Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all.
(WSJ)Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a "critical milestone," may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced. In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics. Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan "reform" and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be "universal coverage." The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. •The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run "exchanges" where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth. At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this "firewall"—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington. Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, "saving" about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that. • Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to "pay for" universal coverage. While Medicare's price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options. As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled. Even though the House will assume 91% of the "matching rate" for this joint state-federal program—up from today's 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington's budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes. • European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point "surcharge" on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won't have any difficulty sheltering their incomes. This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn't indexed for inflation. Yet it still won't be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they'll claim the deficits that they created made them do it. Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don't offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers' premiums, which eat into wages. Such "play or pay" taxes always become "pay or pay" and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states. Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit. • The insurance takeover. A new "health choices commissioner" will decide what counts as "essential benefits," which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history. The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa. The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as "private" health insurance. *** All of this is intentional, even if it isn't explicitly acknowledged. The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today. One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back "public option" entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further. As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine. Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.
Only 43% say they would vote to reelect President Obama while 48% say they would vote for someone else.
Harry Truman ended WW2 but did not win the peace prize. Gandhi freed India from Britain but he did not win the peace prize. Even Reagan urged the Berlin Wall to come down, again no peace prize. But Obama, Gore and Jimmy Carter have each won? Making speeches is not enough. Obama would have to do at least one of the following to be deserving of the prize: unify the two Koreas, end military rule in Burma, free Tibet, end military occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, end the genocide in Darfur, among many other potential peaceful measures. Giving Obama the prize now just a few months into Obama's presidency is irresponsible.
October 13, 2009 at 9pm Frontline on PBS has done a documentary on Afghanistan strategy on whether to increase troop levels or not as we all know President Obama back in March started a new strategy. As we all know PBS is a very left wing media organization, which supports everything this President does, this documentary does appear too be a little tough on how Obama has handled this Afghan war. I would encourage all of you to tune in tomorrow night. Because if you don't you will never hear about it in the left wing media.
Read his remarks from President Obama March 27, 2009
· "Good morning. Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review that I ordered as soon as I took office. My Administration has heard from our military commanders and diplomats. We have consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments; with our partners and NATO allies; and with other donors and international organizations. And we have also worked closely with members of Congress here at home. Now, I’d like to speak clearly and candidly to the American people.
The situation is increasingly perilous. It has been more than seven years since the Taliban was removed from power, yet war rages on, and insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Attacks against our troops, our NATO allies, and the Afghan government have risen steadily. Most painfully, 2008 was the deadliest year of the war for American forces.
Many people in the United States – and many in partner countries that have sacrificed so much – have a simple question: What is our purpose in Afghanistan? After so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? They deserve a straightforward answer.
So let me be clear: al Qaeda and its allies – the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks – are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.
The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan. In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al Qaeda and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al Qaeda’s leadership: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe-haven to hide, train terrorists, communicate with followers, plot attacks, and send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan. For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world.
But this is not simply an American problem – far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it – too – is likely to have ties to al Qaeda’s leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake.
For the Afghan people, a return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people – especially women and girls. The return in force of al Qaeda terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence.
As President, my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people. We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future. We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists.
So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you.
To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy. To focus on the greatest threat to our people, America must no longer deny resources to Afghanistan because of the war in Iraq. To enhance the military, governance, and economic capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have to marshal international support. And to defeat an enemy that heeds no borders or laws of war, we must recognize the fundamental connection between the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan – which is why I’ve appointed Ambassador Richard Holbrooke to serve as Special Representative for both countries, and to work closely with General David Petraeus to integrate our civilian and military efforts.
Let me start by addressing the way forward in Pakistan.
The United States has great respect for the Pakistani people. They have a rich history, and have struggled against long odds to sustain their democracy. The people of Pakistan want the same things that we want: an end to terror, access to basic services, the opportunity to live their dreams, and the security that can only come with the rule of law. The single greatest threat to that future comes from al Qaeda and their extremist allies, and that is why we must stand together.
The terrorists within Pakistan’s borders are not simply enemies of America or Afghanistan – they are a grave and urgent danger to the people of Pakistan. Al Qaeda and other violent extremists have killed several thousand Pakistanis since 9/11. They have killed many Pakistani soldiers and police. They assassinated Benazir Bhutto. They have blown up buildings, derailed foreign investment, and threatened the stability of the state. Make no mistake: al Qaeda and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within.
It is important for the American people to understand that Pakistan needs our help in going after al Qaeda. This is no simple task. The tribal regions are vast, rugged, and often ungoverned. That is why we must focus our military assistance on the tools, training and support that Pakistan needs to root out the terrorists. And after years of mixed results, we will not provide a blank check. Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al Qaeda and the violent extremists within its borders. And we will insist that action be taken – one way or another – when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets.
The government’s ability to destroy these safe-havens is tied to its own strength and security. To help Pakistan weather the economic crisis, we must continue to work with the IMF, the World Bank and other international partners. To lessen tensions between two nuclear-armed nations that too often teeter on the edge of escalation and confrontation, we must pursue constructive diplomacy with both India and Pakistan. To avoid the mistakes of the past, we must make clear that our relationship with Pakistan is grounded in support for Pakistan’s democratic institutions and the Pakistani people. And to demonstrate through deeds as well as words a commitment that is enduring, we must stand for lasting opportunity.
A campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone. Al Qaeda offers the people of Pakistan nothing but destruction. We stand for something different. So today, I am calling upon Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years – resources that will build schools, roads, and hospitals, and strengthen Pakistan’s democracy. I’m also calling on Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Maria Cantwell, Chris Van Hollen and Peter Hoekstra that creates opportunity zones in the border region to develop the economy and bring hope to places plagued by violence. And we will ask our friends and allies to do their part – including at the donors conference in Tokyo next month.
I do not ask for this support lightly. These are challenging times, and resources are stretched. But the American people must understand that this is a down payment on our own future – because the security of our two countries is shared. Pakistan’s government must be a stronger partner in destroying these safe-havens, and we must isolate al Qaeda from the Pakistani people.
These steps in Pakistan are also indispensable to our effort in Afghanistan, which will see no end to violence if insurgents move freely back and forth across the border.
Security demands a new sense of shared responsibility. That is why we will launch a standing, trilateral dialogue among the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Our nations will meet regularly, with Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates leading our effort. Together, we must enhance intelligence sharing and military cooperation along the border, while addressing issues of common concern like trade, energy, and economic development.
This is just one part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent Afghanistan from becoming the al Qaeda safe-haven that it was before 9/11. To succeed, we and our friends and allies must reverse the Taliban’s gains, and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government.
Our troops have fought bravely against a ruthless enemy. Our civilians have made great sacrifices. Our allies have borne a heavy burden. Afghans have suffered and sacrificed for their future. But for six years, Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq. Now, we must make a commitment that can accomplish our goals.
I have already ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops that had been requested by General McKiernan for many months. These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and east, and give us a greater capacity to partner with Afghan Security Forces and to go after insurgents along the border. This push will also help provide security in advance of the important presidential election in August.
At the same time, we will shift the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of Afghan Security Forces, so that they can eventually take the lead in securing their country. That is how we will prepare Afghans to take responsibility for their security, and how we will ultimately be able to bring our troops home.
For three years, our commanders have been clear about the resources they need for training. Those resources have been denied because of the war in Iraq. Now, that will change. The additional troops that we deployed have already increased our training capacity. Later this spring we will deploy approximately 4,000 U.S. troops to train Afghan Security Forces. For the first time, this will fully resource our effort to train and support the Afghan Army and Police. Every American unit in Afghanistan will be partnered with an Afghan unit, and we will seek additional trainers from our NATO allies to ensure that every Afghan unit has a coalition partner. We will accelerate our efforts to build an Afghan Army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000 so that we can meet these goals by 2011 – and increases in Afghan forces may very well be needed as our plans to turn over security responsibility to the Afghans go forward.
This push must be joined by a dramatic increase in our civilian effort. Afghanistan has an elected government, but it is undermined by corruption and has difficulty delivering basic services to its people. The economy is undercut by a booming narcotics trade that encourages criminality and funds the insurgency. The people of Afghanistan seek the promise of a better future. Yet once again, have seen the hope of a new day darkened by violence and uncertainty.
To advance security, opportunity, and justice – not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces – we need agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers. That is how we can help the Afghan government serve its people, and develop an economy that isn’t dominated by illicit drugs. That is why I am ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground. And that is why we must seek civilian support from our partners and allies, from the United Nations and international aid organizations – an effort that Secretary Clinton will carry forward next week in the Hague.
At a time of economic crisis, it is tempting to believe that we can short-change this civilian effort. But make no mistake: our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don’t invest in their future. That is why my budget includes indispensable investments in our State Department and foreign assistance programs. These investments relieve the burden on our troops. They contribute directly to security. They make the American people safer. And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run – because it is far cheaper to train a policeman to secure their village or to help a farmer seed a crop, than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility.
As we provide these resources, the days of unaccountable spending, no-bid contracts, and wasteful reconstruction must end. So my budget will increase funding for a strong Inspector General at both the State Department and USAID, and include robust funding for the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction.
And I want to be clear: we cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders. Instead, we will seek a new compact with the Afghan government that cracks down on corrupt behavior, and sets clear benchmarks for international assistance so that it is used to provide for the needs of the Afghan people.
In a country with extreme poverty that has been at war for decades, there will also be no peace without reconciliation among former enemies. I have no illusions that this will be easy. In Iraq, we had success in reaching out to former adversaries to isolate and target al Qaeda. We must pursue a similar process in Afghanistan, while understanding that it is a very different country.
There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated. But there are also those who have taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price. These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course. That is why we will work with local leaders, the Afghan government, and international partners to have a reconciliation process in every province. As their ranks dwindle, an enemy that has nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and repression must be further isolated. And we will continue to support the basic human rights of all Afghans – including women and girls.
Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable. We’ll consistently assess our efforts to train Afghan Security Forces, and our progress in combating insurgents. We will measure the growth of Afghanistan’s economy, and its illicit narcotics production. And we will review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress towards accomplishing our goals.
