘Liberal Democrat’ within the NAACP. Others may choose to rename the ‘L’, as an untruth, with the ‘Democrats’.
I certainly hope many members of the NAACP will reject any of a similar plan just as I hope members nationally will reject the California State Conference of the NAACP as they on July 7 endorsed a vote to legalize Marijuana http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/08/local/la-me-huffman-marijuana-20100708.
While I am a ‘news nut’ watching Fox News Channel and other news channels many hours every day, all video I have seen in the media shows all members of the ‘Tea Party’ protesters may shout ‘kill the bill’ or something comparable. All ‘Tea Party’ protestors are very courteous. At the same time, I have seen several pro ‘ObamaCare’ supporting activists physically assault members/associates of the ‘Tea Party’.
Is the NAACP a left-wing element of the Democrat Party? What do members of the NAACP expect to win in support of legalizing marijuana? What do members of the NAACP expect to win by fabricating actual hard evidence in support of the ‘Tea Party’? Please, do not become an untrustworthy racist organization yourselves. Members of the ‘Tea Party’ are average Americans who believe the majority Democrat Party leaders on Capitol Hill continue to spend too much of taxpayers’ money rather than focusing on jobs to rebuild our weakened economy. Are members of the NAACP going to ‘cover’ for the ‘cram down (y)our throats’ legislation votes of the Democrat Party on Capitol Hill? Are a majority members of the NAACP going to be herded by the Democrat Party as a shepherd with a few dogs would round up a herd of sheep? Only members of the NAACP can answer the questions. The Democrat Party should apologize to America for such a notion.
Oscar Y. Harward
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
July 13, 2010
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill.
The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new "high-risk" insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.
It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.
The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide.
"The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds, which we've discovered will pay for insurance plans that cover any legal abortion," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.
Johnson told LifeNews.com: "This is just the first proof of the phoniness of President Obama's assurances that federal funds would not subsidize abortion -- but it will not be the last."
"President Obama successfully opposed including language in the bill to prevent federal subsidies for abortions, and now the Administration is quietly advancing its abortion-expanding agenda through administrative decisions such as this, which they hope will escape broad public attention," Johnson said.
The abortion funding comes despite language in the bill that some pro-abortion Democrats and Obama himself claimed would prevent abortion funding and despite a controversial executive order Obama signed supposedly stopping abortion funding.
The pro-life community strongly opposed the executive order and said Rep. Bart Stupak and other House Democrats who voted for the pro-abortion health care bill in exchange for it were selling out their pro-life principles. This first case of forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions under the new law appears to prove them right that the bill language and executive order were ineffective.
Proving the point further that the abortion funding comes from federal taxpayer dollars, Johnson explained that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has emphasized that the high-risk pool program is a federal program and that the states will not incur any cost.
On May 11, 2010, in a letter to Democratic and Republican congressional leaders on implementation of the new law, DHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote that “states may choose whether and how they participate in the program, which is funded entirely by the federal government.”
Johnson says that on June 28, Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario (a member of the appointed cabinet of Governor Edward Rendell, a Democrat) issued a press release announcing that the federal Department of Health and Human Services had approved his agency's proposal for implementing the new program in Pennsylvania.
"The state will receive $160 million to set up the program, which will provide coverage to as many as 5,600 people between now and 2014," according to the release. "The plan's benefit package will include preventive care, physician services, diagnostic testing, hospitalization, mental health services, prescription medications and much more, with subsidized premiums of $283 a month."
Johnson says the "much more" Ario refers to is abortion funding.
The section on abortion (see page 14) asserts that "elective abortions are not covered," though it does not define elective -- which Johnson calls a "red herring."
The proposal specifies coverage "includes only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of" several specific statutes, the most pertinent of which is 18 Pa. C.S. § 3204, which says abortion is legal in Pennsylvania. The statute essentially says all abortions except those to determine the sex of the baby are legal.
