A friend sent this article to me recently. Ironically, just this morning I was wondering what was ever discovered about the so-far unexplained missile launch off our coast. I wasn't buying the Pentagon's explanation of an aircraft...I live by one of the busiest airports in the world (LAX) and I think most people in this area know what an aircraft contrail looks like.
If the following article is even close to true (which I believe it's scary close), then we are in an unannounced Cold War with China that could easily escalate to a global scale. I've said it before, and I will keep beating this drum --- OBAMA IS THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN TO THE U.S. His true agenda (still unknown) and lack of political/financial expertise will topple this once-great country of ours.
Why did it take the US Navy 11 hours to respond to this, if true? If true, it rings eerily similar to Clinton's retaliatory strikes against terrorism during his Presidency. What's really wagging the dog here?
ARTICLE:
Carnival Splendor attacked by EMP missile???
A new report circulating in the Kremlin today prepared for Prime Minister Putin by Director Anatoly Perminov of the Russian Federal Space Agency states that an Arkon-1 military satellite monitoring the western coastal regions of North America detected an EMP anomalous event occurring on November 8th at 0600 Pacific Standard Time (-8 hours GMT) that bore the direct signature of a YJ-62 subsonic anti-ship missile fired from a Chinese Peoples Liberation Navy Type 041 submarine (NATO code name Yuan-Class) known to be patrolling approximately 200 kilometers off United States coast.
Nearly 11 hours after this EMP event this report further says, Arkon-1 then detected a BGM-109 (Tomahawk) subsonic cruise missile launched from a US Navy Ohio-Class submarine operating off the coast of California on a training mission from its home port located at US Navy s Kitsap Base in Washington State and was enroute to the largest American Naval Base on the US west coast in San Diego, California.
Note: A Russian military intelligence (GRU) addendum to this report states that the training mission the Ohio-Class submarine was on is related to a new US law passed this year allowing for the first time in history for women to serve on US Navy subs and was an operational exercise testing female Naval Officers competence prior to their first operational deployment
The immediate effect of the Chinese Navy’s firing of their EMP missile, this report continues, was the catastrophic crippling of the US based cruise ship Carnival Splendor that stranded its nearly 4,500 passengers and crew in a dead in the water boat and prompting the Americans to send the US Navy’s Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier, warplanes, and supply aircraft to protect it from further attack after all of its electronic systems were destroyed.
An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) such as was used upon the Carnival Splendor is a burst of electromagnetic radiation that causes rapidly changing electric fields (or magnetic fields) that when coupling with electrical/electronic systems produces damaging current and voltage surges destroying all non-hardened electrical systems.
The US Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) had previously warned that American ships were vulnerable to such attacks with EMP Assessment Group Leader of Blaise Corbett stating that the consequences of failing to take appropriate precautions to protect fleet mission critical systems can ultimately prove catastrophic to the Navy’s mission.
The purpose of this Chinese EMP upon an American ship, this report says, was twofold: 1.) A test of the EMP weapon itself that in a war against the Americans and would be used against their Naval Fleet and Marine Forces operating out of California and the west coast of the US, and 2.) A test of the response time for American retaliatory measures against any Chinese warship attacking the US and/or its interests in the Pacific.
The GRU further states that the timing of this attack was timed even more crucially due to China s testing of America Ts response time during a period when their President, as Commander In Chief of all US Military Forces, was out of the country, as Obama was as he was in India at the time.
The Americans response time of nearly 11 hours between the EMP attack on the Carnival Splendor and the US retaliatory strike, the GRU states, virtually assured that the Chinese submarine responsible for the attack escaped, but which they further point out may have been intended by the Americans so as not to escalate this crisis.
To the geo-political reason(s) for a Communist Chinese attack upon the Americans just days before the crucially important G-20 Summit in South Korea, which both Presidents Hu and Obama will be attending, this report says was due to the United States, in essence, declaring total economic war upon the rest of the world by its printing of nearly $1 Trillion US Dollars in order to monetize its staggering debt and that China warned:
If the United States can increase the volume of dollars and it can transmit inflation to other countries to lessen the pressure of debt, then it will bring about a catastrophic influence on the world.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
US Government Files Lawsuit Against AZ SB1070
Well, I didn't think it would actually come to this. From everything I've read, coupled with the intense scrutiny AZ law enforcement has been under the past 2 years because of Sheriff Arpaio's "Tent City," I am VERY confident that SB1070 goes far above and beyond in ensuring it does NOT authorize racial profiling, nor does it supplant Federal Law.
I find it interesting that the Obama Administration did NOT file suit against AZ for racial profiling. Isn't that exactly what all of the opponents to this Bill are screaming from every mountain top? I have not heard dissension of any other aspect of this Bill, yet the Federal Government's lawsuit doesn't address it EVEN though those were the first words out of Pelosi, Holder and Obama - RACIAL PROFILING!!!
It's clear they're just playing "Hot Button" politics. Why else would a government sue a state for doing nothing more than enforcing the Federal laws? Don't forget where the Federal government is getting the funds to litigate this lawsuit - YOUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS!!! With our government farther in debt than ever before, money that can be better utilized will be expended in frivolous lawsuits against one of our own - could the situation be more ludicrous?
Following is a statement released by Gov. Jan Brewer regarding our government's action against her state. If you'd like more information, check out their website at www.keepazsafe.com.
STATEMENT
Statement by Governor Jan Brewer
PHOENIX – “Today I was notified that the federal government has filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona. It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels. Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice. Today's filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds. These funds could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.
“The truth is the Arizona law is both reasonable and constitutional. It mirrors substantially what has been federal law in the United States for many decades. Arizona’s law is designed to complement, not supplant, enforcement of federal immigration laws. Despite the Department of Justice’s claims in paragraph 62 of today’s lawsuit, Arizona is not trying ‘to establish its own immigration policy’ or ‘directly regulate the immigration status of aliens.’ Arizona Revised Statutes § 11-1051(E) states that the federal government, along with local law enforcement officers authorized by the federal government, can only determine an alien’s immigration status.
Subsection (L) of that same section goes on to state that the law ‘shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration.’
“The irony is that President Obama’s Administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted a patchwork of ‘sanctuary’ policies that directly violate federal law. These patchwork local ‘sanctuary’ policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials.
“The best thing government can do is to create a stable, predictable environment, governed by an easily understood set of rules or laws. We do not need to make this more complicated than it already is. We must first and foremost create a secure border. Enhanced trade,economic opportunity and freedom will surely follow.
“I am pleased that President Obama and the Department of Justice did not pursue the
baseless claims of illegal racial profiling in the lawsuit. When signing S.B. 1070, I said, ‘My signature today represents my steadfast support for enforcing the law — both against illegal immigration AND against racial profiling.’ Arizona’s law expressly prohibits unconstitutional racial profiling.
However, words are not enough. For this reason, I ordered the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZPOST) to develop training on the new law for Arizona’s police officers. AZPOST has completed the training course and has published it for the all world to see at www.azpost.state.az.us/SB1070infocenter.htm.
AZPOST has done its job professionally and served Arizona well. “I will not stop fighting to protect the citizens of Arizona, and to defend Arizonans in federal court. I have set up a legal defense fund to pay the substantial legal fees that Arizona has been, and will be, forced to incur as a result of all of these lawsuits.
Contributions to the Border Security and Immigration Defense Fund can be made at www.keepazsafe.com. My legal team will not hesitate to assert the rights of the State of Arizona in this matter. Arizona will ultimately prevail against the lawsuits – including this latest assault by the Obama Administration. Our laws will be found to be constitutional – because that is exactly what they are.”
I find it interesting that the Obama Administration did NOT file suit against AZ for racial profiling. Isn't that exactly what all of the opponents to this Bill are screaming from every mountain top? I have not heard dissension of any other aspect of this Bill, yet the Federal Government's lawsuit doesn't address it EVEN though those were the first words out of Pelosi, Holder and Obama - RACIAL PROFILING!!!
It's clear they're just playing "Hot Button" politics. Why else would a government sue a state for doing nothing more than enforcing the Federal laws? Don't forget where the Federal government is getting the funds to litigate this lawsuit - YOUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS!!! With our government farther in debt than ever before, money that can be better utilized will be expended in frivolous lawsuits against one of our own - could the situation be more ludicrous?
Following is a statement released by Gov. Jan Brewer regarding our government's action against her state. If you'd like more information, check out their website at www.keepazsafe.com.
STATEMENT
Statement by Governor Jan Brewer
PHOENIX – “Today I was notified that the federal government has filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona. It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels. Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice. Today's filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds. These funds could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.
“The truth is the Arizona law is both reasonable and constitutional. It mirrors substantially what has been federal law in the United States for many decades. Arizona’s law is designed to complement, not supplant, enforcement of federal immigration laws. Despite the Department of Justice’s claims in paragraph 62 of today’s lawsuit, Arizona is not trying ‘to establish its own immigration policy’ or ‘directly regulate the immigration status of aliens.’ Arizona Revised Statutes § 11-1051(E) states that the federal government, along with local law enforcement officers authorized by the federal government, can only determine an alien’s immigration status.
Subsection (L) of that same section goes on to state that the law ‘shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration.’
“The irony is that President Obama’s Administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted a patchwork of ‘sanctuary’ policies that directly violate federal law. These patchwork local ‘sanctuary’ policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials.
“The best thing government can do is to create a stable, predictable environment, governed by an easily understood set of rules or laws. We do not need to make this more complicated than it already is. We must first and foremost create a secure border. Enhanced trade,economic opportunity and freedom will surely follow.
“I am pleased that President Obama and the Department of Justice did not pursue the
baseless claims of illegal racial profiling in the lawsuit. When signing S.B. 1070, I said, ‘My signature today represents my steadfast support for enforcing the law — both against illegal immigration AND against racial profiling.’ Arizona’s law expressly prohibits unconstitutional racial profiling.
However, words are not enough. For this reason, I ordered the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZPOST) to develop training on the new law for Arizona’s police officers. AZPOST has completed the training course and has published it for the all world to see at www.azpost.state.az.us/SB1070infocenter.htm.
AZPOST has done its job professionally and served Arizona well. “I will not stop fighting to protect the citizens of Arizona, and to defend Arizonans in federal court. I have set up a legal defense fund to pay the substantial legal fees that Arizona has been, and will be, forced to incur as a result of all of these lawsuits.
Contributions to the Border Security and Immigration Defense Fund can be made at www.keepazsafe.com. My legal team will not hesitate to assert the rights of the State of Arizona in this matter. Arizona will ultimately prevail against the lawsuits – including this latest assault by the Obama Administration. Our laws will be found to be constitutional – because that is exactly what they are.”
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Root Cause of Federal Inabiity To Secure Border
COMMENT: Talk about political double-talk?!?!? The only reason Obama is addressing this issue (above the more pressing Gulf issue I might add) is for political purposes, yet he has the audacity to claim it hasn't been reformed yet because of GOP political pressure. What, what? The Republican's (and majority of Americans) don't want to see immigration reform without border security. Obama claims our borders are too vast to secure, yet he is still pushing immigration reform - that amounts to a never-ending cycle of amnesty and illegal overpopulation. I shall comment throughout this article as there are simply too many "hot buttons" to cover before.
ARTICLE:
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press Writer Darlene Superville, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Thursday blamed immigration policy gridlock on "political posturing and special interest wrangling."
In a speech, Obama took Republicans to task, in particular 11 GOP senators who supported recent efforts to improve the immigration system. He did not name any, but told his largely supportive audience at American University that those lawmakers had succumbed to the "pressures of partisanship and election-year politics."
COMMENT: I wish he would have gone on to specifically state what those pressures actually were - probably would learn that they would NOT be re-elected if they granted any form of amnesty without first securing our borders adequately. end comment
Seeking to build new momentum on an issue many advocates hoped would be resolved by this point, Obama laid out his rationale for a comprehensive approach to fixing what he and others, Republicans included, say is a broken immigration system.
He said the problem cannot be solved "only with fences and border patrols" but said the government should be held accountable for its responsibility to secure the border. Obama also said that businesses should face consequences for knowingly employing illegal immigrants. And he said those who enter the country illegally should own up to their actions before they can begin the process of becoming citizens.
COMMENT: What kind of "mamsy-pamsy" statement is this? "...should own up to their actions before they can begin the process..." Does he really think the 11M+ illegals are going to raise their hands and take responsibility BEFORE being granted amnesty? They're not interested in becoming US citizens (just look at how they fly the Mexican flag ABOVE the US flag in our own country); they just want to take what they can from America and ship it back to Mexico. end comment
"The question now is whether we will have the courage and the political will to pass a bill through Congress, to finally get it done," the president said. "I'm ready to move forward, the majority of Democrats are ready to move forward and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward. But the fact is that without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem."
COMMENT: Who destroyed the bipartisan support? He lays the partisan atmosphere at the feet of the Republican party, but ObamaCare demonstrated how much the Dems really care about bipartisanship. The atmosphere was bipartisan when the GOP was the majority, but it doesn't work that way now that Congress is Demoncrat controlled. end comment
"Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes," he said. "That is the political and mathematical reality."
In response, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, one of the 11 Republican senators Obama alluded to in his talk, said he had a good reason for his position this time around.
"My constituents have said do everything you can to secure the border first," Kyl told Fox News Channel. "It's our job to secure the border, whether or not we end up passing so-called comprehensive immigration reform."
COMMENT: To quote Obama, Kyl's statement IS the "political and mathematical reality." end comment
White House officials say recent developments influenced Obama's decision to give his first formal speech on the issue as president, most notably Arizona's enactment of a tough anti-immigrant law and the reaction to it across the country. But advocates also have been pressing him to give such a speech as a demonstration of his commitment to seeing the effort through.
Obama didn't dwell on the Arizona law in the speech. He called it an understandable byproduct of public frustration with the government's inability to tighten the system, but also said the law is ill-conceived, divisive and would put undue pressure on local authorities.
The law requires police enforcing another statute to clarify a person's immigration status if there's reason to believe that person is in the U.S. illegally. Immigrant advocates want the Justice Department, which is reviewing the law, to sue Arizona to block it from taking effect this month.
In the speech, Obama extolled America's history as a melting pot of immigrants and lauded their many contributions to the nation.
But an Associated Press-GfK Poll conducted in May found 57 percent saying illegal immigrants are mostly a drain on society and 38 percent said they believe immigrants make a contribution. Eight in 10 said the federal government should do more to keep immigrants from illegally entering the U.S.
Obama has endorsed a proposal by Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that would require illegal immigrants to admit they broke the law, pay fines and back taxes and perform community service to eventually obtain legal status. But Graham since has balked at acting on immigration this year, and no other Senate Republican has come forward.
COMMENT: Why do I feel like Jimmy Carter's back in the White House? The proposal above is just as naive as Carter wanting to unilaterally disarm our nuclear weapons as a testament of faith that the Russians would do the same. What makes anyone believe they will (1) Admit they broke the law, (2) Pay fines and back taxes and, (3) Perform community service? Pay fines with what money? How would we even determine what back taxes they owe? They're being paid under-the-table by employers who know they're breaking the law. Lastly, I don't believe the majority are serious about becoming citizens, so why would they agree to community service? end comment
Some Republicans, like Kyl, are pushing a "border security first" approach focused on enforcement.
"It won't work," Obama said. He said there now are more "boots on the ground" on the U.S.-Mexico border than ever before and that "our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols."
COMMENT: Oops! He just admitted that a major portion of his reform is not possible. So what is possible? Granting amnesty? YEP Allowing all of them on government programs? YEP Getting them all into the tax-payer supplemented side of ObamaCare? YEP Preventing influx that necessitated AZ SB 1070? NOPE!!! end comment
Obama recently ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to the border to boost security and asked Congress for an additional $600 million to support personnel and improve technology there. More than 500 of those Guard troops are headed for Arizona.