None of the steps that I have outlined will be easy, and none should be taken by America alone. The world cannot afford the price that will come due if Afghanistan slides back into chaos or al Qaeda operates unchecked. We have a shared responsibility to act – not because we seek to project power for its own sake, but because our own peace and security depends upon it. And what’s at stake now is not just our own security – it is the very idea that free nations can come together on behalf of our common security. That was the founding cause of NATO six decades ago. That must be our common purpose today.
My Administration is committed to strengthening international organizations and collective action, and that will be my message next week in Europe. As America does more, we will ask others to join us in doing their part. From our partners and NATO allies, we seek not simply troops, but rather clearly defined capabilities: supporting the Afghan elections, training Afghan Security Forces, and a greater civilian commitment to the Afghan people. For the United Nations, we seek greater progress for its mandate to coordinate international action and assistance, and to strengthen Afghan institutions. And finally, together with the United Nations, we will forge a new Contact Group for Afghanistan and Pakistan that brings together all who should have a stake in the security of the region – our NATO allies and other partners, but also the Central Asian states, the Gulf nations and Iran; Russia, India and China. None of these nations benefit from a base for al Qaeda terrorists, and a region that descends into chaos. All have a stake in the promise of lasting peace and security and development. That is true, above all, for the coalition that has fought together in Afghanistan, side by side with Afghans. The sacrifices have been enormous. Nearly 700 Americans have lost their lives. Troops from over twenty other countries have also paid the ultimate price. All Americans honor the service and cherish the friendship of those who have fought, and worked, and bled by our side. And all Americans are awed by the service of our own men and women in uniform, who have borne a burden as great as any other generation’s. They and their families embody the example of selfless sacrifice.
The United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives. Al Qaeda and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries. Most of the blood on their hands is the blood of Muslims, who al Qaeda has killed and maimed in far greater numbers than any other people. That is the future that al Qaeda is offering to the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan – a future without opportunity or hope; a future without justice or peace.
The road ahead will be long. There will be difficult days. But we will seek lasting partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan that serve the promise of a new day for their people. And we will use all elements of our national power to defeat al Qaeda, and to defend America, our allies, and all who seek a better future. Because the United States of America stands for peace and security, justice and opportunity. That is who we are, and that is what history calls on us to do once more.
Thank you, God Bless You, and God Bless the United States of America."
Times of London The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.
Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.
Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.
The pretext for the prize was Mr Obama’s decision to “strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Many people will point out that, while the President has indeed promised to “reset” relations with Russia and offer a fresh start to relations with the Muslim world, there is little so far to show for his fine words. East-West relations are little better than they were six months ago, and any change is probably due largely to the global economic downturn; and America’s vaunted determination to re-engage with the Muslim world has failed to make any concrete progress towards ending the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war in Afghanistan.
The spectacle of Mr Obama mounting the podium in Oslo to accept a prize that once went to Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Mother Theresa would be all the more absurd if it follows a White House decision to send up to 40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan. However just such a war may be deemed in Western eyes, Muslims would not be the only group to complain that peace is hardly compatible with an escalation in hostilities.
The Nobel committee has made controversial awards before. Some have appeared to reward hope rather than achievement: the 1976 prize for the two peace campaigners in Northern Ireland, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan, was clearly intended to send a signal to the two battling communities in Ulster. But the political influence of the two winners turned out, sadly, to be negligible.
In the Middle East, the award to Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of Egypt in 1978 also looks, in retrospect, as naive as the later award to Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin — although it could be argued that both the Camp David and Oslo accords, while not bringing peace, were at least attempts to break the deadlock.
Mr Obama’s prize is more likely, however, to be compared with the most contentious prize of all: the 1973 prize to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for their negotiations to end the Vietnam war. Dr Kissinger was branded a warmonger for his support for the bombing campaign in Cambodia; and the Vietnamese negotiator was subsequently seen as a liar whose government never intended to honour a peace deal but was waiting for the moment to attack South Vietnam.
Mr Obama becomes the third sitting US President to receive the prize. The committee said today that he had “captured the world’s attention”. It is certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many of his supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians that they can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The achievements of all previous winners have been diminished.
This could be a scandal of epic proportions and one that makes Nixon's Watergate or Clinton 's Monica Lewinsky affair pale by comparison. Why was there neither rhyme nor reason as to which dealerships of the Chrysler Corporation were to be closed? Roll the clock back to the weeks just before Chrysler declared bankruptcy. Chrysler, like GM, was in dire financial straights and federal government graciously offered to "buy the company" and keep them out of bankruptcy and "save jobs." Chrysler was, in the words of Obama and his administration, "Too big to fail," same story with GM.
The feds organized their "Automotive Task Force" to fix Chrysler and GM. Obama, in an act that is 100% unconstitutional, appointed a guy named Steve Rattner to be the White House's official Car Czar- literally, that's what his title is. Rattner is the liaison between Obama, Chrysler, and GM.