"Under the Rendell-Sebelius plan, federal funds will subsidize coverage of abortion performed for any reason, except sex selection," said NRLC's Johnson. "The Pennsylvania proposal conspicuously lacks language that would prevent funding of abortions performed as a method of birth control or for any other reason, except sex selection -- and the Obama Administration has now approved this."
Monday, July 12, 2010
Gary Hubbell: The Redneck tree hugger
Aspen Times Weekly
Barack Obama is the best thing that has happened to America in the last 100 years. Truly, he is the savior of America's future. He is the best thing ever.
Despite the fact that he has some of the lowest approval ratings among recent presidents, history will see Barack Obama as the source of America's resurrection. Barack Obama has plunged the country into levels of debt that we could not have previously imagined; his efforts to nationalize health care have been met with fierce resistance nationwide; TARP bailouts and stimulus spending have shown little positive effect on the national economy; unemployment is unacceptably high and looks to remain that way for most of a decade; legacy entitlement programs have ballooned to unsustainable levels, and there is a seething anger in the populace.
That's why Barack Obama is such a good thing for America.
Obama is the symbol of a creeping liberalism that has infected our society like a cancer for the last 100 years. Just as Hitler is the face of fascism, Obama will go down in history as the face of unchecked liberalism. The cancer metastasized to the point where it could no longer be ignored.
Average Americans who have quietly gone about their lives, earning a paycheck, contributing to their favorite charities, going to high school football games on Friday night, spending their weekends at the beach or on hunting trips — they've gotten off the fence. They've woken up. There is a level of political activism in this country that we haven't seen since the American Revolution, and Barack Obama has been the catalyst that has sparked a restructuring of the American political and social consciousness.
Think of the crap we've slowly learned to tolerate over the past 50 years as liberalism sought to re-structure the America that was the symbol of freedom and liberty to all the people of the world. Immigration laws were ignored on the basis of compassion. Welfare policies encouraged irresponsibility, the fracturing of families, and a cycle of generations of dependency. Debt was regarded as a tonic to lubricate the economy. Our children left school having been taught that they are exceptional and special, while great numbers of them cannot perform basic functions of mathematics and literacy. Legislators decided that people could not be trusted to defend their own homes, and stripped citizens of their rights to own firearms. Productive members of society have been penalized with a heavy burden of taxes in order to support legions of do-nothings who loll around, reveling in their addictions, obesity, indolence, ignorance and “disabilities.” Criminals have been arrested and re-arrested, coddled and set free to pillage the citizenry yet again. Lawyers routinely extort fortunes from doctors, contractors and business people with dubious torts.
We slowly learned to tolerate these outrages, shaking our heads in disbelief, and we went on with our lives.
But Barack Obama has ripped the lid off a seething cauldron of dissatisfaction and unrest.
In the time of Barack Obama, Black Panther members stand outside polling places in black commando uniforms, slapping truncheons into their palms. ACORN — a taxpayer-supported organization — is given a role in taking the census, even after its members were caught on tape offering advice to set up child prostitution rings. A former Communist is given a paid government position in the White House as an advisor to the president. Auto companies are taken over by the government, and the auto workers' union — whose contracts are completely insupportable in any economic sense — is rewarded with a stake in the company. Government bails out Wall Street investment bankers and insurance companies, who pay their executives outrageous bonuses as thanks for the public support. Terrorists are read their Miranda rights and given free lawyers. And, despite overwhelming public disapproval, Barack Obama has pushed forward with a health care plan that would re-structure one-sixth of the American economy.
I don't know about you, but the other day I was at the courthouse doing some business, and I stepped into the court clerk's office and changed my voter affiliation from “Independent” to “Republican.” I am under no illusion that the Republican party is perfect, but at least they're starting to awaken to the fact that we cannot sustain massive levels of debt; we cannot afford to hand out billions of dollars in corporate subsidies; we have to somehow trim our massive entitlement programs; we can no longer be the world's policeman and dole out billions in aid to countries whose citizens seek to harm us.