COMMENT: Why send 1200 troops and ask for another $600M if you're convinced the borders are too vast to secure? Does anyone REALLY believe Obama has a clue what he's doing? Does anyone TRULY believe the rhetoric?
ARTICLE:
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press Writer Darlene Superville, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Thursday blamed immigration policy gridlock on "political posturing and special interest wrangling."
In a speech, Obama took Republicans to task, in particular 11 GOP senators who supported recent efforts to improve the immigration system. He did not name any, but told his largely supportive audience at American University that those lawmakers had succumbed to the "pressures of partisanship and election-year politics."
COMMENT: I wish he would have gone on to specifically state what those pressures actually were - probably would learn that they would NOT be re-elected if they granted any form of amnesty without first securing our borders adequately. end comment
Seeking to build new momentum on an issue many advocates hoped would be resolved by this point, Obama laid out his rationale for a comprehensive approach to fixing what he and others, Republicans included, say is a broken immigration system.
He said the problem cannot be solved "only with fences and border patrols" but said the government should be held accountable for its responsibility to secure the border. Obama also said that businesses should face consequences for knowingly employing illegal immigrants. And he said those who enter the country illegally should own up to their actions before they can begin the process of becoming citizens.
COMMENT: What kind of "mamsy-pamsy" statement is this? "...should own up to their actions before they can begin the process..." Does he really think the 11M+ illegals are going to raise their hands and take responsibility BEFORE being granted amnesty? They're not interested in becoming US citizens (just look at how they fly the Mexican flag ABOVE the US flag in our own country); they just want to take what they can from America and ship it back to Mexico. end comment
"The question now is whether we will have the courage and the political will to pass a bill through Congress, to finally get it done," the president said. "I'm ready to move forward, the majority of Democrats are ready to move forward and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward. But the fact is that without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem."
COMMENT: Who destroyed the bipartisan support? He lays the partisan atmosphere at the feet of the Republican party, but ObamaCare demonstrated how much the Dems really care about bipartisanship. The atmosphere was bipartisan when the GOP was the majority, but it doesn't work that way now that Congress is Demoncrat controlled. end comment
"Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes," he said. "That is the political and mathematical reality."
In response, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, one of the 11 Republican senators Obama alluded to in his talk, said he had a good reason for his position this time around.
"My constituents have said do everything you can to secure the border first," Kyl told Fox News Channel. "It's our job to secure the border, whether or not we end up passing so-called comprehensive immigration reform."
COMMENT: To quote Obama, Kyl's statement IS the "political and mathematical reality." end comment
White House officials say recent developments influenced Obama's decision to give his first formal speech on the issue as president, most notably Arizona's enactment of a tough anti-immigrant law and the reaction to it across the country. But advocates also have been pressing him to give such a speech as a demonstration of his commitment to seeing the effort through.
Obama didn't dwell on the Arizona law in the speech. He called it an understandable byproduct of public frustration with the government's inability to tighten the system, but also said the law is ill-conceived, divisive and would put undue pressure on local authorities.
The law requires police enforcing another statute to clarify a person's immigration status if there's reason to believe that person is in the U.S. illegally. Immigrant advocates want the Justice Department, which is reviewing the law, to sue Arizona to block it from taking effect this month.
In the speech, Obama extolled America's history as a melting pot of immigrants and lauded their many contributions to the nation.
But an Associated Press-GfK Poll conducted in May found 57 percent saying illegal immigrants are mostly a drain on society and 38 percent said they believe immigrants make a contribution. Eight in 10 said the federal government should do more to keep immigrants from illegally entering the U.S.
Obama has endorsed a proposal by Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that would require illegal immigrants to admit they broke the law, pay fines and back taxes and perform community service to eventually obtain legal status. But Graham since has balked at acting on immigration this year, and no other Senate Republican has come forward.
COMMENT: Why do I feel like Jimmy Carter's back in the White House? The proposal above is just as naive as Carter wanting to unilaterally disarm our nuclear weapons as a testament of faith that the Russians would do the same. What makes anyone believe they will (1) Admit they broke the law, (2) Pay fines and back taxes and, (3) Perform community service? Pay fines with what money? How would we even determine what back taxes they owe? They're being paid under-the-table by employers who know they're breaking the law. Lastly, I don't believe the majority are serious about becoming citizens, so why would they agree to community service? end comment
Some Republicans, like Kyl, are pushing a "border security first" approach focused on enforcement.
"It won't work," Obama said. He said there now are more "boots on the ground" on the U.S.-Mexico border than ever before and that "our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols."
COMMENT: Oops! He just admitted that a major portion of his reform is not possible. So what is possible? Granting amnesty? YEP Allowing all of them on government programs? YEP Getting them all into the tax-payer supplemented side of ObamaCare? YEP Preventing influx that necessitated AZ SB 1070? NOPE!!! end comment
Obama recently ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to the border to boost security and asked Congress for an additional $600 million to support personnel and improve technology there. More than 500 of those Guard troops are headed for Arizona.
COMMENT: Why send 1200 troops and ask for another $600M if you're convinced the borders are too vast to secure? Does anyone REALLY believe Obama has a clue what he's doing? Does anyone TRULY believe the rhetoric?
Friday, June 25, 2010
Amnesty As An Executive Order?
COMMENT:
I really like the "positives" this proposed Executive Order contains - would stop the immigration protests and make the controversial SB1070 in Arizona effectively null and void. Do they think nobody else is coming across the border now? Is the amnesty for those in the US now, or does it somehow extend to everyone who comes across the border in the future? If not, then Arizona's Bill will be just as effective next week as this week - they're still coming in!!!
What about the economic impact of this Executive Order? Obama just commissioned a panel to examine why the Federal deficit is exploding (results not expected before December). I hope it doesn't contain rocket scientists because that would be a waste of their time. Here's a great way to explode the deficit - take 11 million illegals and give them a blank check to legally get into the welfare and healthcare system. Yep, add 11 million people to the Obamacare portion that the taxpayers have to fund 100% - that's a lot of money that won't go to running our country, BUT it's precisely what Obama's goal has been all along with Obamacare...have the few pay for the majority and have HIS majority dictate how the healthcare system runs.
The only way to float it at all is to have the government handle ALL of the insurance. Yep, bye bye private insurance carriers and bye bye to you keeping your plan, and bye bye to more of your hard-earned money going to cover this "black hole of Federal money."
ARTICLE:
Jody Brown - OneNewsNow - 6/23/2010 2:25:00
Is Barack Obama drafting an executive order that would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens?
Illegal alien climbing fenceFox News is reporting that a group of Republican senators have asked President Obama to clarify reports that he is drafting a plan to issue blanket amnesty for millions of people who are in the U.S. illegally. The plan would reportedly be unilateral in nature -- circumventing Congress entirely as the administration struggles to gain support on Capitol Hill for what the administration calls "comprehensive immigration reform" -- and be issued in the form of an executive order.
In a letter to the president, says Fox News, Senators Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Orrin Hatch (Utah), David Vitter (Louisiana), Jim Bunning (Kentucky), Saxby Chambliss (Georgia), Johnny Isakson (Georgia), James Inhofe (Oklahoma), and Thad Cochran (Mississippi) have urged the president to "abandon" what they describe as a plan to "unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens...."
The letter, sent to the White House on Monday, argues that such a move "would further erode the American public's confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books."
Fox News points out that an executive order granting a blanket amnesty would likely stem the high number of immigration-related protests across the country -- and would effectively make null and void the controversial bill signed into law recently by the governor of Arizona that allows state authorities to enforce federal laws regarding illegal immigration.
According to the report, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimated last year almost 11-million people live in the United States illegally.
I really like the "positives" this proposed Executive Order contains - would stop the immigration protests and make the controversial SB1070 in Arizona effectively null and void. Do they think nobody else is coming across the border now? Is the amnesty for those in the US now, or does it somehow extend to everyone who comes across the border in the future? If not, then Arizona's Bill will be just as effective next week as this week - they're still coming in!!!
What about the economic impact of this Executive Order? Obama just commissioned a panel to examine why the Federal deficit is exploding (results not expected before December). I hope it doesn't contain rocket scientists because that would be a waste of their time. Here's a great way to explode the deficit - take 11 million illegals and give them a blank check to legally get into the welfare and healthcare system. Yep, add 11 million people to the Obamacare portion that the taxpayers have to fund 100% - that's a lot of money that won't go to running our country, BUT it's precisely what Obama's goal has been all along with Obamacare...have the few pay for the majority and have HIS majority dictate how the healthcare system runs.
The only way to float it at all is to have the government handle ALL of the insurance. Yep, bye bye private insurance carriers and bye bye to you keeping your plan, and bye bye to more of your hard-earned money going to cover this "black hole of Federal money."
ARTICLE:
Jody Brown - OneNewsNow - 6/23/2010 2:25:00
Is Barack Obama drafting an executive order that would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens?
Illegal alien climbing fenceFox News is reporting that a group of Republican senators have asked President Obama to clarify reports that he is drafting a plan to issue blanket amnesty for millions of people who are in the U.S. illegally. The plan would reportedly be unilateral in nature -- circumventing Congress entirely as the administration struggles to gain support on Capitol Hill for what the administration calls "comprehensive immigration reform" -- and be issued in the form of an executive order.
In a letter to the president, says Fox News, Senators Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Orrin Hatch (Utah), David Vitter (Louisiana), Jim Bunning (Kentucky), Saxby Chambliss (Georgia), Johnny Isakson (Georgia), James Inhofe (Oklahoma), and Thad Cochran (Mississippi) have urged the president to "abandon" what they describe as a plan to "unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens...."
The letter, sent to the White House on Monday, argues that such a move "would further erode the American public's confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books."
Fox News points out that an executive order granting a blanket amnesty would likely stem the high number of immigration-related protests across the country -- and would effectively make null and void the controversial bill signed into law recently by the governor of Arizona that allows state authorities to enforce federal laws regarding illegal immigration.
According to the report, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimated last year almost 11-million people live in the United States illegally.
What Have You Done For Me Lately?
COMMENT: Americans seem to be waking up, many voters seem to be swallowing their pride, and admitting that they got sucked in by his silver tongue, just like many did with Clinton. The difference seems to be that it didn't take near as long, mainly because at least Clinton did some positive things for the country (budget) albeit at the expense of our military. Added to Obama's dilemma is that he basically abandoned the majority who voted for him...people are quickly viewing his rhetoric as hollow, and now not he's not even being overwhelmingly viewed as honest - ominous clouds for Democrats but new hope for America!
ARTICLE:
Thu Jun 24, 2:28 pm ET
The White House has been fond of citing turning points lately, most recently when describing the administration's handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Now President Obama faces a turning point of his own — and not for the better.
A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds Obama's approval rating to be the lowest it's been since he took office 18 months ago. According to the poll, only 45 percent approve of the job Obama is doing in the White House, compared with 48 percent who disapprove. And the numbers only get worse from there: Sixty-two percent of respondents believe the country is on the wrong track — the highest number recorded since just before Election Day in 2008 — and just one-third believe things are going to get better, a 7-point drop since a month ago and the lowest such number in the Obama presidency.
The fallout from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill appears to be the biggest drag on Obama's numbers. Fifty percent disapprove of his handling of the crisis — including one in four Democrats. But generally, the poll finds increasing doubts about Obama as a leader. Just 49 percent of those polled give Obama positive ratings when asked if he has "strong leadership qualities" — that's a decline of 8 points since January and nearly 20 points from when he first took office. Less than half rate him positively when asked if he's "honest and straightforward." In January '09, 63 percent gave him positive marks for "being firm and decisive in decision-making." That number is now at 44 percent. Asked about his "ability to handle a crisis," only 40 percent rate him positively, an 11-point drop since January. You can read the full poll results here.
Obama's biggest problem: He's lost the middle — the so-called independent and moderate voters who are generally given the most credit for his win back in 2008. According to the poll, 52 percent of self-described independent voters disapprove of the job Obama is doing. He's even losing parts of his base. The poll finds Obama with 17 percent disapproval among Democrats — the highest number of his presidency.
None of this is good news for Democrats up for re-election this fall. Beleaguered Democrats had been counting on Obama's coattails to help them, as polls have also showed a historic trend away from the Democratic Party. According to this new poll, the GOP has a 2-point edge over Democrats in the generic congressional ballot — but among voters who describe themselves as most interested in the 2010 midterms, the GOP jumps to a 21-point lead over Democrats.
— Holly Bailey is a senior politics writer for Yahoo! News.
ARTICLE:
Thu Jun 24, 2:28 pm ET
The White House has been fond of citing turning points lately, most recently when describing the administration's handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Now President Obama faces a turning point of his own — and not for the better.
A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds Obama's approval rating to be the lowest it's been since he took office 18 months ago. According to the poll, only 45 percent approve of the job Obama is doing in the White House, compared with 48 percent who disapprove. And the numbers only get worse from there: Sixty-two percent of respondents believe the country is on the wrong track — the highest number recorded since just before Election Day in 2008 — and just one-third believe things are going to get better, a 7-point drop since a month ago and the lowest such number in the Obama presidency.
The fallout from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill appears to be the biggest drag on Obama's numbers. Fifty percent disapprove of his handling of the crisis — including one in four Democrats. But generally, the poll finds increasing doubts about Obama as a leader. Just 49 percent of those polled give Obama positive ratings when asked if he has "strong leadership qualities" — that's a decline of 8 points since January and nearly 20 points from when he first took office. Less than half rate him positively when asked if he's "honest and straightforward." In January '09, 63 percent gave him positive marks for "being firm and decisive in decision-making." That number is now at 44 percent. Asked about his "ability to handle a crisis," only 40 percent rate him positively, an 11-point drop since January. You can read the full poll results here.
Obama's biggest problem: He's lost the middle — the so-called independent and moderate voters who are generally given the most credit for his win back in 2008. According to the poll, 52 percent of self-described independent voters disapprove of the job Obama is doing. He's even losing parts of his base. The poll finds Obama with 17 percent disapproval among Democrats — the highest number of his presidency.
None of this is good news for Democrats up for re-election this fall. Beleaguered Democrats had been counting on Obama's coattails to help them, as polls have also showed a historic trend away from the Democratic Party. According to this new poll, the GOP has a 2-point edge over Democrats in the generic congressional ballot — but among voters who describe themselves as most interested in the 2010 midterms, the GOP jumps to a 21-point lead over Democrats.
— Holly Bailey is a senior politics writer for Yahoo! News.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
"Anchor Babies" Next Step For Arizona
COMMENT: I'm going to stand up right now and say "I AGREE" with the proposal being introduced in Arizona. I 100% agree with their contention that babies being born to illegal immigrants to establish themselves in this country is WRONG! They come across the border in the middle of the night when they're realistically too far along in pregnancy to be traveling, let alone under those conditions, to have their baby on American soil so the baby can be an American citizen. I don't think anyone who manipulates our Constitution should be rewarded, and I don't think squirting a baby out in the good ole U.S. of A. makes that child a U.S. citizen automatically. As stated in the following article, the 14th Amendment was intended to help slaves being released to establish citizenship - can that possibly in any way be paralleled with running across the border to have a child? I'll say it again, anyone who uses loopholes in our Constitution to selfishly serve their own purpose should NOT be rewarded. Enough from me -here's the article.
ARTICLE:
By ADAM KLAWONN / PHOENIX Adam Klawonn / Phoenix – Sat Jun 12, 10:00 am ET
"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.
Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop. (See the battle for Arizona: will a border crackdown work?)