Initially, the national media reported that Chrysler had made this list of dealerships. That is not true. The Washington Examiner, Newsmax, Fox New and a host of other news agencies discovered that the list of dealerships was put together by the "Automotive Task Force" headed by no one other then Mr. Steve Rattner. Now the plot thickens. Remember earlier we said earlier that there was neither rhyme nor reason why certain dealerships were closed? Actually there's a very interesting pattern as to who was closed down. Again, on May 27, 2009, The Washington Examiner and Newsmax exposed the connection. Amazingly, of the 789 dealerships closed by the federal government 788 had donated money, exclusively, to Republican political causes, while contributing nothing to Democratic political causes. The only "Democratic" dealership on the list was found to have donated $7,700 to Hillary's campaign, and a bit over $2,000 to John Edwards. This same dealership, reportedly, also gave $200.00 to Obama's campaign. Does that seem a little odd to you?
Steve Rattner, the guy who put the list together. Well he happens to be married to a babe named Maureen White. Maureen happens to be the former national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As such, she would have access to campaign donation records from everyone in the nation, Republican or Democrat. But of course, this is just a wacky coincidence, we're certain.
Then comes another really wacky coincidence. On that list of dealerships being closed down, a weird thing happed in Arkansas , North Louisiana, and Southern Missouri . It seems that Bill Clinton's former White House Chief of Staff, Mack McClarty, owns a chain of dealership in that region, partnered with a fellow by the name of Robert Johnson. Johnson happens to be founder of Black Entertainment Television and was a huge Obama supporter and financier. These guys own a half dozen Chrysler stores under the company title of RLJ-McClarty-Landers. Interestingly, none of their dealerships were ordered closed - not one- while all of their competing Chrysler/Dodge and Jeep dealership were! Eight dealerships located near the dealerships owned by McClarty and Johnson were ordered shut down. Thus, by pure luck, these two major Obama supporters now have virtual monopoly on Chrysler sales in their zone. Isn't that amazing? Go look in The Washington Examiner, the story's there, and it's in a dozen or so other web-based news organization, this isn't being made up.
Now if you thought Chrysler was owned by Fiat, you are truly mistaken. Under the federal court ruling, 65% of Chrysler is now owned by the federal government and the United Auto Worker's union- Fiat owns 20%. The other 15% is still privately owned and presumably will be traded on the stock market. Obama smiles and says he doesn't want to run the auto industry.
As horrifying as this is to comprehend, and being as how this used to be the United States of America , it would appear that the president has the power to destroy private businesses and eliminate upwards of 100,000 jobs, just because they don't agree with his political agenda. This is Nazi Germany stuff, and it's happening right here, right now, in your /our back yard. There are voices in Washington demanding an explanation, but the "Automotive Task Force" has released no information to the public or any of the senators demanding answers for what has been done. Keep your ear to the ground for more on this story. If you've ever wanted to make a difference about anything in your life, get on the phone to your national senator or representative in the House and demand an investigation on this.
Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said, "All that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Car Czar No More
An amazing thing happed as this story was going to press. Obama's Car Czar, Steve Rattner, resigned on July 13 and was promptly replaced by former steel workers union boss Ron Bloom. According to CBS News, Rattner left "to return to private life and spend time with his family." Treasure Secretary Tim Geithner said, "I hope that he takes another opportunity to bring his unique skills to government service in the future." By the way, Rattner is under investigation for a multi-million dollar pay-to-play investment bank scandal in New York . Uh-oh! But, we're certain that had nothing to do with his resignation. And, according to several news sources out there, there are rumors he's being investigated for what could be pay-to-play scandal involving the closing of Chrysler and GM dealerships. Really? Again, that couldn't have anything to with his resignation- that's ridiculous! Like CBS said, this guy just wants to spend more quality time with his family. Obama has thirty-two personally appointed "czars" that answer to no one but him, all of whom are acting without any Constitutional authority. But hey, we're sure they all have "unique skills," as Tim Geithner likes to say.
President Obama's "green jobs" adviser is distancing himself from the "9/11 truthers" -- Americans who say the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks may have been an inside job -- releasing a statement late Thursday that says he didn't read carefully a petition he signed in 2004 calling for an investigation into the Bush administration's knowledge of an impending attack.
In the statement, Van Jones also apologized again for several inflammatory remarks he made prior to joining the Obama administration. It was his second apology in two days.
"In recent days some in the news media have reported on past statements I made before I joined the administration -- some of which were made years ago. If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize. As for the petition [9/11 statement] that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever."
Whether he agrees with the views expressed, Jones was a signatory on a 2004 statement calling on then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and others to launch an investigation into evidence that suggests "people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."
The statement asked a series of critical questions hinting at Bush administration involvement in the attacks and called for "deeper inquiry." It was also signed by former Rep. Cynthia McKinney and Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans.
An aide to Jones told FOX News on Thursday night that the green jobs czar "did not carefully review the language in the petition." The aide did not say when Jones signed the petition or when he became aware of the controversy.
Jones' second mea culpa comes after a Wednesday apology in which Jones said he uttered "offensive words" in February when he called Republicans "assholes." He said the remarks "do not reflect the views of this administration" and its bipartisan aims.
But such statements just scratch the surface of Jones' past commentary, and could present a dilemma for the Obama administration as it struggles to pass health care reforms and other priorities, including a climate change bill championed by Jones.
Jones has consistently leaned on racially charged language, pointing the finger at "white polluters and the white environmentalists" for "steering poison" to minority communities, as he makes the case for lifting up low-income and minority communities with better environmental policy.