Literally millions of Americans have had enough. They're organizing, they're studying the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, they're reading history and case law, they're showing up at rallies and meetings, and a slew of conservative candidates are throwing their hats into the ring. Is there a revolution brewing? Yes, in the sense that there is a keen awareness that our priorities and sensibilities must be radically re-structured. Will it be a violent revolution? No. It will be done through the interpretation of the original document that has guided us for 220 years — the Constitution. Just as the pendulum swung to embrace political correctness and liberalism, there will be a backlash, a complete repudiation of a hundred years of nonsense. A hundred years from now, history will perceive the year 2010 as the time when America got back on the right track. And for that, we can thank Barack Hussein Obama.
Gary Hubbell is a hunter, rancher, and former hunting and fly-fishing guide. Gary works as a Colorado ranch real estate broker. He can be reached through his website, aspenranchrealestate.com
Senate Bill 773, as written by West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Democrat, would create new “emergency” powers for the President to have power over any “non-governmental” computer networks, whether public or private, that are declared by the President to be “critical.”
Before the Summer recess, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously approved Protecting Cyberspace As a National Asset Act of 2010.
The bill, co-sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Thomas Carper (D-Del.), gives the President the authority to order independent operators of “critical infrastructure” to completely shutdown the Internet.
During an interview, Sen. Lieberman used the cybersecurity system utlized by the People’s Republic of China, a decidely totalitarian government, as an example of his own bill’s applications.
In the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Calif.) introduced similar legislation on June 16, which was sent to the appropriate committees for debate.
The Senate bill if passed would give the President of the United States the authority to declare a “cyber emergency” and close down the Internet by disconnecting users.
In addition, it will require professional IT people to be certified by the federal government, something that angers many IT technicians and those who believe in the First Amendment.
Americans are being deceived by the news media and their elected officials in Washington, DC and it’s Americans who will suffer from that deception, according to information technology experts.
This stealth legislation is being sponsored by the powerful and highly partisan Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and the liberal Senator Olympia Snow (R-ME), claim critics.
“The fact that a man [Rockefeller] who visited other nations to give them a heads up about our intentions [to invade Iraq] would now suddenly care about security is laughable,” said political strategist Mike Baker.
“But there is no laughing about a government that wants to control cyber space, the last bastion of freedom of speech in our crumbling democracy,” said Baker.
“What irks President Obama and the other liberal-left politicians is that fact that while they’re pampered by the mainstream news media, talk radio and the Internet are not in the tank for them,” he added.
During a White House announcement televised on Fox News, CNN and other news networks, Obama said he will appoint a cyber security coordinator—or Cyber Czar—for the critical infrastructure that all Americans depend on.
“We will ensure that these networks are secure, trustworthy and resilient,” he said. “We will deter, prevent, detect and defend against attacks, and recover quickly from any disruptions or damage.”
The cyber security office will orchestrate and integrate all cyber security policies for the government, the president said. It will work closely with the Office of Management and Budget to ensure agency budgets reflect those priorities, and, in the event of major cyber incident or attack, it will coordinate government response.
The cyber security coordinator will be a member of the national security staff and will serve on the president’s national economic council.
But Critics point out that any high-tech program that entails government intrusion should be carefully monitored by not only the US Congress but also private sector experts in cyber security and computer-based espionage.
“People went ballistic when they discovered the Bush White House authorized the interception of telephone and other electronic communications by intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and rightly so. Yet, I haven’t heard a peep from these same people who claim they are concerned with ‘privacy rights,’” said security expert and former NYPD cop Mike Fitzgerald.
“This may come back to haunt us as the first step down a truly slippery slope,” said former the Police detective and director of security.
“The technology involved is so complicated that it may take computer scientists to discover whether the government is protecting Americans on the worldwide web or spying on them. And what are businesses that rely on the Internet supposed to do if the President closes down the Internet?” asks Sam McCarthy a former police commander now a computer security expert.