But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the "anchor" and leave. (See pictures of the Great Wall of America.)
The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.
But that was 1868. Today, Pearce says the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants. "They use it as a wedge," Pearce says. "This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created." Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. "We will write it right." He and other Republicans in the red state Arizona point to popular sympathy: 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think illegal immigrants whose children are born here should not receive citizenship; support for that stance is 76% among Republicans.
Those who oppose the bill say it would lead to more discrimination and divide the community. Among them is Phoenix resident Susan Vie, who is leading a citizen group that's behind an opposing ballot initiative. She moved to the U.S. 30 years ago from Argentina, became a naturalized citizen and now works as a client-relations representative for a vaccine company. "I see a lot of hate and racism behind it," Vie says. "Consequently, I believe it will create - and it's creating it now - a separation in our society." She adds, "When people look at me, they will think, 'Is she legal or illegal?' I can already feel it right now." Vie's citizen initiative would prohibit SB 1070 from taking affect, place a three-year moratorium on all related laws - including the anchor baby bill - to buy more time for federal immigration reform. Her group is racing to collect 153,365 signatures by July 1 to qualify for the Nov. 2 general election.
Both sides expect the anchor baby bill to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court before it is enacted. "I think it would be struck down as facially unconstitutional. I can't imagine a federal judge saying this would be OK," says Dan Barr, a longtime Phoenix lawyer and constitutional litigator. Potentially joining the anchor baby bill at the Supreme Court may be SB 1070, which Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into law in April. It is set to take effect July 29, but at least five courtroom challenges have been filed against it. Pearce says he will win them all.
ARTICLE:
By ADAM KLAWONN / PHOENIX Adam Klawonn / Phoenix – Sat Jun 12, 10:00 am ET
"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.
Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop. (See the battle for Arizona: will a border crackdown work?)
But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the "anchor" and leave. (See pictures of the Great Wall of America.)
The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.
But that was 1868. Today, Pearce says the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants. "They use it as a wedge," Pearce says. "This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created." Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. "We will write it right." He and other Republicans in the red state Arizona point to popular sympathy: 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think illegal immigrants whose children are born here should not receive citizenship; support for that stance is 76% among Republicans.
Those who oppose the bill say it would lead to more discrimination and divide the community. Among them is Phoenix resident Susan Vie, who is leading a citizen group that's behind an opposing ballot initiative. She moved to the U.S. 30 years ago from Argentina, became a naturalized citizen and now works as a client-relations representative for a vaccine company. "I see a lot of hate and racism behind it," Vie says. "Consequently, I believe it will create - and it's creating it now - a separation in our society." She adds, "When people look at me, they will think, 'Is she legal or illegal?' I can already feel it right now." Vie's citizen initiative would prohibit SB 1070 from taking affect, place a three-year moratorium on all related laws - including the anchor baby bill - to buy more time for federal immigration reform. Her group is racing to collect 153,365 signatures by July 1 to qualify for the Nov. 2 general election.
Both sides expect the anchor baby bill to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court before it is enacted. "I think it would be struck down as facially unconstitutional. I can't imagine a federal judge saying this would be OK," says Dan Barr, a longtime Phoenix lawyer and constitutional litigator. Potentially joining the anchor baby bill at the Supreme Court may be SB 1070, which Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into law in April. It is set to take effect July 29, but at least five courtroom challenges have been filed against it. Pearce says he will win them all.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
The Jury Is Back - AZ SB 1070 Does NOT Racially Discriminate
COMMENT: Finally someone has taken the time to read the Bill before condemning it! This has to be the hardest-to-read 10 pages in the history of literature. This lawyer claims that Arizona's bill is indisputably constitutional. I had no doubt that it was as Arizona has been under a legal microscope for years because of Sheriff Arpaio's no-nonsense policies in the jails of Maricopa County. When the Bill was first signed, they interviewed Sheriff Arpaio about Reverend Al Sharpton coming down there to "get arrested" by him. He stated that, "9 Federal authorities have spent the last year and a half looking at everything he does and they haven't found one think wrong yet, let Al come on down." He added though that he wouldn't call him Reverend until he could figure out what church he's the pastor of. hahaha
Anyway, here's the article:
A California based lawyer is dismissing claims by many that the Arizona law aimed at cracking down on illegal aliens amounts to racial discrimination.
Brad Dacus, founder of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), does not think opponents of Arizona’s immigration bill have a real argument. He notes that all attempts to dismantle the measure are merely political.
Brad Dacus PJI"If Arizona was caught in violating basic due process rights -- if they were pulling people over without cause -- then that would be one thing," he contends. "But the law is indisputably constitutional, and any contentions against it are purely politically based."
Last week, the Los Angeles Unified School District voted against the Arizona law and sought to place a dent in the state's economy by ending funded employee travel to the neighboring state. The school district also pushed for history and civics classes to discuss the measure "in the context of unity, diversity and equal protection for all."
The city of Los Angeles, which had more than $26 million in contracts with Arizona this year, showed its disapproval of the bill by proposing a boycott against the state, calling for actions like ending pension and municipal bonds. Gloria Molina, the city's supervisor, called the immigration bill unconstitutional. She believes it goes "too far" and says she must defend the Constitution.
Dacus argues that the Arizona law is constitutional, and he does not think that actions against the state have legal basis.
"This boycott by the city of Los Angeles is purely political and has no legal foundation to support its legitimacy," he explains. "The law passed by Arizona is a duplicate of the federal statute. The only difference is that the federal government isn't enforcing their statute. This law is to explicitly prohibit any issue of race as a basis of pulling someone over."
The boycott would end contracts with Arizona-based companies and would demand review of other contracts with the state that may be canceled.
Anyway, here's the article:
A California based lawyer is dismissing claims by many that the Arizona law aimed at cracking down on illegal aliens amounts to racial discrimination.
Brad Dacus, founder of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), does not think opponents of Arizona’s immigration bill have a real argument. He notes that all attempts to dismantle the measure are merely political.
Brad Dacus PJI"If Arizona was caught in violating basic due process rights -- if they were pulling people over without cause -- then that would be one thing," he contends. "But the law is indisputably constitutional, and any contentions against it are purely politically based."
Last week, the Los Angeles Unified School District voted against the Arizona law and sought to place a dent in the state's economy by ending funded employee travel to the neighboring state. The school district also pushed for history and civics classes to discuss the measure "in the context of unity, diversity and equal protection for all."
The city of Los Angeles, which had more than $26 million in contracts with Arizona this year, showed its disapproval of the bill by proposing a boycott against the state, calling for actions like ending pension and municipal bonds. Gloria Molina, the city's supervisor, called the immigration bill unconstitutional. She believes it goes "too far" and says she must defend the Constitution.
Dacus argues that the Arizona law is constitutional, and he does not think that actions against the state have legal basis.
"This boycott by the city of Los Angeles is purely political and has no legal foundation to support its legitimacy," he explains. "The law passed by Arizona is a duplicate of the federal statute. The only difference is that the federal government isn't enforcing their statute. This law is to explicitly prohibit any issue of race as a basis of pulling someone over."
The boycott would end contracts with Arizona-based companies and would demand review of other contracts with the state that may be canceled.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
And Obama Bowed Before Him.....
COMMENT:
We live by a different set of ideals and rules. I learned that while living in Egypt. In the villages of Egypt, Saturdays are still a time of public punishment, including hand amputations and public hangings. America likes to call Saudi Arabia our strongest ally in the Middle East, but make no mistake - Israel is our only ally because they are the only nation in that region that doesn't ascribe to the laws of the Koran. Islamic countries govern much as the ocean tides...they move toward democratic, westernized ideals for a short time, but then revert back to very strict Islamic rule.
For those out there who believe Islam is a religion of peace, simply look at the examples of what happens EVERY time a country begins following the strict rule of Islam. I've posted on my blog before the true tenets of Koranic teaching, including lesser and greater jihads (worry about the lesser in this phraseology) and how America's arrogant way of thinking that everyone wants to be like us and enjoy our freedoms will lead to our destruction.
Okay, I'm jumping off my soapbox; here's the story that prompted this dissertation - enjoy.
ARTICLE:
By ABDULLAH AL-SHIHRI, Associated Press Writer Abdullah Al-shihri, Associated Press Writer – 57 mins ago
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – A Saudi court convicted a man and sentenced him to four months in prison and 90 lashes for kissing a woman in a mall, a government-owned daily reported Thursday.
Saudi religious police arrested the man and two women after seeing them on mall cameras "engaging in immoral movements in front of other shoppers," the Al-Yom newspaper said.
The man, who is in his 20s, was seen with a woman "sitting on one of the chairs, exchanging kisses and hugs." It was unclear what the other woman was doing. Neither the man nor the women were identified by name.
The kingdom's powerful religious police, under the control of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, enforce Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islam, which prohibits unrelated men and women from mingling.
Zealous officers routinely jail unrelated couples found sitting together in restaurants or coffee shops.
The policemen also patrol public places to ensure women are covered and not wearing makeup; shops are forced in most places to close several times a day for Muslim prayers and men go to the mosque and worship.
Such kissing busts have increased as economic pressures have made it harder for young couples to marry and as the ultraconservative kingdom grapples with a push to relax its strict social mores.
Young men often must pay more than $50,000 in dowry and gold before their brides' families will accept marriage — a huge burden in a country where economists put male unemployment at over 20 percent.
But the Saudi establishment remains divided on how far separation rules should go.
King Abdullah has been encouraging change in the oil-rich kingdom since becoming crown prince in 1982, and has intensified his efforts since assuming the thrown in 2005.
Male and female students can study together at the newly opened King Abdullah Science and Technology University, launched by the Saudi monarch last year. Abdullah dismissed a prominent hard-line cleric who criticized the policy.
But in April, the head of the religious police fired the chief of the Mecca branch for suggesting that women and men should be able to mix freely, showing that such reforms have their limits.
The newspaper said the man sentenced for kissing will receive his 90 lashes in three batches, and is banned from malls for two years.
The women will be tried in another court.
COMMENT:
I find that last, tiny little statement at the end to be very intriguing. In Islam, the woman is less than the man AND is normally viewed as much more culpable for their actions. If the man received 4 months and 90 lashes, I'm certain the reason her sentence was not publicized was to prevent a worldwide outcry. If she hasn't already received it from her family, I'm sure she can look forward to at least genital mutilation and stoning, probably at the hands of her own parents. My guess is she will be executed for disgracing her family - welcome to the wonderful world of Islam.
We live by a different set of ideals and rules. I learned that while living in Egypt. In the villages of Egypt, Saturdays are still a time of public punishment, including hand amputations and public hangings. America likes to call Saudi Arabia our strongest ally in the Middle East, but make no mistake - Israel is our only ally because they are the only nation in that region that doesn't ascribe to the laws of the Koran. Islamic countries govern much as the ocean tides...they move toward democratic, westernized ideals for a short time, but then revert back to very strict Islamic rule.
For those out there who believe Islam is a religion of peace, simply look at the examples of what happens EVERY time a country begins following the strict rule of Islam. I've posted on my blog before the true tenets of Koranic teaching, including lesser and greater jihads (worry about the lesser in this phraseology) and how America's arrogant way of thinking that everyone wants to be like us and enjoy our freedoms will lead to our destruction.
Okay, I'm jumping off my soapbox; here's the story that prompted this dissertation - enjoy.
ARTICLE:
By ABDULLAH AL-SHIHRI, Associated Press Writer Abdullah Al-shihri, Associated Press Writer – 57 mins ago
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – A Saudi court convicted a man and sentenced him to four months in prison and 90 lashes for kissing a woman in a mall, a government-owned daily reported Thursday.
Saudi religious police arrested the man and two women after seeing them on mall cameras "engaging in immoral movements in front of other shoppers," the Al-Yom newspaper said.
The man, who is in his 20s, was seen with a woman "sitting on one of the chairs, exchanging kisses and hugs." It was unclear what the other woman was doing. Neither the man nor the women were identified by name.
The kingdom's powerful religious police, under the control of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, enforce Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islam, which prohibits unrelated men and women from mingling.
Zealous officers routinely jail unrelated couples found sitting together in restaurants or coffee shops.
The policemen also patrol public places to ensure women are covered and not wearing makeup; shops are forced in most places to close several times a day for Muslim prayers and men go to the mosque and worship.
Such kissing busts have increased as economic pressures have made it harder for young couples to marry and as the ultraconservative kingdom grapples with a push to relax its strict social mores.
Young men often must pay more than $50,000 in dowry and gold before their brides' families will accept marriage — a huge burden in a country where economists put male unemployment at over 20 percent.
But the Saudi establishment remains divided on how far separation rules should go.
King Abdullah has been encouraging change in the oil-rich kingdom since becoming crown prince in 1982, and has intensified his efforts since assuming the thrown in 2005.
Male and female students can study together at the newly opened King Abdullah Science and Technology University, launched by the Saudi monarch last year. Abdullah dismissed a prominent hard-line cleric who criticized the policy.
But in April, the head of the religious police fired the chief of the Mecca branch for suggesting that women and men should be able to mix freely, showing that such reforms have their limits.
The newspaper said the man sentenced for kissing will receive his 90 lashes in three batches, and is banned from malls for two years.
The women will be tried in another court.
COMMENT:
I find that last, tiny little statement at the end to be very intriguing. In Islam, the woman is less than the man AND is normally viewed as much more culpable for their actions. If the man received 4 months and 90 lashes, I'm certain the reason her sentence was not publicized was to prevent a worldwide outcry. If she hasn't already received it from her family, I'm sure she can look forward to at least genital mutilation and stoning, probably at the hands of her own parents. My guess is she will be executed for disgracing her family - welcome to the wonderful world of Islam.
Americans Are Throwing Pebbles In The Stream Too!!!
Those who have followed this blog for awhile know one of my mantras is about Obama "pebbles" tossed into the stream of change. Well, with each Primary the majority is speaking out about the way this country is being governed. With each Primary, more incumbents (Democrat, Republican, whatever) are getting nervous about election day.
I'm finding it very comforting that despite the rhetoric emanating from the White House of "knowing what Americans want," the arrogance of condemning without knowing the facts (AZ SB1070, BP response, Boston police), liberal media spoon-feeding the public information and censoring anything that doesn't fit the liberal agenda, the vocal MINORITY convincing us that gays and Mexicans have rights but God-fearing people don't ----- despite all of this, REAL Americans are speaking out in the polls and sending a strong message that it's all a bunch of crap!!!
For the first time in an election, I categorically refused to place my mark beside anyone who was an incumbent. Additionally, I refused to throw my hat in the ring with any candidate who had a liberal background (Art teacher, LAUSD Superintendent, Civil Rights Lawyer, etc.). Is that biased? Yes. Is that fair? No. Is it what this country needs? YES! It's the right thing to do because our government is so imbalanced presently that common sense has taken a vacation. Ideals that only 10 years ago would not even be discussed are now being forced on the American people --- "don't ask, don't tell" policy repealed without public vote, persecution of God in the US of A, bowing to violent leaders, apologizing to the world, unknowledgeable condemnation at the highest level of our government.
Right now "far-right-of-center thinking" is required to regain the balance. Once balance is achieved, then and only then will central thoughts and actions be effective. The majority is speaking out in these primaries and all I can say is, "Thank God common sense and wholesome ideals seem to be making a comeback." I just hope it's not too late to save this country I love.
I'm finding it very comforting that despite the rhetoric emanating from the White House of "knowing what Americans want," the arrogance of condemning without knowing the facts (AZ SB1070, BP response, Boston police), liberal media spoon-feeding the public information and censoring anything that doesn't fit the liberal agenda, the vocal MINORITY convincing us that gays and Mexicans have rights but God-fearing people don't ----- despite all of this, REAL Americans are speaking out in the polls and sending a strong message that it's all a bunch of crap!!!