A declared "communist" during the 1990s, Jones once associated with a group that looked to Mao Zedong as an inspiration.
Jones' exceptional past is reminiscent of associations noted during the presidential campaign, when then-Sen. Barack Obama doggedly fended off claims that he was tied to radicals and overzealous activists.
But with now-President Obama entering the perhaps trickiest phase of his young presidency -- building the kind of consensus around health care reform that President Clinton could not -- a divisive figure could prove disfiguring.
"In this environment, I think the Obama administration should be very careful of its dealings with anybody who can be labeled communist accurately," said Christopher C. Hull, an adjunct government professor at Georgetown University who runs the public affairs firm Issue Management.
"That's just going to play to the political sensibility that those on the right have that the Obama administration is socialist, literally socialist. ... It is unwise to bring in people who actually do label themselves socialist or communist."
Jones has mellowed considerably since the '90s. In some respects, he is about as mainstream as environmentalists come -- with recognition streaming in from high places over the past few years.
He's won plaudits from former Vice President Al Gore, who declared, "I love Van Jones," in an interview with The New Yorker.
Actor Leonardo DiCaprio penned the write-up on Jones when the presidential adviser was featured in Time magazine's 100 "Most Influential People."
"Steadily -- by redefining green -- Jones is making sure that our planet and our people will not just survive but also thrive in a clean-energy economy," DiCaprio wrote.
Jones was also named one of the magazine's "Heroes of the Environment 2008." He's earned a slew of other recognitions from other publications and institutions. He was even named one of Salon.com's "Sexiest Men Living" in late 2008.
Plus he's the author of the 2008 New York Times best-seller, "The Green Collar Economy."
Now a member of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, his book's central premise is that environmentalism and green jobs can lift up the economy and lift up low-income Americans.
He is the founder of Green for All, which focuses on creating green jobs in poor areas. He helped the city of Oakland pass a "green jobs corps" program in 2007. Green jobs is also one platform of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, which he co-founded in 1996.
He also co-founded Color of Change, an advocacy group that focuses on black issues, after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
In Thursday's statement, Jones addressed his work current work.
"My work at the Council on Environmental Quality is entirely focused on one goal: building clean energy incentives which create 21st century jobs that improve energy efficiency and use renewable resources."
Jones' history has drifted between mainstream activism surrounding issues of race, poverty and the environment, and activity he has described as "revolutionary."
Originally from Tennessee, Jones graduated from Yale Law School in 1993. But his life took a turn after he was swept up in arrests during a rally following the Rodney King verdict.
Jones has claimed he was monitoring police activity at the time, but that he met people in jail who changed his thinking.
"I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was like, 'This is what I need to be a part of,'" he said in a 2005 interview with the East Bay Express. Jones told the newspaper he stayed in San Francisco, and for the next 10 years worked with a lot of the people he met in jail. Months after the King verdict came down, Jones said, "I was a communist."
At the time he became involved with a group called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), which described itself as committed to Marxist and Leninist ideas. He also started putting pressure on police in San Francisco, monitoring and drawing attention to allegations of police brutality. He was quoted accusing the police department of "killing black people."
He became a vocal critic of the federal government during the Bush administration. He and groups he was associated with assailed "U.S. imperialism" after the Sept. 11 attacks and called the assumption that an Arab group was responsible a "rush to judgment." He later co-signed the petition calling for an investigation into government involvement in the attacks.
For conservative critics, he has -- as Hull warned -- served as a ready target.
"You can't nominate all of these czars ... and then say, well, you know, I'm not responsible for all these people," said conservative commentator Ann Coulter. "People will start to blame Obama."
The White House has voiced great confidence in Jones, announcing in March that the "green jobs visionary" would in his new role advance the goal of improving energy efficiency and tapping renewable resources.
Regine Gordon doesn't want her 6-year-old son to hear from President Obama next week.
Gordon, of Tampa, Fla., is among a growing number of parents across the country who are troubled by the president's plan to address elementary, middle and high school students in an online and televised speech Tuesday.
"It's a form of indoctrination, and I think, really, it's indicative of the culture that the Obama administration is trying to create," Gordon told FOXNews.com on Thursday. "It's very socialistic."
After writing letters to her congressmen and school officials, Gordon said her son, David, will be allowed to participate in an alternative activity at Gorrie Elementary School during Obama's address, which comes on the first day of school for many children.
"I'm waiting to hear from his teacher, but I have told them to go ahead and I'd like [David] to go do something else," Gordon said. "It's kind of like going through the children to get to their parents. Children are very vulnerable and excited. I mean, this is the president. I think it's an underhanded tactic and indicative of the way things are being done."
But some parents won't be allowed to "opt-out" their kids everywhere. At least one school district, Tempe Elementary School District No. 3 in Arizona, is not permitting parents to pull their children out of class during Obama's speech.
"I have directed principals to have students and teachers view the president's message on Tuesday," Superintendent of Schools Dr. Arthur Tate Jr. said in a statement Thursday. "In some cases, where technology will not permit access to the White House Web site, DVDs will be provided to classes on subsequent days. I am not permitting parents to opt out students from viewing the president's message, since this is a purely educational event."