The cyber infrastructure is not limited to the federal government. The office will work with state and local governments and international partners to combat cyber attacks, and also will work with the private sector to ensure an organized and unified response to future cyber incidents, Obama stated.
Experts agree that America’s economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cyber security, which also affects public safety and national security. However, most experts contacted said that cyber security should be the responsibility of the private sector not government officials.
“We count on computer networks to deliver our oil and gas, our power and our water,” said McCarthy.
“Computers help run public transportation networks from the skies to subways, he noted, and hackers have launched attacks on electrical grids,” he said.
Part of the Obama program is a national campaign to promote cyber security awareness and digital literacy. The effort also will be part of the president’s initiative to build a digital work force for the 21st century. However, according to security experts, Obama is seeking powers never before given to a President even during the height of the Cold War.
“Once Americans realize what’s happening it may be too late thanks to Obama’s supporters in the news media. Do a search and you won’t see stories about this power grab in the major media,” warns Baker.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates announced Army General Keith B. Alexander’s appointment as the first U.S. Cyber Command commander, officially establishing the initial operating capability for the new command. The announcement comes immediately following Alexander’s promotion to receive his fourth star during a ceremony at Fort Meade, Maryland.
“Given our increasing dependency on cyberspace, this new command will bring together the resources of the department to address vulnerabilities and meet the ever-growing array of cyber threats to our military systems,” said Gates.
U.S. Cyber Command possesses the required technical capability and focuses on the integration of military cyberspace operations. The command is charged with pulling together existing cyberspace resources, creating synergy that does not currently exist and synchronizing war-fighting effects to defend the DoD information security environment.
This is not an expansion of DoD’s mission. It is in keeping with the department’s mission to protect and defend U.S. national security and protect the lives of men and women in uniform.
U.S. Cyber Command is a sub-unified command, subordinate to U.S. Strategic Command. Its headquarters is currently located at Fort Meade, Maryland. The U.S. Senate confirmed Alexander’s promotion to become commander of the new sub-unified command, U.S. Cyber Command on May 7.
Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III called the establishment of U.S. Cyber Command at Fort Meade yesterday a milestone in the United States being able to conduct full-spectrum operations in a new domain.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
A North Carolina pastor was relieved of his duties as an honorary chaplain of the state house of representatives after he closed a prayer by invoking the name of Jesus.
“I got fired,” said Ron Baity, pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem. He had been invited to lead prayer for an entire week but his tenure was cut short when he refused to remove the name Jesus from his invocation.
Baity’s troubles began during the week of May 31. He said a House clerk asked to see his prayer. The invocation including prayers for our military, state lawmakers and a petition to God asking him to bless North Carolina.”
“When I handed it to the lady, I watched her eyes and they immediately went right to the bottom of the page and the word Jesus,” he told FOX News Radio. “She said ‘We would prefer that you not use the name Jesus. We have some people here that can be offended.’”
When Baity protested, she brought the matter to the attention of House Speaker Joe Hackney.
“I told her I was highly offended when she asked me not to pray in the name of Jesus because that does constitute my faith,” Baity said. “My faith requires that I pray in His name. The Bible is very clear.”
When the clerk returned, Baity said he was told that he would be allowed to deliver the day’s prayer – but after that – his services would no longer be needed.
Hackney, a Democrat, and House Republican Leader Paul Stam released a joint statement to FOX News Radio:
“It has been our practice in the North Carolina House of Representatives for many years to request, but not require, that our guest chaplains deliver a nonsectarian prayer. This is intended as a show of respect for all the religions practiced by the members of the House and the people we represent.”
“In this instance, we allowed Pastor Baity to deliver his prayer, without interference, even though it was sectarian in nature. Nonetheless, we will review our procedures and guidelines concerning guest chaplains, and we will make sure we abide by applicable constitutional procedures. The House will adjourn within the next few days, but the results of this review will be publicly available whenever it is complete.”