For the first time in an election, I categorically refused to place my mark beside anyone who was an incumbent. Additionally, I refused to throw my hat in the ring with any candidate who had a liberal background (Art teacher, LAUSD Superintendent, Civil Rights Lawyer, etc.). Is that biased? Yes. Is that fair? No. Is it what this country needs? YES! It's the right thing to do because our government is so imbalanced presently that common sense has taken a vacation. Ideals that only 10 years ago would not even be discussed are now being forced on the American people --- "don't ask, don't tell" policy repealed without public vote, persecution of God in the US of A, bowing to violent leaders, apologizing to the world, unknowledgeable condemnation at the highest level of our government.
Right now "far-right-of-center thinking" is required to regain the balance. Once balance is achieved, then and only then will central thoughts and actions be effective. The majority is speaking out in these primaries and all I can say is, "Thank God common sense and wholesome ideals seem to be making a comeback." I just hope it's not too late to save this country I love.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
"PC" Is A One-Way Street?
COMMENT:
I guess it is when Americans feel so tongue-tied by it that they won't even use the same words and phrases that the terrorists employ. It seems almost as if our government officials are trying to will jihad into extinction simply by not saying the word - as if the word itself invokes some form of magic against us. I think it rather idiotic to think relations are improved by not using the word for fear of offending American Muslims, and I really don't think the terrorists are concerned about hurting anyone's feelings, be it Americans or Muslims. Anyway, a fairly long read but I think it's important to truly understand Muslims and the Koran, so here's an article by OneNewsNow with quotes from an authority on the subject.
ARTICLE:
Most Americans are sympathetic to public references to Islam and to Muslims that do not offend patriotic American Muslims or affix to the Islamic religion the rantings of al-Qaeda. But sensitivity to the need to be civil to Muslims doesn't -- or shouldn't -- obviate the need for intellectual honesty when discussing or analyzing America's Islamist political foes.
At a recent briefing to scholars and reporters at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counter-terrorism, went into contortions to avoid admitting what seems commonsense to most Americans: there is a connection between some parts of Islamic thought and the repeated assertions of Osama bin Laden and his supporters and sympathizers that they are waging "jihad" against the United States. Brennan said the religious views of America's Islamist terrorist adversaries shouldn't even be discussed. Yet to accept that view would be like asking the State Department to examine the views of Adolf Hitler during Word War II and avoid mentioning his hatred of the Jews.
Brennan said the White House and State Department were avoiding reference to "jihadists" even though terrorist adversaries of the United States often call themselves exactly that. He said that jihad was "a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself and one's community." True, this is the "greater jihad," as defined by Mohammed himself -- but it is not the whole meaning of jihad at all. In fact, serious and respected scholars of Islam such as Professor Bernard Lewis assert that by far the largest proportion of Islamic historical references to jihad refer to what is called the "lesser jihad" -- the duty of Muslims to wage war on non-Muslims in order to subdue all countries and communities for Allah.
The Koran, Islam's holy book, is quite explicit about this. Surah 9, for example, the "surah of the sword," explicitly calls on Muslims to "fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and his Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the book [i.e,. Jews and Christians] until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection" (Surah 9:29). Just in case readers didn't get that message, Surah 2:216 says "jihad is enjoined for you, though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know" (Surah 2:216).
Brennan claimed that the extremists were victims of "political, economic, and social forces," and that they should not be described in "religious terms." But if America's Islamist opponents describe themselves in religious terms, why shouldn't we take seriously what they are saying?
In addition to the Koran, other sources of Islamic interpretation of jihad include the "hadith," anecdotal stories illustrating Mohammed's life; and the "sharia," the corpus of Islamic religious law. Though there are four main schools of law within Islam, there is almost a complete overlap among all of them in the interpretation of jihad.
In Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik -- the authoritative source of Islamic rulings of the shafi school of Islam -- it states: "jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word 'mujahadan,' signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self....The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus, is such Koranic verses as [2:216] 'fighting is prescribed for you,' [4:89] 'slay them wherever you find them,' and [9:36] 'fight the idolaters utterly' and such hadiths as the one related by Bukari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said...the hadith reported by Muslim, 'to go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.'"
Brennan's unawareness of key Islamic explanations of jihad is baffling when you consider that he once headed the CIA in the entire Middle East and he spent a year learning Arabic at university in Cairo.
Even today, jihad is used by Islamist movements as justification for their politics. Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that currently rules Gaza and which seeks the entire destruction of Israel, openly describes itself as fighting a jihad against the infidel. Back during World War I, the entire Ottoman Empire officially declared jihad against Great Britain and all the Entente powers allied with her against Germany and her allies (which included the Turks). I don't think the supreme mufti in Constantinople was trying to get the Muslims of the world to simply become purer in their behavior: he wanted them to kill Brits.
There is certainly a need to be cautious in discussing Islam, especially since many Muslims live in the United States and indeed love the United States. But to avoid the word "jihadis" when it is employed by terrorists themselves is rather like visiting Lenin's tomb in Moscow and failing to mention that Lenin was a communist. Come to think of it, Arab-language specialist Brennan went into contortions during his first mention of Jerusalem, a city he says he loves. He called it "Al-Quds," the Arabic term that didn't come into existence until the era of Islam in the 7th century AD. Jerusalem is the English word that comes from Hebrew Yerushalayim. In fact, this city had been inhabited by Jews for hundreds of years before Mohammed claims to have visited it.
Is the White House listening? Less political correctness and more honesty and common sense, please.
COPYRIGHT AMERICAN FAMILY NEWS NETWORK 2010
I guess it is when Americans feel so tongue-tied by it that they won't even use the same words and phrases that the terrorists employ. It seems almost as if our government officials are trying to will jihad into extinction simply by not saying the word - as if the word itself invokes some form of magic against us. I think it rather idiotic to think relations are improved by not using the word for fear of offending American Muslims, and I really don't think the terrorists are concerned about hurting anyone's feelings, be it Americans or Muslims. Anyway, a fairly long read but I think it's important to truly understand Muslims and the Koran, so here's an article by OneNewsNow with quotes from an authority on the subject.
ARTICLE:
Most Americans are sympathetic to public references to Islam and to Muslims that do not offend patriotic American Muslims or affix to the Islamic religion the rantings of al-Qaeda. But sensitivity to the need to be civil to Muslims doesn't -- or shouldn't -- obviate the need for intellectual honesty when discussing or analyzing America's Islamist political foes.
At a recent briefing to scholars and reporters at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counter-terrorism, went into contortions to avoid admitting what seems commonsense to most Americans: there is a connection between some parts of Islamic thought and the repeated assertions of Osama bin Laden and his supporters and sympathizers that they are waging "jihad" against the United States. Brennan said the religious views of America's Islamist terrorist adversaries shouldn't even be discussed. Yet to accept that view would be like asking the State Department to examine the views of Adolf Hitler during Word War II and avoid mentioning his hatred of the Jews.
Brennan said the White House and State Department were avoiding reference to "jihadists" even though terrorist adversaries of the United States often call themselves exactly that. He said that jihad was "a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself and one's community." True, this is the "greater jihad," as defined by Mohammed himself -- but it is not the whole meaning of jihad at all. In fact, serious and respected scholars of Islam such as Professor Bernard Lewis assert that by far the largest proportion of Islamic historical references to jihad refer to what is called the "lesser jihad" -- the duty of Muslims to wage war on non-Muslims in order to subdue all countries and communities for Allah.
The Koran, Islam's holy book, is quite explicit about this. Surah 9, for example, the "surah of the sword," explicitly calls on Muslims to "fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and his Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the book [i.e,. Jews and Christians] until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection" (Surah 9:29). Just in case readers didn't get that message, Surah 2:216 says "jihad is enjoined for you, though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know" (Surah 2:216).
Brennan claimed that the extremists were victims of "political, economic, and social forces," and that they should not be described in "religious terms." But if America's Islamist opponents describe themselves in religious terms, why shouldn't we take seriously what they are saying?
In addition to the Koran, other sources of Islamic interpretation of jihad include the "hadith," anecdotal stories illustrating Mohammed's life; and the "sharia," the corpus of Islamic religious law. Though there are four main schools of law within Islam, there is almost a complete overlap among all of them in the interpretation of jihad.
In Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik -- the authoritative source of Islamic rulings of the shafi school of Islam -- it states: "jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word 'mujahadan,' signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self....The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus, is such Koranic verses as [2:216] 'fighting is prescribed for you,' [4:89] 'slay them wherever you find them,' and [9:36] 'fight the idolaters utterly' and such hadiths as the one related by Bukari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said...the hadith reported by Muslim, 'to go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.'"
Brennan's unawareness of key Islamic explanations of jihad is baffling when you consider that he once headed the CIA in the entire Middle East and he spent a year learning Arabic at university in Cairo.
Even today, jihad is used by Islamist movements as justification for their politics. Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that currently rules Gaza and which seeks the entire destruction of Israel, openly describes itself as fighting a jihad against the infidel. Back during World War I, the entire Ottoman Empire officially declared jihad against Great Britain and all the Entente powers allied with her against Germany and her allies (which included the Turks). I don't think the supreme mufti in Constantinople was trying to get the Muslims of the world to simply become purer in their behavior: he wanted them to kill Brits.
There is certainly a need to be cautious in discussing Islam, especially since many Muslims live in the United States and indeed love the United States. But to avoid the word "jihadis" when it is employed by terrorists themselves is rather like visiting Lenin's tomb in Moscow and failing to mention that Lenin was a communist. Come to think of it, Arab-language specialist Brennan went into contortions during his first mention of Jerusalem, a city he says he loves. He called it "Al-Quds," the Arabic term that didn't come into existence until the era of Islam in the 7th century AD. Jerusalem is the English word that comes from Hebrew Yerushalayim. In fact, this city had been inhabited by Jews for hundreds of years before Mohammed claims to have visited it.
Is the White House listening? Less political correctness and more honesty and common sense, please.
COPYRIGHT AMERICAN FAMILY NEWS NETWORK 2010
Saturday, June 5, 2010
COMMENT: Like many other great articles before, I cannot take credit for this one and I don't even know who wrote it, except for the first name of Maxine. But you know, when an article strikes a chord, it needs to be shared.
ARTICLE:
I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. What a beauty of a bird feeder it was, as I filled it lovingly with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.
But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue.
Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table ..
Everywhere!
Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket.
And others birds were boisterous and loud. They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.
After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore. So I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio.
Soon, the back yard was like it used to be .... Quiet, serene....and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.
Now let's see. Our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care and free education, and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.
Then the illegal's came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor; your child's second grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English.
Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to 'press one ' to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than 'Old Glory' are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.
Just my opinion, but maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.
ARTICLE:
I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. What a beauty of a bird feeder it was, as I filled it lovingly with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.
But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue.
Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table ..
Everywhere!
Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket.
And others birds were boisterous and loud. They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.
After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore. So I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio.
Soon, the back yard was like it used to be .... Quiet, serene....and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.
Now let's see. Our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care and free education, and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.
Then the illegal's came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor; your child's second grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English.
Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to 'press one ' to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than 'Old Glory' are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.
Just my opinion, but maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
I Told You So......
COMMENT: I normally dislike that statement, but I'm going to get a little "Limbaugh-arrogant" and say it because of the article below. Throughout the health care debate, my question was, "Why not regulate costs and impose temporary freezes, then watch other systems (i.e., Canada) to see how effective government-run health care truly is." I was the continual naysayer regarding how wonderful the Health Care Reform Bill would be (cost, coverage, effectiveness), and how it would negatively impact the economic "health" of our country. I continually questioned the urgency of passing the Reform...the deadlines were politically constructed and not of any true substance. Now read what Canada is looking to do......
SOARING COSTS FORCE CANADA TO REASSESS HEALTH MODEL
Reuters
TORONTO (Reuters) – Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada's provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.
Ontario, Canada's most populous province, kicked off a fierce battle with drug companies and pharmacies when it said earlier this year it would halve generic drug prices and eliminate "incentive fees" to generic drug manufacturers.
British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit -- an idea that critics say is an illegal user fee.
And a few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.
It's likely just a start as the provinces, responsible for delivering healthcare, cope with the demands of a retiring baby-boom generation. Official figures show that senior citizens will make up 25 percent of the population by 2036.
"There's got to be some change to the status quo whether it happens in three years or 10 years," said Derek Burleton, senior economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank.
"We can't continually see health spending growing above and beyond the growth rate in the economy because, at some point, it means crowding out of all the other government services.
"At some stage we're going to hit a breaking point."
MIRROR IMAGE DEBATE
In some ways the Canadian debate is the mirror image of discussions going on in the United States.
Canada, fretting over budget strains, wants to prune its system, while the United States, worrying about an army of uninsured, aims to create a state-backed safety net.
Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded system, which covers all "medically necessary" hospital and physician care and curbs the role of private medicine. It ate up about 40 percent of provincial budgets, or some C$183 billion ($174 billion) last year.
Spending has been rising 6 percent a year under a deal that added C$41.3 billion of federal funding over 10 years.
But that deal ends in 2013, and the federal government is unlikely to be as generous in future, especially for one-off projects.
"As Ottawa looks to repair its budget balance ... one could see these one-time allocations to specific health projects might be curtailed," said Mary Webb, senior economist at Scotia Capital.
Brian Golden, a professor at University of Toronto's Rotman School of Business, said provinces are weighing new sources of funding, including "means-testing" and moving toward evidence-based and pay-for-performance models.
"Why are we paying more or the same for cataract surgery when it costs substantially less today than it did 10 years ago? There's going to be a finer look at what we're paying for and, more importantly, what we're getting for it," he said.
Other problems include trying to control independently set salaries for top hospital executives and doctors and rein in spiraling costs for new medical technologies and drugs.
Ontario says healthcare could eat up 70 percent of its budget in 12 years, if all these costs are left unchecked.
"Our objective is to preserve the quality healthcare system we have and indeed to enhance it. But there are difficult decisions ahead and we will continue to make them," Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan told Reuters.
The province has introduced legislation that ties hospital chief executive pay with the quality of patient care and says it wants to put more physicians on salary to save money.
In a report released last week, TD Bank said Ontario should consider other proposals to help cut costs, including scaling back drug coverage for affluent seniors and paying doctors according to quality and efficiency of care.
WINNERS AND LOSERS
The losers could be drug companies and pharmacies, both of which are getting increasingly nervous.
"Many of the advances in healthcare and life expectancy are due to the pharmaceutical industry so we should never demonize them," said U of T's Golden. "We need to ensure that they maintain a profitable business but our ability to make it very very profitable is constrained right now."
Scotia Capital's Webb said one cost-saving idea may be to make patients aware of how much it costs each time they visit a healthcare professional. "(The public) will use the services more wisely if they know how much it's costing," she said.
"If it's absolutely free with no information on the cost and the information of an alternative that would be have been more practical, then how can we expect the public to wisely use the service?"
But change may come slowly. Universal healthcare is central to Canada's national identity, and decisions are made as much on politics as economics.
"It's an area that Canadians don't want to see touched," said TD's Burleton. "Essentially it boils down the wishes of the population. But I think, from an economist's standpoint, we point to the fact that sometimes Canadians in the short term may not realize the cost."
SOARING COSTS FORCE CANADA TO REASSESS HEALTH MODEL
Reuters
TORONTO (Reuters) – Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada's provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.
Ontario, Canada's most populous province, kicked off a fierce battle with drug companies and pharmacies when it said earlier this year it would halve generic drug prices and eliminate "incentive fees" to generic drug manufacturers.
British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit -- an idea that critics say is an illegal user fee.
And a few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.