The White House said Wednesday that the president's address is intended to be an inspirational, pro-education message to all students at the beginning of the school year. But critics objected to the language of one of the lesson plans, for students in pre-kindergarten through grade 6, which suggested that students "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president." Another assignment for students after hearing the speech was to discuss what "the president wants us to do."
The suggestion about writing letters has since been changed to: "Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals."
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said the changes to the language are intended to make the lesson plans clearer. He added that the speech the president's speech will not be a policy speech, but is intended to encourage kids to work hard and commit to school.
But that hasn't assuaged concerns of Michelle Moore of St. Louis, who says she's considering keeping her two daughters out of the classroom at Lindberg High School when Obama begins to speak.
"I have to sign permission slips for my kids to watch R-rated movies in school," Moore said, explaining that she felt parents were being blindsided by the president's address. "It was simply presented, 'Hey, we're going to do this, this is when it's going to air and you're going to show it to your kids.'"
Moore suggested that the speech be issued as a DVD to students so they can view it with their parents at home, adding that the first day of classes for many students will be a harried affair.
"That's their first day," she said. "I would think they have plenty of other things to do."
The idea of having Obama speak directly to children without so much as a permission slip being sent home just "makes you feel a little funny," said Beth Milledge of Winterset, Iowa. She said she plans on going to school with her 8-year-old son to watch the address with him.
"I want to know how it's being presented," she said. "I'm all for my child having respect for the president, but why wouldn't he show us the speech first and then go from there?"
Dana Loesch, spokeswoman for the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition, has started a campaign to ask schools to provide an alternative to the speech for parents who do not wish their children to experience a presidential address in school. Loesch has urged parents to contact schools directly to find out if the "partisan presentation" will air in their child's classroom.
"It went straight from the Department of Education right to the principals," Loesch told FOX News. "There's a lot of parents who have spoken to me [and] they've talked to their principals, and it kind of 'weirded' them out a little because this is also the first that protocol has been skipped."
Several school districts contacted by FOXNews.com, including those in Milwaukee and St. Louis, said individual teachers will decide whether to air the address in their classrooms.
"We're allowing teachers to decide," an Austin, Texas, school official told FOXNews.com. "But most of the kids will be at lunch. It's not going to be a big issue here."
In Austin, school district officials say a speech by any sitting president is worthy of "Americans' time, attention and consideration," according to a statement by the Austin Independent School District (AISD) to FOXNews.com. Teachers who believe the address will be beneficial to their students will allow viewing in the classroom.
"It is AISD's expectation that viewing of this Web address will vary by campus and by classroom," the statement continued. "Parents will be advised by their campus principals to alert the school if they have a specific desire to have their child included in, or removed from, the viewing of the president's remarks."
Parents in Milwaukee will have the option to remove their children by "simply informing the school of their preference," spokeswoman Roseann St. Aubin said.
Virginia Department of Education spokesman Charles Pyle told the Associated Press that a number of school divisions asked the agency for guidance this week after parents concerned with the address contacted local officials.
The department says it's up to districts to determine whether a school or class views the address, and teachers who choose to incorporate the president's speech into their lessons are also free to develop their own classroom activities, the Associated Press reports.
Other districts, including those in New York City and Boston, won't even have classes that day. Officials at the Philadelphia School District declined comment.
National Parent Teacher Association President Chuck Saylors told FOXNews.com the presidential speech is something that should have happened years ago.
"Regardless of who is in the White House, when the president of the United States wants to give the students a beginning-of-the-year, do-your-best type of presentation, it should be supported," he said. "[But] if parents want their children to opt-out, they're certainly in their rights to do that."
Several statewide parent teacher associations, including those in Georgia, Virginia, Tennessee and others, did not respond to requests for comment on how their members are advising teachers how to present the presidential address in class.
Gainell Rogers, president-elect of the Utah Parent Teacher Association, said she has "confidence in the decisions" of local school officials.
"We believe that decisions in the best interest of students are most effective when made at the local level," Rogers told FOXNews.com. "Each local school district will decide what is best for their students and patrons and those decisions will reflect input from parents."
This document purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth for Barack Obama, allegedly born in Mombasa, Kenya, in 1961 The document lists Obama's parents as Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann Obama, formerly Stanley Ann Dunham, the birth date as Aug. 4, 1961, and the hospital of birth as Coast General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.
Statements made by Obama's Grand mother from a Kenyan newspaper One explanation is that Obama's mother Ann Dunham, flew to Kenya in 1961 with Obama's father to meet his family. According to some news reports, Ann Dunham, was not accepted well by her husband's family because she was white: "Obama's family did not take to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama very well, because she was white, according to Sarah Obama. Shortly after she arrived in Kenya Stanley Ann decided to return to Hawaii because she later said, she did not like how Muslim men treated their wives in Kenya. However, because she was near term the airline would not let her fly until after the birth of her baby. Obama's grandmother said the baby—Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.—was born in Kenya and that shortly after he was born, Stanley Ann returned to Hawaii."
There is also a discrepancy in what hospital Barack Hussein Obama was born in, even if he was born in Hawaii. Reports by his own sister in two separate interviews state that he was born at two different hospitals -- Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital--in Honolulu
Obama's grandmother, brother and sister, who live in Kenya, state they were present during Obama's birth in the African country."