Baity said he’s not happy with the way he was treated.
“When the state tells you how to pray, that you cannot use the name of Jesus – that’s mandating a state religion,” he said. “They talk about not offending other people but at the same time, if they are telling me how to pray – that’s the very thing our forefathers left England for.”
The Christian Law Association helped Baity draft a letter asking for an apology and an opportunity to return to the state capitol and finish his tenure.
“The First Amendment promises all Americans the free exercise of their religion, which includes the right to pray as their faith requires, even when they are invited to open state legislative sessions with prayer,” attorney David Gibbs told WXII-TV. “We trust that the North Carolina House of Representatives will realize its mistake and will offer Pastor Baity another opportunity to pray without requiring him to use a prayer that is mandated by government.”
Baity said he is still stunned by what happened.
“You would expect this somewhere else – Cuba, Saudi Arabia,” he told FOX News Radio. “You would never anticipate this happening in the United States of America.”
In a word – the pastor said – the decision is “anti-Christian.”
BY JULIE BISBEE
Published: July 8, 2010
In a town-hall meeting Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn said career politicians in Washington are to blame for excessive federal spending and debt.
U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn holds a meeting Wednesday in a conference room at the Francis Tuttle Technology Center.
Sen. Tom Coburn of Muskogee blames 'career politicians' for federal debt
Coburn, a Republican seeking his second term in the Senate, spoke out against his congressional colleagues during a meeting that nearly 140 people attended at Francis Tuttle Technology Center in northwest Oklahoma City.
"Congress needs a pay cut,” said Coburn, a medical doctor who also served three terms in the U.S. House. "It's the conflicted nature of the career politician that's killing this country.”
Coburn said many lawmakers are too worried about fundraising or providing for special interest groups and aren't policing government like they should.
"You have a government that nobody's running,” said Coburn, R-Muskogee. "It's kind of like the inmates running the prison.”
Coburn said he favors creating a website to disclose financial contributions and other perks.
The website would be "where you can go to see all the favors Congress is doing for the well-connected,” he said.
"I don't have a problem with lobbyists because the government impacts every part of everybody's lives every day,” Coburn said. "The lobbyists are not the problem. The problem is the members of Congress.”
Coburn drew applause from audience members several times, especially when advocating that politicians need to remember they are accountable to voters and should be more fiscally conservative.
Coburn has been critical of efforts to expand unemployment benefits without having a dedicated funding source to pay for it.
When pressed by a participant in the town hall meeting about what Republicans were doing to come up with a solution of benefits for the unemployed, Coburn said he had an amendment to fund benefits from stimulus dollars, but that was blocked.
Personal responsibility must also be considered in the debate for extended unemployment benefits, the senator said.
"This country didn't guarantee an outcome. They guaranteed the freedom to determine the outcome,” Coburn said. "You get to determine it. I'm willing to help the unemployed who can't find a job, but I'm not going to help it on the backs of our grandkids.”
Coburn also urged the public to stay involved and aware of what government is doing. He predicted a record-high voter turnout in the next election, saying the American people are now "aware.”
"You get the government you deserve,” said Coburn.
"When you get such low voter turnout, their voices aren't heard. I'm encouraged that the American people are now aware.
"I think there will be Republicans that get beat, and rightly so. I also think there will be Democrats that get beat.
"I hope in the next elections we have real people who come to Congress and a have real world experience and use that common sense to make decisions for our country. We were intended to have a citizens' legislature and we don't have that.”
As the headlines remind us daily, the Obama Administration is quickly moving towards its halfway mark. Thus, it’s now time to subject the White House to a midterm examination. Here are 20 questions for the panjandrums of Pennsylvania Avenue:
1. The stimulus program was sold to the American people partially on the promise that it would keep the national unemployment rate below 8%. Yet in each of the 17 months since the bill was passed, unemployment has been over 8%. If such basic empirical claims are repeatedly disproved, how can they provide a basis for national economic policy?