It's likely just a start as the provinces, responsible for delivering healthcare, cope with the demands of a retiring baby-boom generation. Official figures show that senior citizens will make up 25 percent of the population by 2036.
"There's got to be some change to the status quo whether it happens in three years or 10 years," said Derek Burleton, senior economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank.
"We can't continually see health spending growing above and beyond the growth rate in the economy because, at some point, it means crowding out of all the other government services.
"At some stage we're going to hit a breaking point."
MIRROR IMAGE DEBATE
In some ways the Canadian debate is the mirror image of discussions going on in the United States.
Canada, fretting over budget strains, wants to prune its system, while the United States, worrying about an army of uninsured, aims to create a state-backed safety net.
Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded system, which covers all "medically necessary" hospital and physician care and curbs the role of private medicine. It ate up about 40 percent of provincial budgets, or some C$183 billion ($174 billion) last year.
Spending has been rising 6 percent a year under a deal that added C$41.3 billion of federal funding over 10 years.
But that deal ends in 2013, and the federal government is unlikely to be as generous in future, especially for one-off projects.
"As Ottawa looks to repair its budget balance ... one could see these one-time allocations to specific health projects might be curtailed," said Mary Webb, senior economist at Scotia Capital.
Brian Golden, a professor at University of Toronto's Rotman School of Business, said provinces are weighing new sources of funding, including "means-testing" and moving toward evidence-based and pay-for-performance models.
"Why are we paying more or the same for cataract surgery when it costs substantially less today than it did 10 years ago? There's going to be a finer look at what we're paying for and, more importantly, what we're getting for it," he said.
Other problems include trying to control independently set salaries for top hospital executives and doctors and rein in spiraling costs for new medical technologies and drugs.
Ontario says healthcare could eat up 70 percent of its budget in 12 years, if all these costs are left unchecked.
"Our objective is to preserve the quality healthcare system we have and indeed to enhance it. But there are difficult decisions ahead and we will continue to make them," Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan told Reuters.
The province has introduced legislation that ties hospital chief executive pay with the quality of patient care and says it wants to put more physicians on salary to save money.
In a report released last week, TD Bank said Ontario should consider other proposals to help cut costs, including scaling back drug coverage for affluent seniors and paying doctors according to quality and efficiency of care.
WINNERS AND LOSERS
The losers could be drug companies and pharmacies, both of which are getting increasingly nervous.
"Many of the advances in healthcare and life expectancy are due to the pharmaceutical industry so we should never demonize them," said U of T's Golden. "We need to ensure that they maintain a profitable business but our ability to make it very very profitable is constrained right now."
Scotia Capital's Webb said one cost-saving idea may be to make patients aware of how much it costs each time they visit a healthcare professional. "(The public) will use the services more wisely if they know how much it's costing," she said.
"If it's absolutely free with no information on the cost and the information of an alternative that would be have been more practical, then how can we expect the public to wisely use the service?"
But change may come slowly. Universal healthcare is central to Canada's national identity, and decisions are made as much on politics as economics.
"It's an area that Canadians don't want to see touched," said TD's Burleton. "Essentially it boils down the wishes of the population. But I think, from an economist's standpoint, we point to the fact that sometimes Canadians in the short term may not realize the cost."
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Media Coverage and Israel
COMMENT:
Okay, having lived in Egypt for a year while in the Air Force, I saw first-hand how the national medias in that region were extremely biased toward Israel. Everything, and I literally mean everything, has an "it's Israel's fault" spin to it. The latest confrontation regarding the Gaza strip is a great example of that and, sadly, also an example of how our own media is getting more biased daily.
I first noticed a dfiscrepancy in the reporting yesterday, with this flotilla not using the approved channels - this struck me as a little odd to say the least. IF a flotilla's true mission is humanitarian aid, WHY would it travel in unauthorized areas when authorized areas are so close? The logical answer seems to be that it had a second, covert, mission and all appearances are that the covert mission was provocation. In the Middle East, ANY action by Israel against ANY Arab is wholeheartedly believed as wrong action by Israel. Even in Egypt, which is viewed as the official "mediator" of negotiations in the region, the overwhelming consensus is that Israel needs to be eliminated (call that the moderate view in the Middle East).
In a Judeo-Christian United States (upon which this nation was founded), benefit of the doubt went to Israel and fair, accurate reporting of the facts predominated. However, in today's "get God out of every facet of life" United States, our media is as free as the rest of the world to condemn without getting all of the facts, and free to report only the portions that support the agenda. Don't forget that getting God out of the U.S. necessitates separation from Israel - the symbolic Godhead of Judaism. Obama has made it very clear in his 1-1/2 years that his Church of Christ involvement was clearly a smokescreen and not where his true beliefs lie. No true member of that denomination could consistently take such harsh, exclusionary action against Christians.
If you look at our near history, this is an ever-increasing trend with our government of rushing to judgment. Don't believe me? How quick was our President to condemn the police officer and side with the Black Harvard professor? He condemned the entire police department without getting the facts and making a fair assessment. How about the Arizona Law? Three high-ranking officials (including Obama) condemn it, yet admit they haven't even read the 10-page Senate Bill.
With that said, below is another side of the Israel issue by Sarah Palin:
ARTICLE:
The media, as usual, seems to be reporting only one side of the Israeli Flotilla incident. Don’t trust the mainstream media to give you both sides of a story fairly… you must seek out fair reporting to ensure you have all the information.
As far too many in the media, and in various governments, rush to condemn Israel, we must put the recent events off Israel’s coast into the right perspective. This “relief” convoy was not about humanitarian aid, as the liberal mainstream media keeps reporting. The whole operation was designed to provoke Israel, not to provide supplies to Palestinians held hostage by Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Anyone who sees the video of Israeli commandos being attacked as they land on that ship knows the people aboard were vicious thugs, not “peace activists.” The media insults our intelligence with their outright mis-characterization of who these enemies are.
Israel delivers thousands of tons of humanitarian supplies every week to Gaza. These ships could have offloaded their cargoes at a nearby Israeli port if they really wanted to help the people of Gaza. Instead, they chose to incite confrontation and violence. Israel has a right to prevent arms shipments to Gaza that will be used to target innocent Israelis, so they were legitimately checking the cargo on the flotilla. Turkey has chosen to condemn Israel but we should be asking some serious questions about Turkey’s role in this whole affair. Why is a fellow member of NATO sponsoring such a dangerous publicity stunt? As one expert points out: “Three ships of that six-ship pro-terror convoy flew Turkish flags and were crowded with Turkish citizens. The Ankara government – led by Islamists these days – sponsored the ‘aid’ operation in a move to position itself as the new champion of the Palestinians. And Turkish decision-makers knew Israel would have to react – and were waiting to exploit the inevitable clash. The provocation was as cynical as it was carefully orchestrated.”
We can only hope the Obama Administration does not join the anti-Israel chorus in the aftermath of this staged confrontation. Please, Mr. President, we need to let Israelis know we stand with them in their fight against terrorists and those who arm and support them. America and her ally, Israel, stand by waiting for your response.
- Sarah Palin
Okay, having lived in Egypt for a year while in the Air Force, I saw first-hand how the national medias in that region were extremely biased toward Israel. Everything, and I literally mean everything, has an "it's Israel's fault" spin to it. The latest confrontation regarding the Gaza strip is a great example of that and, sadly, also an example of how our own media is getting more biased daily.
I first noticed a dfiscrepancy in the reporting yesterday, with this flotilla not using the approved channels - this struck me as a little odd to say the least. IF a flotilla's true mission is humanitarian aid, WHY would it travel in unauthorized areas when authorized areas are so close? The logical answer seems to be that it had a second, covert, mission and all appearances are that the covert mission was provocation. In the Middle East, ANY action by Israel against ANY Arab is wholeheartedly believed as wrong action by Israel. Even in Egypt, which is viewed as the official "mediator" of negotiations in the region, the overwhelming consensus is that Israel needs to be eliminated (call that the moderate view in the Middle East).
In a Judeo-Christian United States (upon which this nation was founded), benefit of the doubt went to Israel and fair, accurate reporting of the facts predominated. However, in today's "get God out of every facet of life" United States, our media is as free as the rest of the world to condemn without getting all of the facts, and free to report only the portions that support the agenda. Don't forget that getting God out of the U.S. necessitates separation from Israel - the symbolic Godhead of Judaism. Obama has made it very clear in his 1-1/2 years that his Church of Christ involvement was clearly a smokescreen and not where his true beliefs lie. No true member of that denomination could consistently take such harsh, exclusionary action against Christians.
If you look at our near history, this is an ever-increasing trend with our government of rushing to judgment. Don't believe me? How quick was our President to condemn the police officer and side with the Black Harvard professor? He condemned the entire police department without getting the facts and making a fair assessment. How about the Arizona Law? Three high-ranking officials (including Obama) condemn it, yet admit they haven't even read the 10-page Senate Bill.
With that said, below is another side of the Israel issue by Sarah Palin:
ARTICLE:
The media, as usual, seems to be reporting only one side of the Israeli Flotilla incident. Don’t trust the mainstream media to give you both sides of a story fairly… you must seek out fair reporting to ensure you have all the information.
As far too many in the media, and in various governments, rush to condemn Israel, we must put the recent events off Israel’s coast into the right perspective. This “relief” convoy was not about humanitarian aid, as the liberal mainstream media keeps reporting. The whole operation was designed to provoke Israel, not to provide supplies to Palestinians held hostage by Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Anyone who sees the video of Israeli commandos being attacked as they land on that ship knows the people aboard were vicious thugs, not “peace activists.” The media insults our intelligence with their outright mis-characterization of who these enemies are.
Israel delivers thousands of tons of humanitarian supplies every week to Gaza. These ships could have offloaded their cargoes at a nearby Israeli port if they really wanted to help the people of Gaza. Instead, they chose to incite confrontation and violence. Israel has a right to prevent arms shipments to Gaza that will be used to target innocent Israelis, so they were legitimately checking the cargo on the flotilla. Turkey has chosen to condemn Israel but we should be asking some serious questions about Turkey’s role in this whole affair. Why is a fellow member of NATO sponsoring such a dangerous publicity stunt? As one expert points out: “Three ships of that six-ship pro-terror convoy flew Turkish flags and were crowded with Turkish citizens. The Ankara government – led by Islamists these days – sponsored the ‘aid’ operation in a move to position itself as the new champion of the Palestinians. And Turkish decision-makers knew Israel would have to react – and were waiting to exploit the inevitable clash. The provocation was as cynical as it was carefully orchestrated.”
We can only hope the Obama Administration does not join the anti-Israel chorus in the aftermath of this staged confrontation. Please, Mr. President, we need to let Israelis know we stand with them in their fight against terrorists and those who arm and support them. America and her ally, Israel, stand by waiting for your response.
- Sarah Palin
Friday, May 28, 2010
Strange Having A Job Again....
Just a note to let you know I haven't forgotten about this blog. I started my new job Tuesday and am concentrating my brain cells on learning that instead of wasting them on our current regime in D.C.
Plus, there's really no concern anyway, right? I mean, now that the Obama Administration has taken responsibility for the oil in the Gulf. I heard his rhetoric today (did anyone else notice there was only 1 microphone on his lectern?) I heard he was controlling the media, but looks now like it's exclusive coverage only. Also, wasn't the size of the crowd for his news conference just a tad small? Where were all of his supporters? I don't think I've EVER seen a US Presidential news conference draw so few...might be a telltale sign of his continued decline --- we can only hope.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand. So Obama says "the buck stops here," and "we have assumed responsibility of the situation," and "we will take all necessary steps," and my favorite, "we will still look to BP for their expertise in this crisis."
The reality is that nobody knows how to fix this, and that's because the domino-effect failure of all of the fail-safes was inconceivable. I heard a talk show host saying that the Navy could send their submarines down there to assist. He said, "I don't know, but I'm sure they can go down that far." I don't know, and won't pretend I do, but I am pretty sure if they could, the next question would be, "Okay, we're here, now what?" Any idea how much pressure we're talking about at 5,000 feet underwater? I did a free-fall dive to 150 feet and my body compressed enough to reduce my waist size by over 2 inches...multiply that by 33 and you begin to understand the problem. Now realize that it's not linear, but rather exponential, and you really grasp the challenge.
It seems that BP is making progress with this "heavy mud" approach. Hopefully, it will work and this crisis will change to a recovery and restoration operation. However, I don't think it's coincidental that our government "assumed responsibility" once an idea starts showing promise.
Plus, there's really no concern anyway, right? I mean, now that the Obama Administration has taken responsibility for the oil in the Gulf. I heard his rhetoric today (did anyone else notice there was only 1 microphone on his lectern?) I heard he was controlling the media, but looks now like it's exclusive coverage only. Also, wasn't the size of the crowd for his news conference just a tad small? Where were all of his supporters? I don't think I've EVER seen a US Presidential news conference draw so few...might be a telltale sign of his continued decline --- we can only hope.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand. So Obama says "the buck stops here," and "we have assumed responsibility of the situation," and "we will take all necessary steps," and my favorite, "we will still look to BP for their expertise in this crisis."
The reality is that nobody knows how to fix this, and that's because the domino-effect failure of all of the fail-safes was inconceivable. I heard a talk show host saying that the Navy could send their submarines down there to assist. He said, "I don't know, but I'm sure they can go down that far." I don't know, and won't pretend I do, but I am pretty sure if they could, the next question would be, "Okay, we're here, now what?" Any idea how much pressure we're talking about at 5,000 feet underwater? I did a free-fall dive to 150 feet and my body compressed enough to reduce my waist size by over 2 inches...multiply that by 33 and you begin to understand the problem. Now realize that it's not linear, but rather exponential, and you really grasp the challenge.
It seems that BP is making progress with this "heavy mud" approach. Hopefully, it will work and this crisis will change to a recovery and restoration operation. However, I don't think it's coincidental that our government "assumed responsibility" once an idea starts showing promise.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Serious Threats Through Mexico
Okay, so if you don't think illegals coming into our country through Mexico should be diligently caught, detained, and deported - check out this news report (I apologize for it not being a direct link; haven't figured out how to do that yet):
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html.
So how diligent should we be? What would be a good ratio regarding catching people trying to cross the border illegally? 1 out of 100, 1 out of 1,000. Personally, I like even odds, so for me 1 out of 1 sounds appropriate.
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html.
So how diligent should we be? What would be a good ratio regarding catching people trying to cross the border illegally? 1 out of 100, 1 out of 1,000. Personally, I like even odds, so for me 1 out of 1 sounds appropriate.
Friday, May 21, 2010
You've GOT To Be Joking, Right?
COMMENT: The size of the cross was the reason cited for its removal, even though it was clearly a replica (made of metal pipe) of the original cross stolen in April. What I find amazing though is that if the reason cited here is correct (1/2 inch larger than the original), we're talking about it being 90-1/2 inches tall instead of 90 inches - are you serious?!?!?!?! Exactly how wrong is this ordeal anyway? How much government money has been spent to visit, investigate, and litigate this issue?
Ironically, I took a motorcycle ride through that area last Saturday. What amazed me about the entire region was the number of "God" references and symbols we saw along our route. There were crosses on hillsides made of stones, a rock wall along the border of a person's property that was built with different stones embedded to state, "Jesus is Lord." One of our riders had a "Jesus" patch on his vest and received 3 separate comments from the locals (all positive). What I'm getting at is that the people in this region of our great country not only are not offended by the Mojave Cross, they are proud of it and proud of their faith. What gives a man residing in Seattle the right to waste government money litigating this case?
ARTICLE:
Replica cross in Mojave Desert is taken down
Associated Press - 5/21/2010 7:25:00
Associated Press MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE, CA - Authorities say a Mojave Desert cross that replaced the stolen one honoring America's war dead was illegal, so it's been taken down too.
Linda Slater, a spokeswoman for the Mojave National Preserve, says a maintenance worker spotted the replica cross Thursday morning in the federal park. Nobody claimed credit for putting it up.
The new cross was a half-inch larger than the original one, which was stolen more than a week ago. That cross was the subject of a lawsuit arguing that a Christian symbol didn't belong on public land. (See related article)
Congress had reacted by transferring land under the cross to private ownership.
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to order removal of the cross while a lower court decided whether the land transfer was legal. But Slater says the new cross wasn't covered by the Supreme Court ruling, so workers removed it Thursday afternoon.
Ironically, I took a motorcycle ride through that area last Saturday. What amazed me about the entire region was the number of "God" references and symbols we saw along our route. There were crosses on hillsides made of stones, a rock wall along the border of a person's property that was built with different stones embedded to state, "Jesus is Lord." One of our riders had a "Jesus" patch on his vest and received 3 separate comments from the locals (all positive). What I'm getting at is that the people in this region of our great country not only are not offended by the Mojave Cross, they are proud of it and proud of their faith. What gives a man residing in Seattle the right to waste government money litigating this case?
ARTICLE:
Replica cross in Mojave Desert is taken down
Associated Press - 5/21/2010 7:25:00
Associated Press MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE, CA - Authorities say a Mojave Desert cross that replaced the stolen one honoring America's war dead was illegal, so it's been taken down too.
Linda Slater, a spokeswoman for the Mojave National Preserve, says a maintenance worker spotted the replica cross Thursday morning in the federal park. Nobody claimed credit for putting it up.
The new cross was a half-inch larger than the original one, which was stolen more than a week ago. That cross was the subject of a lawsuit arguing that a Christian symbol didn't belong on public land. (See related article)
Congress had reacted by transferring land under the cross to private ownership.
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to order removal of the cross while a lower court decided whether the land transfer was legal. But Slater says the new cross wasn't covered by the Supreme Court ruling, so workers removed it Thursday afternoon.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Perhaps I'm Not On An Island After All
Living in California, I very often feel as if I'm the only one who is concerned about our current government and who strongly defends the Constitution in the spirit and intent with which it was written. However, it appears from the recent Primaries that Americans are making their voices heard about the way this country is being managed by our government. Virtually every race was not divided along party lines nearly as much as along how the incumbents supported or opposed legislation over the past 1-1/2 years.
As of now, our democratic process seems alive and well with a united voice showing displeasure over uncontrolled spending and invasive government. What we saw in the Primaries is essentially the heart and soul of the Tea Party Movement.
As I stated before, the Tea Party is not about Republican, Democrat, or any other party line - it's about fiscal responsibility, government limitation, and freedom of the states to govern their areas. This is why they chose the "Tea Party" as their battle cry...their displeasure mirrors the early settlers' concerns about governments (not ours at that time, but rather the British).
As of now, our democratic process seems alive and well with a united voice showing displeasure over uncontrolled spending and invasive government. What we saw in the Primaries is essentially the heart and soul of the Tea Party Movement.
As I stated before, the Tea Party is not about Republican, Democrat, or any other party line - it's about fiscal responsibility, government limitation, and freedom of the states to govern their areas. This is why they chose the "Tea Party" as their battle cry...their displeasure mirrors the early settlers' concerns about governments (not ours at that time, but rather the British).
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
America's Apology Tour Continues
COMMENT: The following was a Facebook post by Sarah Palin (I love her common sense talk as much as I liked Reagan's). Can our government drop any further in their rhetoric? Equating the Arizona Law with China's record on human rights - I keep waiting for Robin Williams to come out in his Aladdin genie costume and say, "Just kidding guys!" Sadly, that's not happening.
ARTICLE:
Today at 10:18am
On Fox News this morning, State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley became the third Obama administration official in short succession to admit that he hadn’t actually bothered to read Arizona’s 10-page long “secure the border” bill before condemning it and criticizing Americans who support Arizona’s necessary efforts to do the job the Obama Administration should be doing. Crowley’s statement follows similar admissions from Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.
At first blush this revelation seemed unbelievable, but maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. This now seems “the Washington way” of doing things. If the party in power tells us they have to pass bills in order to find out what’s actually in them, they can also criticize bills (and divide the country with ensuing rhetoric) without actually reading them.
Still I can’t help but feel outraged on behalf of Arizona’s citizens for the incompetence shown by these Administration officials. Arizonans have the courage to do what the Obama administration has failed to do in its first year and a half in office – namely secure our border and enforce our federal laws. And as a result, Arizonans have been subjected to a campaign of baseless accusations by the same people who freely admit they haven’t a clue about what they’re actually campaigning against.
The absolute low point of this campaign came last Friday, when a U.S. State Department delegation met with Chinese negotiators to discuss human rights. Apparently, our State Department felt it necessary to make their Chinese guests feel less bad about their own record of human rights abuses by repeatedly atoning for American “sins” – including, it seems, the Arizona immigration/pro-border security law. Asked if Arizona came up at all during the meeting, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner answered:
“We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.”
Note that he said “We brought it up” – not the Chinese, but the U.S. State Department’s own delegation. Instead of grilling the Chinese about their appalling record on human rights, the State Department continued the unbelievable apology tour by raising “early and often” Arizona’s decision to secure our border.
Arizona’s law, which just mirrors the federal law, simply allows the police to ask those whom they have already stopped for some form of identification like a driver’s license. By what absurd stretch of the imagination is that the moral equivalent of China’s lack of freedoms, population controls (including forced abortions), censorship, and arbitrary detentions?
Surely our U.S. Ambassador to China, John Huntsman, must disagree with the Obama Administration’s continued apology tour? We have nothing to apologize for. If Administration officials want to apologize to anyone, apologize to the American people for the fact that after a year and a half in office, they still haven’t done anything to secure our borders, and they join our President in making false suggestions about Arizona’s effort.
- Sarah Palin
COMMENT: I'm quickly reaching the boiling point with our leaders reaching conclusions and condemning people without first getting the facts. How many times has this happened already with this Administration? "Shooting from the hip" only works if your gun is loaded with common sense, but the Obama Administration's pistols are loaded with blanks --- a lot of noise, but no substance.
ARTICLE:
Today at 10:18am
On Fox News this morning, State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley became the third Obama administration official in short succession to admit that he hadn’t actually bothered to read Arizona’s 10-page long “secure the border” bill before condemning it and criticizing Americans who support Arizona’s necessary efforts to do the job the Obama Administration should be doing. Crowley’s statement follows similar admissions from Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.
At first blush this revelation seemed unbelievable, but maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. This now seems “the Washington way” of doing things. If the party in power tells us they have to pass bills in order to find out what’s actually in them, they can also criticize bills (and divide the country with ensuing rhetoric) without actually reading them.
Still I can’t help but feel outraged on behalf of Arizona’s citizens for the incompetence shown by these Administration officials. Arizonans have the courage to do what the Obama administration has failed to do in its first year and a half in office – namely secure our border and enforce our federal laws. And as a result, Arizonans have been subjected to a campaign of baseless accusations by the same people who freely admit they haven’t a clue about what they’re actually campaigning against.
The absolute low point of this campaign came last Friday, when a U.S. State Department delegation met with Chinese negotiators to discuss human rights. Apparently, our State Department felt it necessary to make their Chinese guests feel less bad about their own record of human rights abuses by repeatedly atoning for American “sins” – including, it seems, the Arizona immigration/pro-border security law. Asked if Arizona came up at all during the meeting, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner answered:
“We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.”
Note that he said “We brought it up” – not the Chinese, but the U.S. State Department’s own delegation. Instead of grilling the Chinese about their appalling record on human rights, the State Department continued the unbelievable apology tour by raising “early and often” Arizona’s decision to secure our border.
Arizona’s law, which just mirrors the federal law, simply allows the police to ask those whom they have already stopped for some form of identification like a driver’s license. By what absurd stretch of the imagination is that the moral equivalent of China’s lack of freedoms, population controls (including forced abortions), censorship, and arbitrary detentions?
Surely our U.S. Ambassador to China, John Huntsman, must disagree with the Obama Administration’s continued apology tour? We have nothing to apologize for. If Administration officials want to apologize to anyone, apologize to the American people for the fact that after a year and a half in office, they still haven’t done anything to secure our borders, and they join our President in making false suggestions about Arizona’s effort.
- Sarah Palin
COMMENT: I'm quickly reaching the boiling point with our leaders reaching conclusions and condemning people without first getting the facts. How many times has this happened already with this Administration? "Shooting from the hip" only works if your gun is loaded with common sense, but the Obama Administration's pistols are loaded with blanks --- a lot of noise, but no substance.
A Peek Under Obama's Pile of Pebbles
COMMENT: You all know my "pebble" mantra regarding Obama's "fundamental change in America." As I'd thought previously, he used some of those pebbles to bury his true beliefs and ideologies. Don't just read this to get Jeremiah Wright's statement, but read the entire article closely - some good insight into Obama's past ties and possible loyalties (I've ITALICIZED and BOLDED what I consider to be the real interesting points).
ARTICLE
By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer Larry Neumeister, Associated Press Writer – Tue May 18, 4:03 am ET
NEW YORK – The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's controversial former pastor, said in a letter obtained by The Associated Press that he is "toxic" to the Obama administration and that the president "threw me under the bus."
In his strongest language to date about the administration's 2-year-old rift with the Chicago pastor, Wright told a group raising money for African relief that his pleas to release frozen funds for use in earthquake-ravaged Haiti would likely be ignored.
"No one in the Obama administration will respond to me, listen to me, talk to me or read anything that I write to them. I am 'toxic' in terms of the Obama administration," Wright wrote the president of Africa 6000 International earlier this year.
"I am 'radioactive,' Sir. When Obama threw me under the bus, he threw me under the bus literally!" he wrote. "Any advice that I offer is going to be taken as something to be avoided. Please understand that!"
The White House didn't respond to requests for comment Monday about Wright's remarks. Several phone messages left by the AP for Wright at the Trinity United Church of Christ, where he is listed as a pastor emeritus, were not returned. Wright's spokeswoman, his daughter Jeri Wright, did not immediately comment on the substance of the letter.
Then-Sen. Obama cut ties with Wright when his more incendiary remarks became an Internet sensation in the spring of 2008. At a National Press Club appearance in April 2008, he claimed the U.S. government could plant AIDS in the black community, praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and suggested Obama was putting his pastor at arm's length for political purposes while privately agreeing with him.
Obama denounced Wright as "divisive and destructive" and later cut ties to the pastor altogether and left Wright's church.
The letter was sent Feb. 18 to Joseph Prischak, the president of Africa 6000 International in Erie, Pa. Wright subsequently agreed to write a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the group's behalf to try to get access to millions of dollars.
Wright's original letter ranting against Obama's treatment of him surfaced in an appeal filed by federal inmate Arthur Morrison, boxing great Muhammad Ali's one-time manager, who was convicted of making phone threats.
Charles Lofton, Wright's executive assistant, told The Associated Press that he faxed a copy of the letter to Morrison's attorney as requested. A copy of the faxed letter signed by Wright showed that it was sent from the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago on March 31 to the fax number for Goodwin's law office in Tulsa, Okla.
Prischak, of Africa 6000 International, is a business partner of Morrison, who has been imprisoned for nearly 18 years after he was convicted of making phone threats between 1989 to 1992 to hospitals where an ex-girlfriend worked.
Prischak told Wright in a Feb. 11 letter that he was seeking the clergyman's help in reaching out to the U.S. Treasury Department. He said that Uday Hussein, the son of Saddam Hussein, had entrusted 87 million British pounds in 1990 to Morrison and Ali to buy pharmaceuticals, milk and food for the children of Iraq.
Prischak said the money was never spent because Morrison was imprisoned. He sought Wright's help in lobbying U.S. authorities to permit 25 million British pounds in interest from the money held in an overseas account to be allowed to be sent to faith-based groups for the children of Haiti.
COMMENT:
What is it going to take for all Americans to wake up and see the ties, alliances, and allegiance of our current President? Why is it unimportant to so many? Remember the old saying, "You're known by the company you keep," why does Obama have a Teflon suit?
ARTICLE
By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer Larry Neumeister, Associated Press Writer – Tue May 18, 4:03 am ET
NEW YORK – The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's controversial former pastor, said in a letter obtained by The Associated Press that he is "toxic" to the Obama administration and that the president "threw me under the bus."
In his strongest language to date about the administration's 2-year-old rift with the Chicago pastor, Wright told a group raising money for African relief that his pleas to release frozen funds for use in earthquake-ravaged Haiti would likely be ignored.
"No one in the Obama administration will respond to me, listen to me, talk to me or read anything that I write to them. I am 'toxic' in terms of the Obama administration," Wright wrote the president of Africa 6000 International earlier this year.
"I am 'radioactive,' Sir. When Obama threw me under the bus, he threw me under the bus literally!" he wrote. "Any advice that I offer is going to be taken as something to be avoided. Please understand that!"
The White House didn't respond to requests for comment Monday about Wright's remarks. Several phone messages left by the AP for Wright at the Trinity United Church of Christ, where he is listed as a pastor emeritus, were not returned. Wright's spokeswoman, his daughter Jeri Wright, did not immediately comment on the substance of the letter.
Then-Sen. Obama cut ties with Wright when his more incendiary remarks became an Internet sensation in the spring of 2008. At a National Press Club appearance in April 2008, he claimed the U.S. government could plant AIDS in the black community, praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and suggested Obama was putting his pastor at arm's length for political purposes while privately agreeing with him.
Obama denounced Wright as "divisive and destructive" and later cut ties to the pastor altogether and left Wright's church.
The letter was sent Feb. 18 to Joseph Prischak, the president of Africa 6000 International in Erie, Pa. Wright subsequently agreed to write a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the group's behalf to try to get access to millions of dollars.
Wright's original letter ranting against Obama's treatment of him surfaced in an appeal filed by federal inmate Arthur Morrison, boxing great Muhammad Ali's one-time manager, who was convicted of making phone threats.
Charles Lofton, Wright's executive assistant, told The Associated Press that he faxed a copy of the letter to Morrison's attorney as requested. A copy of the faxed letter signed by Wright showed that it was sent from the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago on March 31 to the fax number for Goodwin's law office in Tulsa, Okla.
Prischak, of Africa 6000 International, is a business partner of Morrison, who has been imprisoned for nearly 18 years after he was convicted of making phone threats between 1989 to 1992 to hospitals where an ex-girlfriend worked.
Prischak told Wright in a Feb. 11 letter that he was seeking the clergyman's help in reaching out to the U.S. Treasury Department. He said that Uday Hussein, the son of Saddam Hussein, had entrusted 87 million British pounds in 1990 to Morrison and Ali to buy pharmaceuticals, milk and food for the children of Iraq.
Prischak said the money was never spent because Morrison was imprisoned. He sought Wright's help in lobbying U.S. authorities to permit 25 million British pounds in interest from the money held in an overseas account to be allowed to be sent to faith-based groups for the children of Haiti.
COMMENT:
What is it going to take for all Americans to wake up and see the ties, alliances, and allegiance of our current President? Why is it unimportant to so many? Remember the old saying, "You're known by the company you keep," why does Obama have a Teflon suit?
Monday, May 17, 2010
AZ SB1070 - Perfect Analogy
COMMENT: Analogies are very often useful to get people to understand your position. I would very much like all opponents to Arizona's bill to read this analogy.
ARTICLE:
If you had tickets to a sports event, concert, Disneyland , or on an airplane, and when you got to your assigned seat, and someone else was in that seat, what would you do? You would call for a person in charge of ticket checking and have the person in your seat removed. You would be properly asked to show your ticket, and you would gladly and proudly do so, for you have bought and paid for that seat. The person in your seat would also be asked for a ticket, and they would not be able to produce one. They would be called “gate crashers” and they would be properly removed.