2. At $877 billion, the stimulus was the largest spending bill in U.S. history. The administration claims that the package was a success because every dollar the federal government pumps into the economy generates more than a dollar of economic activity. If that is true, why place any limit on government spending? Why not appropriate 50% of GDP if the net result is always a return greater than 100%?
3. The administration claims that (A) the stimulus was a success and (B) more stimulus is required. How are these two propositions reconcilable?
4. Prior to becoming the chair of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, Christina Romer wrote in a scholarly paper that a tax increase of 1% of GDP would reduce overall GDP by 3%. With President Obama seemingly prepared to let at least some of the Bush tax cuts expire – and to entertain the notion of a national value-added tax – is it Romer’s scholarly credentials or Obama’s understanding of economics that is deficient?
5. Attorney General Eric Holder has pointedly refused to cite radical Islam as the proximate cause for terrorism aimed at the United States. What does he believe Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan meant when he shouted “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is the greatest”) as he killed or wounded 43 at the Texas military installation?
6. During his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo, President Obama said, “we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected.” What meaning does a phrase like “human nature” have if it refers to a condition that can be transcended?
7. During the 2009 uprising against the Iranian government, the president refused to even rhetorically intervene, lest the United States be seen as “meddling.” Today, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is still the President of Iran and the country is closer than ever before to a nuclear weapon. What worse scenario did the president’s forbearance prevent?
8. At an April 28 speech in Quincy, Illinois, President Obama said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money." What is the maximum amount of money an American citizen should be allowed to earn?
9. In a May discussion about human rights violations, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner reportedly used Arizona’s new immigration law to illustrate to Chinese officials that the U.S. is also derelict in its protection of individual freedoms. Which provision of the law does he believe most closely approximates the murder of 3,000 protesters in Tiananmen Square?
10. President Obama repeatedly promoted his plans for health care reform by promising that Americans who liked their health insurance could keep it. Since 62% of Americans receive their health care coverage through an employer – meaning it is the employer who will decide the relative merits of ObamaCare’s costs and benefits – how can this promise be effectuated?
11. During his Oval Office address on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama said of the Minerals Management Service, ““Over the last decade, this agency has become emblematic of a failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility - a philosophy that says corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves.” Which public officials have voiced support for this philosophy?
12. Amidst the fractious disunity of the President’s team in Afghanistan, he has replaced General Stanley McChrystal with General David Petraeus – a man whose view of war policy is little different from McChrystal’s. How does the president propose to achieve the “unity of effort” he has spoken of while keeping in place a heterogeneous group of principals?
13. If programs like “Cash for Clunkers” and the homebuyers tax credit provided durable economic growth for the automobile and housing industries, why weren’t they made permanent?
14. The expansion of entitlements and spending that the Obama Administration is pursuing in the United States closely mirrors the policies of social democracies of Europe. Which European nations does the president believe boast superior economic performance when compared to the United States?
15. Obama agreed to remove missile defense from Poland and the Czech Republic to soothe Russian anxieties. Why would a peaceful nation fear a purely defensive weapons system?
16. The president contends that “green jobs” will be good for the environment and the economy. How can the government increase overall economic productivity by subsidizing inefficient forms of energy and taxing efficient ones?
17. President Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case for allowing undue electoral influence by special interests. What example, foreign or domestic, does he cite to prove the virtue of allowing the government to regulate what can be said about the government?
18. After the attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day – an attempt that was only stopped by the vigilance of fellow passengers – Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, “the system worked”. In what instance, where “the system” is defined as “the government,” can that judgment be said to be true?
19. The president’s recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick – a self-appointed rationing enthusiast – to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was justified on the grounds that congressional Republicans were “going to stall the nomination as long as they could.” No Republican had any plans to prevent confirmation hearings. Does the President feel that opposition, rather than obstruction, meets the threshold for circumventing the constitutional appointment process? If so, what purpose does the process serve?
20. Is America better off than it was two years ago?