Now in this huge stadium called the USA we have had millions of gate crashers. We have been asking security to check for tickets and remove the gate crashers. We have been asking security to have better controls in checking at the door. We have asked security to lock the back doors. Security has failed us. They are still looking the other way. They are afraid to ask to see the tickets. Many people say there is unlimited seating, and whether there is or not, no one should be allowed in for free while the rest of us pay full price!
In section AZ, of Stadium USA , we have had enough of the failures of Security. We have decided to do our own ticket checking, and properly remove those who do not have tickets. Now it seems very strange to me that so many people in the other 49 sections, and even many in our own section do not want tickets checked, or even be asked to show their ticket! Even the head of Security is chastising us, while not doing his own job which he has sworn to do.
My own ticket has been bought and paid for so I am going to proudly show it when asked to do so. I have a right to my seat, and I want the gate crashers to be asked to show their tickets too. The only reason that I can imagine anyone objecting to being asked for their ticket is that they are in favor of gate crashing, and all of the illegal activities that go with it. Such as drug smuggling, gang wars, murder, human smuggling for profit, and many more illegal and inhumane acts that we are trying to prevent with our new legislation. Is that what I am hearing from all of the protestors such as Phoenix Mayor Gordon, US Rep. Grijalva, even President Obama? If you are not in favor of showing tickets, (proof of citizenship, passport, green card, or other legal document) when asked, as I would proudly do, then you must be condoning those illegal activities.
Tom Moody
United States citizen
Globe Arizona
ARTICLE:
If you had tickets to a sports event, concert, Disneyland , or on an airplane, and when you got to your assigned seat, and someone else was in that seat, what would you do? You would call for a person in charge of ticket checking and have the person in your seat removed. You would be properly asked to show your ticket, and you would gladly and proudly do so, for you have bought and paid for that seat. The person in your seat would also be asked for a ticket, and they would not be able to produce one. They would be called “gate crashers” and they would be properly removed.
Now in this huge stadium called the USA we have had millions of gate crashers. We have been asking security to check for tickets and remove the gate crashers. We have been asking security to have better controls in checking at the door. We have asked security to lock the back doors. Security has failed us. They are still looking the other way. They are afraid to ask to see the tickets. Many people say there is unlimited seating, and whether there is or not, no one should be allowed in for free while the rest of us pay full price!
In section AZ, of Stadium USA , we have had enough of the failures of Security. We have decided to do our own ticket checking, and properly remove those who do not have tickets. Now it seems very strange to me that so many people in the other 49 sections, and even many in our own section do not want tickets checked, or even be asked to show their ticket! Even the head of Security is chastising us, while not doing his own job which he has sworn to do.
My own ticket has been bought and paid for so I am going to proudly show it when asked to do so. I have a right to my seat, and I want the gate crashers to be asked to show their tickets too. The only reason that I can imagine anyone objecting to being asked for their ticket is that they are in favor of gate crashing, and all of the illegal activities that go with it. Such as drug smuggling, gang wars, murder, human smuggling for profit, and many more illegal and inhumane acts that we are trying to prevent with our new legislation. Is that what I am hearing from all of the protestors such as Phoenix Mayor Gordon, US Rep. Grijalva, even President Obama? If you are not in favor of showing tickets, (proof of citizenship, passport, green card, or other legal document) when asked, as I would proudly do, then you must be condoning those illegal activities.
Tom Moody
United States citizen
Globe Arizona
The Truth Is Offensive?
Have you heard the latest on Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan? In response to all of the lesbian questions surrounding her nomination, with several former classmates, colleagues, and roommates speaking out for and against her, she remains silent on the subject except to say, "I reject heterosexual labels to avoid offending gays." CBS News reported last week that she was gay, but no refutable proof has surfaced either way.
My concerns don't revolve around whether she is, or is not, a lesbian. My fear is having a Supreme Court Justice who refuses to stand up and make a statement of fact for fear of offending a group. How has our country arrived at this point? How can a nominee even be considered for a position in our "pillars of justice" and at the pinnacle of our legal system who refuses to make a statement regarding her personal preference? Is it clear she has extreme bias for a specific group in the U.S.? Ummm, yep. Is it clear she will not be able to reach an unbiased ruling regarding a specific group? Ummm, yep. Should she recuse herself from further consideration because of a clear bias in numerous cases she will probably sit on? Ummm, yep.
"I'm heterosexual." There, I've said it. Have I offended anyone? Has the heterosexual world stood up and cheered because I made this statement? Are the gays in West Hollywood pouring into the streets in protest? If I screamed this statement over the airwaves, would it be offensive to anyone? The answer is, "It shouldn't be." It's a simple statement of fact, not meant to be inflammatory; not derogatory or judgmental toward any group; not a condemnation of a lifestyle I don't share. It's simply a personal opinion utterance.
At this critical time in our country, we need courageous leaders. We need people of integrity and conviction in positions of leadership. We need people who will stand up for what they believe in without fear of being politically correct to a fault.
Failure to have this kind of leadership was evident during the last presidential campaign where many questions went unasked for fear of the "race card" being pulled - the electoral effect was devastating. We needed courage from the Republican party to ask the tough questions and not cease until answers were provided. Instead, we had a "tip-toe around the real concerns" campaign and two years later the questions remain.
Obama's citizenship, faith, legal proceedings records, affiliations, associations, and character should have been vigorously explored to the public's satisfaction before he ever took the oath of office. They weren't asked because of the "PC Cloud" looming over the Republican head. To coin a WWII phrase, it's time to "Damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead!"
I pray it's not too late for this country to recover from that lack of courage. Unfortunately, it seems history is repeating itself with our Supreme Court.
My concerns don't revolve around whether she is, or is not, a lesbian. My fear is having a Supreme Court Justice who refuses to stand up and make a statement of fact for fear of offending a group. How has our country arrived at this point? How can a nominee even be considered for a position in our "pillars of justice" and at the pinnacle of our legal system who refuses to make a statement regarding her personal preference? Is it clear she has extreme bias for a specific group in the U.S.? Ummm, yep. Is it clear she will not be able to reach an unbiased ruling regarding a specific group? Ummm, yep. Should she recuse herself from further consideration because of a clear bias in numerous cases she will probably sit on? Ummm, yep.
"I'm heterosexual." There, I've said it. Have I offended anyone? Has the heterosexual world stood up and cheered because I made this statement? Are the gays in West Hollywood pouring into the streets in protest? If I screamed this statement over the airwaves, would it be offensive to anyone? The answer is, "It shouldn't be." It's a simple statement of fact, not meant to be inflammatory; not derogatory or judgmental toward any group; not a condemnation of a lifestyle I don't share. It's simply a personal opinion utterance.
At this critical time in our country, we need courageous leaders. We need people of integrity and conviction in positions of leadership. We need people who will stand up for what they believe in without fear of being politically correct to a fault.
Failure to have this kind of leadership was evident during the last presidential campaign where many questions went unasked for fear of the "race card" being pulled - the electoral effect was devastating. We needed courage from the Republican party to ask the tough questions and not cease until answers were provided. Instead, we had a "tip-toe around the real concerns" campaign and two years later the questions remain.
Obama's citizenship, faith, legal proceedings records, affiliations, associations, and character should have been vigorously explored to the public's satisfaction before he ever took the oath of office. They weren't asked because of the "PC Cloud" looming over the Republican head. To coin a WWII phrase, it's time to "Damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead!"
I pray it's not too late for this country to recover from that lack of courage. Unfortunately, it seems history is repeating itself with our Supreme Court.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Another "Obama Pebble"
COMMENT: Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan has never been a judge. This bothers me on many levels, chief of which is simply the lack of judicial experience (that is, after all, the job she's being nominated to do). Also troubling is the sense that she is a very opinionated individual, and one who has already strongly voiced her disdain for many moral policies in the U.S. It almost feels as if she is coming from another country and her vision is to change America to her way of thinking.
That is EXACTLY what we DON'T need in a Supreme Court Justice. The job is to meticulously, correctly interpret the letter of the law as it applies to the case before them, NOT to rule based on what they think is good and right for America; that's the job of our elected officials (although they are woefully failing at present). There have already been far too many Justices who incorrectly interpret their role in government as policy-making.
Unfortunately, even our President seems to think that a Supreme Court Justice's job goes beyond this. On May 26, 2009, in his nomination speech of Sotomayor, he stated:
"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court."
Is compassion a necessary and required trait of an effective judge? Isn't that the opposite of what a judge must do? How difficult it must be for a judge to have to consistently rule and pass sentence on people when he knows the impact it will have on their lives and those of their mostly innocent families. Should he exercise compassion and tailor the law to fit the situation? NO!!! That is the job of the other branches of government.
Our forefathers were very careful to establish three separate arms of government to safeguard against exactly this. At issue now is that her confirmation would place two of those arms (Executive and Judicial) strongly in favor of this "fundamental change of America." Our only hope is that the safeguarding balance of power envisioned by the framers of the Constitution will save the day as the Legislative branch fails to confirm her as our next Supreme Court Justice.
ARTICLE:
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 5/10/2010 9:30:00 AM
President Barack Obama has nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, saying she will demonstrate independence, integrity, and passion for the law. If confirmed by the Senate, Kagan will become the third woman on the high court. Obama introduced her Monday in the White House's East Room. He called her "my friend" and one of the nation's foremost legal minds.
Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University Law School, is opposed to Kagan partly because she has never been a judge and has limited experience in practicing law. And there are other reasons, he says.
"[I'm opposed] because I think her judicial philosophy is one of an activist, particularly of a transnationalist that wants to use foreign law to interpret our own domestic law," Staver explains, adding that she is "very much in favor of the homosexual agenda and very capable of bringing consensus among a diverse group of people."
Kagan now goes through the committee hearing to a Senate vote -- and Staver tells OneNewsNow that it should not be a rubber-stamp process.
Matt Staver"There's no question that these issues ought to be brought out," the attorney advises. "Obviously the issue of her judicial philosophy and her lack of experience are major concerns -- and all of those need to be brought out during these confirmation hearings.
"Those are significant reasons to not confirm this nomination," he concludes.
Staver recalls an incident while Kagan headed Harvard Law School when she barred the ROTC from the campus because of military policies on homosexuals. He says Kagan has tried to be quiet about the issue of abortion, but has been very vocal on the issue of homosexuality.
COMMENT: Interestingly, the incident at the Harvard Law School eventually came before the Supreme Court, in March 2006, and the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously, 8-0, against FAIR (Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights). I believe that shows just how out of touch she is with reality regarding the constraints and parameters of the legal system. By the way, my source for the Supreme Court story was ABC News.
That is EXACTLY what we DON'T need in a Supreme Court Justice. The job is to meticulously, correctly interpret the letter of the law as it applies to the case before them, NOT to rule based on what they think is good and right for America; that's the job of our elected officials (although they are woefully failing at present). There have already been far too many Justices who incorrectly interpret their role in government as policy-making.
Unfortunately, even our President seems to think that a Supreme Court Justice's job goes beyond this. On May 26, 2009, in his nomination speech of Sotomayor, he stated:
"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court."
Is compassion a necessary and required trait of an effective judge? Isn't that the opposite of what a judge must do? How difficult it must be for a judge to have to consistently rule and pass sentence on people when he knows the impact it will have on their lives and those of their mostly innocent families. Should he exercise compassion and tailor the law to fit the situation? NO!!! That is the job of the other branches of government.
Our forefathers were very careful to establish three separate arms of government to safeguard against exactly this. At issue now is that her confirmation would place two of those arms (Executive and Judicial) strongly in favor of this "fundamental change of America." Our only hope is that the safeguarding balance of power envisioned by the framers of the Constitution will save the day as the Legislative branch fails to confirm her as our next Supreme Court Justice.
ARTICLE:
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 5/10/2010 9:30:00 AM
President Barack Obama has nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, saying she will demonstrate independence, integrity, and passion for the law. If confirmed by the Senate, Kagan will become the third woman on the high court. Obama introduced her Monday in the White House's East Room. He called her "my friend" and one of the nation's foremost legal minds.
Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University Law School, is opposed to Kagan partly because she has never been a judge and has limited experience in practicing law. And there are other reasons, he says.
"[I'm opposed] because I think her judicial philosophy is one of an activist, particularly of a transnationalist that wants to use foreign law to interpret our own domestic law," Staver explains, adding that she is "very much in favor of the homosexual agenda and very capable of bringing consensus among a diverse group of people."
Kagan now goes through the committee hearing to a Senate vote -- and Staver tells OneNewsNow that it should not be a rubber-stamp process.
Matt Staver"There's no question that these issues ought to be brought out," the attorney advises. "Obviously the issue of her judicial philosophy and her lack of experience are major concerns -- and all of those need to be brought out during these confirmation hearings.
"Those are significant reasons to not confirm this nomination," he concludes.
Staver recalls an incident while Kagan headed Harvard Law School when she barred the ROTC from the campus because of military policies on homosexuals. He says Kagan has tried to be quiet about the issue of abortion, but has been very vocal on the issue of homosexuality.
COMMENT: Interestingly, the incident at the Harvard Law School eventually came before the Supreme Court, in March 2006, and the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously, 8-0, against FAIR (Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights). I believe that shows just how out of touch she is with reality regarding the constraints and parameters of the legal system. By the way, my source for the Supreme Court story was ABC News.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
What Happened To Greece?
According to an article in the New York Post: "The Greek government, with its high taxes and profligate spending to support large bureaucracies and social programs, is bankrupt."
COMMENT: With intelligent people knowing that history repeats itself, is anyone in America worried? Under the Obama Administration, are there any parallels to this? Hmmmmm........
COMMENT: With intelligent people knowing that history repeats itself, is anyone in America worried? Under the Obama Administration, are there any parallels to this? Hmmmmm........
Chicken Quip Grounds High-Flying Senate Candidate
COMMENT: In a nutshell, this is what's wrong with politics in America today - when the American voter is so fickle that one comment can drastically alter the electability of a candidate, it's a sad day for America. When a simple statement of fact can be misconstrued, taken out of context, and twisted to paint a candidate in a negative light, it's a sad day for America. When a failing campaign supporting a failing incumbent can get their second wind by derailing the issues in such a way, it's a sad day for America.
Sadly, this is exactly how many aspects of America are going these days - from politics to courtrooms to civil rights to religious beliefs to.....America's demise.
ARTICLE:
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD and SANDRA CHEREB, Associated Press Writers Michael R. Blood And Sandra Chereb, Associated Press Writers – Fri May 7, 9:01 pm ET
CARSON CITY, Nev. – Right wing, left wing, chicken wing. Suddenly Nevada politics is all about chickens — bad news for the Republican Senate front-runner but a ray of hope for struggling Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid.
Sue Lowden recently suggested bartering with doctors for medical care — "our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor." The line from the millionaire casino executive and former beauty queen immediately became a late-night joke and YouTube sensation, and upended a GOP race that had been hers to lose.
Democrats set up a website, "Chickens for Checkups," and dispatched a volunteer in a chicken suit to one of her fundraisers. GOP rival Danny Tarkanian circulated a video of her comments and asked if she were the best candidate to take on Reid.
Early voting begins May 22 for the June 8 primary and the inevitability that was building around Lowden's candidacy has eroded as others in the field of 12 Republicans sense an opening.
And somewhere Reid is cackling.
The Senate majority leader is considered one of the most vulnerable incumbents, struggling with low approval ratings in a state that's reeling economically from an unemployment rate of 13.4 percent — well above the national average — and the highest home foreclosure rate in the nation. Infighting among Republicans and the possibility that Lowden could emerge from the crowded primary as a scuffed-up winner would be a blessing for Reid.
"If the November race is about Harry Reid, Republicans win. If it's not about Harry Reid, it's a flip of the coin," said Ryan Erwin, senior adviser to John Chachas, a Wall Street banker who returned to his native state to enter the Republican race.
NOTE: For remainder of article, visit ATT.net news.
COMMENT: And what's truly sad is that politics can pander to a public whose intelligence level allows them to be swayed by such a misrepresentation of the message (along with ignorance of our history) and end up with the majority of votes. Wake up and wise up America!
Sadly, this is exactly how many aspects of America are going these days - from politics to courtrooms to civil rights to religious beliefs to.....America's demise.
ARTICLE:
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD and SANDRA CHEREB, Associated Press Writers Michael R. Blood And Sandra Chereb, Associated Press Writers – Fri May 7, 9:01 pm ET
CARSON CITY, Nev. – Right wing, left wing, chicken wing. Suddenly Nevada politics is all about chickens — bad news for the Republican Senate front-runner but a ray of hope for struggling Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid.
Sue Lowden recently suggested bartering with doctors for medical care — "our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor." The line from the millionaire casino executive and former beauty queen immediately became a late-night joke and YouTube sensation, and upended a GOP race that had been hers to lose.
Democrats set up a website, "Chickens for Checkups," and dispatched a volunteer in a chicken suit to one of her fundraisers. GOP rival Danny Tarkanian circulated a video of her comments and asked if she were the best candidate to take on Reid.
Early voting begins May 22 for the June 8 primary and the inevitability that was building around Lowden's candidacy has eroded as others in the field of 12 Republicans sense an opening.
And somewhere Reid is cackling.
The Senate majority leader is considered one of the most vulnerable incumbents, struggling with low approval ratings in a state that's reeling economically from an unemployment rate of 13.4 percent — well above the national average — and the highest home foreclosure rate in the nation. Infighting among Republicans and the possibility that Lowden could emerge from the crowded primary as a scuffed-up winner would be a blessing for Reid.
"If the November race is about Harry Reid, Republicans win. If it's not about Harry Reid, it's a flip of the coin," said Ryan Erwin, senior adviser to John Chachas, a Wall Street banker who returned to his native state to enter the Republican race.
NOTE: For remainder of article, visit ATT.net news.
COMMENT: And what's truly sad is that politics can pander to a public whose intelligence level allows them to be swayed by such a misrepresentation of the message (along with ignorance of our history) and end up with the majority of votes. Wake up and wise up America!
Saturday, May 8, 2010
John Rich Responds to Alleged Anti-Gay Remarks Made to Chely Wright
COMMENT: Okay, I stated in my purpose statement that this blog is not all about politics, but rather how events affect the country I love. My opinion is that Chely Wright "came out" to help sell her book - to be a hot topic. She seems to be screaming for tolerance and understanding of who she is while displaying nothing but intolerance and blame for someone with an opposing view. I've included the entire article below, but the part that really bothers me is the last paragraph. Read the rest of the article if you like, but my comments following it will be focused on that last paragraph.
John Rich has responded to a story told by Chely Wright in her new book, 'Like Me,' that some might argue paints him in a very unflattering light. Chely, who recently came out to PEOPLE, tells 'Access Hollywood' that when John (with whom she had performed in an Opryland show years ago) asked her point blank if she was gay, she lied to avoid embarrassment.
"[John] said, 'You're not gay are you?'" Chely recalls. "I said, 'No, John, I'm not.' He said, 'Good, thank God.' And that began a spiral for me ... I had a meltdown shortly after that."
Chely revealed to 'Today' that she nearly committed suicide over the secret life she was living, admitting that she "had a 9 millimeter gun in my mouth."
John is now offering his apologies for a conversation he insists was misconstrued. "I would never pass judgment on any friend of mine," John tells 'Access Hollywood.' "I feel awful that, at this time in Chely's life, my decade old comment -- 'Good, thank God' -- was taken the wrong way. I was clumsily trying to express my relief that even a country boy like me had a one-in-a-million chance of having a beer with a woman as talented and attractive as Chely."
But Chely also claims that during this same conversation, John called homosexuality "sick ... deviant ... and unacceptable to country music fans," though it's not clear whether he was expressing his own opinion or warning her of what many country fans would think if she were to come out. Regardless, John is questioning the timing of Chely's re-telling of the story.
"For years after that conversation, Chely invited me to perform at charity events," he says. "In all that time, I wish she would have said something directly to me before the book's publicity tour, especially since some of the comments attributed to me in the book are not mine. But I am happy for her and only wish her the best in her personal and professional life."
Chely isn't buying his explanation completely, though, partly due to John's history of expressing his conservative views on homosexuality. Back in 2007, he made remarks opposing gay marriage on a Nashville-based talk radio show ... comments met with bad publicity and outcry from the gay community. Chely doubts he's changed his tune since then and questions his apology. "I think he sees what it feels like to take on the gays, and he didn't like it," she tells EW.com. "And I think he may not want to take this on. So he may say, 'Um, I love Chely. I can love the sinner, hate the sin.' He may say that. I don't have to believe it."
COMMENT: I find if almost comical that she places so much weight on his comments while totally glossing over the fact that she lied and wasn't adult enough to be honest when asked point-blank.
However, what bothers me most about this statement is that it clearly shows how Judeo-Christian beliefs are being met with intolerance, abuse, and outrage. Why must someone receive so much bad publicity and outcry for stating one's views? Our society is moving quickly from a position of tolerance to one of "openly embrace my view or be ostracized." Are we, as a society, moving forward? How much different is this reaction from the racists back in the 70s who ostracized people for stating their views supporting equal rights for Blacks?
The only difference I see is that the "good ole boys" have been replaced with the "Godless ole boys."
John Rich has responded to a story told by Chely Wright in her new book, 'Like Me,' that some might argue paints him in a very unflattering light. Chely, who recently came out to PEOPLE, tells 'Access Hollywood' that when John (with whom she had performed in an Opryland show years ago) asked her point blank if she was gay, she lied to avoid embarrassment.
"[John] said, 'You're not gay are you?'" Chely recalls. "I said, 'No, John, I'm not.' He said, 'Good, thank God.' And that began a spiral for me ... I had a meltdown shortly after that."
Chely revealed to 'Today' that she nearly committed suicide over the secret life she was living, admitting that she "had a 9 millimeter gun in my mouth."
John is now offering his apologies for a conversation he insists was misconstrued. "I would never pass judgment on any friend of mine," John tells 'Access Hollywood.' "I feel awful that, at this time in Chely's life, my decade old comment -- 'Good, thank God' -- was taken the wrong way. I was clumsily trying to express my relief that even a country boy like me had a one-in-a-million chance of having a beer with a woman as talented and attractive as Chely."
But Chely also claims that during this same conversation, John called homosexuality "sick ... deviant ... and unacceptable to country music fans," though it's not clear whether he was expressing his own opinion or warning her of what many country fans would think if she were to come out. Regardless, John is questioning the timing of Chely's re-telling of the story.
"For years after that conversation, Chely invited me to perform at charity events," he says. "In all that time, I wish she would have said something directly to me before the book's publicity tour, especially since some of the comments attributed to me in the book are not mine. But I am happy for her and only wish her the best in her personal and professional life."
Chely isn't buying his explanation completely, though, partly due to John's history of expressing his conservative views on homosexuality. Back in 2007, he made remarks opposing gay marriage on a Nashville-based talk radio show ... comments met with bad publicity and outcry from the gay community. Chely doubts he's changed his tune since then and questions his apology. "I think he sees what it feels like to take on the gays, and he didn't like it," she tells EW.com. "And I think he may not want to take this on. So he may say, 'Um, I love Chely. I can love the sinner, hate the sin.' He may say that. I don't have to believe it."
COMMENT: I find if almost comical that she places so much weight on his comments while totally glossing over the fact that she lied and wasn't adult enough to be honest when asked point-blank.
However, what bothers me most about this statement is that it clearly shows how Judeo-Christian beliefs are being met with intolerance, abuse, and outrage. Why must someone receive so much bad publicity and outcry for stating one's views? Our society is moving quickly from a position of tolerance to one of "openly embrace my view or be ostracized." Are we, as a society, moving forward? How much different is this reaction from the racists back in the 70s who ostracized people for stating their views supporting equal rights for Blacks?
The only difference I see is that the "good ole boys" have been replaced with the "Godless ole boys."
Friday, May 7, 2010
Whatever Happened to the Hole in the Ozone Layer?
COMMENT: Interesting read and raises a question in my mind --- did banning aerosols truly help repair the hole in the ozone layer? Read the article, then I've got some questions/assertions/opinions/comments.
Stuart Fox
Life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer
LiveScience.com Stuart Fox
life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer
livescience.com – Thu May 6, 8:50 am ET
Three British scientists shocked the world when they revealed on May 16th, 1985 - 25 years ago - that aerosol chemicals, among other factors, had torn a hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole. The ozone layer, which protects life on Earth from damaging solar radiation, became an overnight sensation. And the hole in the ozone layer became the poster-child for mankind's impact on the planet.
Today, the ozone hole - actually a region of thinned ozone, not actually a pure hole - doesn't make headlines like it used to. The size of the hole has stabilized, thanks to decades of aerosol-banning legislation. But, scientists warn, some danger still remains.
First, the good news: Since the 1989 Montreal Protocol banned the use of ozone-depleting chemicals worldwide, the ozone hole has stopped growing. Additionally, the ozone layer is blocking more cancer-causing radiation than any time in a decade because its average thickness has increased, according to a 2006 United Nations report. Atmospheric levels of ozone-depleting chemicals have reached their lowest levels since peaking in the 1990s, and the hole has begun to shrink.
Now the bad news: The ozone layer has also thinned over the North Pole. This thinning is predicted to continue for the next 15 years due to weather-related phenomena that scientists still cannot fully explain, according to the same UN report . And, repairing the ozone hole over the South Pole will take longer than previously expected, and won't finish until between 2060 and 2075. Scientists now understand that the size of the ozone hole varies dramatically from year to year, which complicates attempts to accurately predict the hole's future size.
Interestingly, recent studies have shown that the size of the ozone hole affects the global temperature. Closing the ozone hole actually speeds up the melting of the polar ice caps, according to a 2009 study from Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.
So even though environmentally friendly laws have successfully reversed the trend of ozone depletion, the lingering effects of aerosol use, and the link between the ozone hole and global warming, virtually ensure that this problem will persist until the end of the century.
COMMENT: Okay, so the article seems to dispute itself several times which, to me, pretty much calls the "experts" assertions into question. First, the aerosol ban helped stabilize and close the ozone layer; secondly, another hole over the North Pole cannot be explained, but is possibly weather-related; thirdly, the layer at the South Pole changes dramatically from year to year; fourthly, closing the ozone layer may actually speed up global warming; BUT lastly, an assertion that "environmentally friendly laws have successfully reversed the trend..."
Could it be faulty logic tying the aerosol ban to the repair of the hole? Is there truly proof that banning aerosols fixed the hole? It seems more logical to me that holes in the ozone are cyclic and are the planet's own air conditioning system to regulate global temperatures. It also seems very clear to me that the experts really don't know, and are passing off intelligent guesses as matters of fact.
Here's another question --- How much of our current "global warming" problem is the result of banning aerosols? Sounds ludicrous on the surface, BUT what is the #1 indicator the global warming drum beaters use as proof --- melting polar ice, right? The only "expert" reason we've heard recently for the polar ice melt is CO2, am I right? So riddle me this...IF the ozone layer affects polar ice, AND if the ozone layer is a global A/C system, AND if we successfully changed the setting on that system with banning aerosols, THEN why is it now all about CO2? Granted, the "A/C" theory was my assertion, but supported by the "experts'" statement. What seems to happen every time man screws with Mother Nature?
I'm no expert, so anything I state here is pure conjecture and opinion based on what I read from the "experts." I do think there are questions that should be answered before the "experts" pass additional intelligent guesses off as fact to the public.
I think there are strong indications here that a political agenda is driving these assertions and professional opinions. I hate it when science and politics jump into the same bed. Hell, I hate when politics jumps into any bed.
Stuart Fox
Life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer
LiveScience.com Stuart Fox
life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer
livescience.com – Thu May 6, 8:50 am ET
Three British scientists shocked the world when they revealed on May 16th, 1985 - 25 years ago - that aerosol chemicals, among other factors, had torn a hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole. The ozone layer, which protects life on Earth from damaging solar radiation, became an overnight sensation. And the hole in the ozone layer became the poster-child for mankind's impact on the planet.
Today, the ozone hole - actually a region of thinned ozone, not actually a pure hole - doesn't make headlines like it used to. The size of the hole has stabilized, thanks to decades of aerosol-banning legislation. But, scientists warn, some danger still remains.
First, the good news: Since the 1989 Montreal Protocol banned the use of ozone-depleting chemicals worldwide, the ozone hole has stopped growing. Additionally, the ozone layer is blocking more cancer-causing radiation than any time in a decade because its average thickness has increased, according to a 2006 United Nations report. Atmospheric levels of ozone-depleting chemicals have reached their lowest levels since peaking in the 1990s, and the hole has begun to shrink.
Now the bad news: The ozone layer has also thinned over the North Pole. This thinning is predicted to continue for the next 15 years due to weather-related phenomena that scientists still cannot fully explain, according to the same UN report . And, repairing the ozone hole over the South Pole will take longer than previously expected, and won't finish until between 2060 and 2075. Scientists now understand that the size of the ozone hole varies dramatically from year to year, which complicates attempts to accurately predict the hole's future size.
Interestingly, recent studies have shown that the size of the ozone hole affects the global temperature. Closing the ozone hole actually speeds up the melting of the polar ice caps, according to a 2009 study from Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.
So even though environmentally friendly laws have successfully reversed the trend of ozone depletion, the lingering effects of aerosol use, and the link between the ozone hole and global warming, virtually ensure that this problem will persist until the end of the century.
COMMENT: Okay, so the article seems to dispute itself several times which, to me, pretty much calls the "experts" assertions into question. First, the aerosol ban helped stabilize and close the ozone layer; secondly, another hole over the North Pole cannot be explained, but is possibly weather-related; thirdly, the layer at the South Pole changes dramatically from year to year; fourthly, closing the ozone layer may actually speed up global warming; BUT lastly, an assertion that "environmentally friendly laws have successfully reversed the trend..."
Could it be faulty logic tying the aerosol ban to the repair of the hole? Is there truly proof that banning aerosols fixed the hole? It seems more logical to me that holes in the ozone are cyclic and are the planet's own air conditioning system to regulate global temperatures. It also seems very clear to me that the experts really don't know, and are passing off intelligent guesses as matters of fact.
Here's another question --- How much of our current "global warming" problem is the result of banning aerosols? Sounds ludicrous on the surface, BUT what is the #1 indicator the global warming drum beaters use as proof --- melting polar ice, right? The only "expert" reason we've heard recently for the polar ice melt is CO2, am I right? So riddle me this...IF the ozone layer affects polar ice, AND if the ozone layer is a global A/C system, AND if we successfully changed the setting on that system with banning aerosols, THEN why is it now all about CO2? Granted, the "A/C" theory was my assertion, but supported by the "experts'" statement. What seems to happen every time man screws with Mother Nature?
I'm no expert, so anything I state here is pure conjecture and opinion based on what I read from the "experts." I do think there are questions that should be answered before the "experts" pass additional intelligent guesses off as fact to the public.
I think there are strong indications here that a political agenda is driving these assertions and professional opinions. I hate it when science and politics jump into the same bed. Hell, I hate when politics jumps into any bed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)