So, who is lying? Barack? His grandmother? His sister?
By: David A. Patten Newsmax On Friday, Democrats moved one step closer to giving free health insurance to the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal aliens when they successfully defeated a Republican-backed amendment, offered by Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving government-subsidized health care under the proposed plan backed by House Democrats and President Barack Obama. The House Ways and Means Committee nixed the Heller amendment by a 26-to-15 vote along straight party lines, and followed this action by passing the 1,018-page bill early Friday morning by a 23-to-18 margin, with three Democrats voting against the plan. The Democratic plan will embrace Obama’s vision of bringing free government medical care to more than 45 million uninsured people in America – a significant portion of whom are illegal aliens. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, costs under the Obama plan being proposed by the House will saddle citizens with $1.04 trillion in new federal outlays over the next decade. Congressional Democrats and Obama have argued that their health plan is necessary to contain rising health care costs. But, last Thursday, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf testified before the Senate Budget Committee and warned lawmakers that the proposed “legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs." A key factor increasing costs is that Democratic plan provides for blanket coverage to as much as 15 percent of the U.S. population not currently insured, including illegals. Democrats had insisted throughout the health-care reform debate that illegals would be ineligible for the so-called public option plan that is to be subsidized by taxpayers. "We're not going to cover undocumented aliens, undocumented workers," Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told reporters in May. "That's too politically explosive." Republicans, however, point out that the Democrats, by refusing to accept the Heller amendment, would deny health agencies from conducting simple database checks to verify citizenship. Many states give illegals driver licenses, which will be sufficient to get free health care under the plan. Critics also contend that millions of illegals who already have counterfeit Social Security cards or other fraudulent documents. There is no enforcement mechanism in the legislation, experts say, to prevent illegals who use fake IDs to obtain jobs from also obtaining taxpayer-subsidized health insurance. GOP representatives introduced the amendment to provide a way to weed out non-citizens from the program. A description of the amendment on Heller's Web site state it would "better screen applicants for subsidized health care to ensure they are actually citizens or otherwise entitled to it." The Web post added, "The underlying bill is insufficient for the purpose of preventing illegal aliens from accessing the bill’s proposed benefits, as it does not provide mechanisms allowing those administering the program to ensure illegal aliens cannot access taxpayer-funded subsidies and benefits." The Heller amendment would have required that individuals applying for the public health care option would be subject to two systems used to verify immigration status already in use by the government: The Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program. The two systems cross-reference Social Security numbers and employment information to establish whether an individual is a U.S. citizen. Critics: Free Health Care Means More Illegals A recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that an overwhelming 80 percent of Americans oppose covering illegals in any public health care bill. Anti-immigration activists say the availability of low-cost benefits, including health insurance and in-state tuition, will only lure more immigrants to come to the United States. Political analyst Dick Morris, in his recently released best-selling book “Catastrophe”, warns that giving illegal free health care will lead to a flood of new illegals who can take advantage of such a benefit not offered in their home countries. William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration, agrees with that sentiment, writing, "Each state and federal elected official must know that illegal aliens should not be given licenses, in-state tuition, mortgages, bank accounts, welfare, or any other benefit short of emergency medical care and law enforcement accommodations before they are deported." But a small fraction of illegals end up deported, as many make widespread use of fake IDs to easily gain access to government benefits programs. "Experts suggest that approximately 75 percent of working-age illegal aliens use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment," wrote Ronald W. Mortensen in a recent Center for Immigration Studies research paper. Mortensen says one of the big misconceptions about illegals is that they are undocumented. James R. Edwards Jr., co-author of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, recently wrote on National Review Online that "it's hard to envision how health reform can avoid tripping the immigration booby trap." Edwards says none of the legislation under consideration actually requires any state, federal, or local agency to check the immigration status of those who apply for the program. The assumption is that companies have vetted their employees to ensure they are eligibility for legal employment – a difficult task for employers given the active market in fraudulent documents. Thus Edwards maintains "some of the money distributed … inevitably would go to illegal aliens." The estimates of illegal aliens in the United States without health insurance vary. The most commonly cited statistic, attributed to the Center for Immigration Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau, holds that 15 percent to 22 percent of the nation's 46 million uninsured are illegal aliens. That would be between 6.9 million and 10.1 million people. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama claimed the nation United States has 12 million or more undocumented aliens. John Sheils of the Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm owned by UnitedHealth Group, recently told National Public Radio that about 6.1 million illegals – about half of all illegals in the United States – lack documentation and therefore would not be legally eligible for benefits under the current health care reforms. Sheils says the other half of the nation's illegals – 5 million to 6 million – use false documents to obtain on-the-books employment. Many of them are already insured under their employers' plans, he added. "A lot of those people are getting employer health benefits as part of their compensation," Sheils told NPR. Certainly, some contend that undocumented workers who are gainfully employed and receiving benefits such as health insurance are contributing to society. But the fact remains that, once equipped with a fake ID, a person in the United States illegally can obtain both a job and the benefits that go with it. Estimates of the cost of providing illegals with medical care vary. Most uninsured illegals who need medical attention obtain it from hospital emergency rooms. And several states are already straining under the huge burden of paying for the health costs of illegal aliens. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in 2004 California's estimated cost of unreimbursed medical care was $1.4 billion. Texas estimated its cost at $850 million annually, and Arizona at $400 million. Non-border states shoulder heavy burdens as well. Virginia's annual cost of providing health care for undocumented workers is approximately $100 million per year, FAIR reports, while Florida's health care cost is about $300 million annually. One of the ironies of the proposed legislation is that it would fine American citizens who opt not to purchase insurance coverage, but would exempt illegals from such fines. This is presumably due to the fact that they are not supposed to participate in the program anyway. Even if no illegals were likely to benefit from health care reform, Democrats have made it clear that amnesty is the next item on their ambitious legislative agenda. "I've got to do health care, I've got to do energy, and then I'm looking very closely at doing immigration," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared in June. Reid explained the urgent need for amnesty in terms very similar to those that Democrats have used to press for health care reform. "We have an immigration system that's broken and needs repair," Reid said. Immigration expert Edwards, for one, says health-care reform may itself need serious medical attention before it is healthy enough pass through Congress. "The American people may soon realize how much health reform will benefit immigrants and cost the native-born," he writes. "When that happens, the volatile politics of immigration could derail universal health care."
Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, an American al-Qaeda member, is serving a 30-year sentence for conspiring to commit various terrorist acts, including the murder of George W Bush, who was then president of the United State. Last year, before Mr Obama's victory in the presidential election, Abu Ali requested his biographical Dreams from My Father and the more policy-oriented The Audacity of Hope.
Citing guidance from the FBI, the authorities at the "Supermax" prison in Florence, Colorado, decided that both books contained information that could jeopardise national security. Officials mentioned specific pages – but not passages - that were objectionable, singling out a page in Dreams from My Father and 22 in The Audacity of Hope. Half of them were in a chapter devoted to foreign affairs. Abu Ali later went on hunger strike in protest at his treatment and prison officials said on Thursday that the books were subsequently deemed appropriate following a review of their contents. However, evidence of their original ban has been included in court papers relating to Abu Ali's resentencing hearing next month. Joshua Dratel, his lawyer, said the rejection was an example of the harsh conditions imposed on inmates at the supermax prison. "Imagine an existence controlled by characters created by Louis (sic) Carroll, and that would approach that which Mr Abu Ali faces each day for the duration of his sentence," Mr Dratel wrote. In a short, handwritten note on a prison complaint form, Abu Ali argued that the two rejections "violate my 1st amend. rights". The rejections, as well as other restrictions on family visits, prompted a hunger strike by Abu Ali that has since ended, according to Mr Dratel. Inmates at the supposedly impregnable prison are usually kept in their cells in solitary confinement for 22 or 23 hours a day.
By Alex Spillius in Washington President Barack Obama has called a meeting with leaders of American Jewish groups who are concerned at his new tough line on Israel and perceived softness on Iran.
Iran's nuclear threat and the president's demand for a freeze on Israeli settlement expansion in the Palestinian West Bank were expected to dominate the meeting at White House. Officials had originally tried to keep the meeting secret after it was arranged late last week, but hastily added it to the official schedule after the news leaked out.
Though it is not unusual for a US president to meet Jewish groups, the timing of the event reflected rising anxiety among a constituency that overwhelmingly supported Mr Obama in last year's election that he would not be the most dependable of allies. "American Jews more or less agree with the president on settlements, but it's the focus on criticising Israel that's disconcerting," said an organisation leader ahead of the meeting. Mr Obama, though reiterating America's commitment to Israel, has been tougher than any of his predecessors on the settlement issue, while he has favoured a gentler tone towards Iran, whose president has threatened to annihilate the Jewish state. A June 4 speech in Cairo the president made to the Muslim world particularly alarmed some Jewish groups. Malcolm Hoenlein, vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations which asked for the meeting, said in a recent interview: "There's a lot of questioning going on about what he really believes and what does he really stand for." He told Newmax.com: "Even people close to him have said to us that there were parts of the speech that bothered them." He said the most troubling aspect of the speech was the president's equating of the Holocaust, which killed six million Jews, with the suffering and "dislocation" suffered by the Palestinians since the creation of Israel. "There's no comparison between the Holocaust, even if it was an indirect one, and what happened to Palestinians," Mr Hoenlein declared. The guest list, drawn up by the White House, included three liberal Jewish groups invited to the White House for the first time.
Although the national media isn't talking about the Presidents approval rating I will. With spending at an all time high with this administration during the first six months of this year. Were seeing that once 70% approval rating slowly drop to the mid 50's (Gallop at 57%) to a low 61% with some polls, but what's really interesting is the percentages of unhappy Americans with the directions of this country. Gallop shows the state of the nation poll reflecting 30% satisfied and 67% dissatisfied with the direction of the economy. Even President Carter had a 62% approval rating during July of his first term. But what is most interesting is While 42% of Americans say that their views on political issues have not changed in recent years, 39% say their views are now more conservative and 18% say they are more liberal. With Voters now trusting Republicans more than Democrats on eight out of 10 key electoral issues, including, for the second straight month, the top issue of the economy. They've also narrowed the gap on the remaining two issues, the traditionally Democratic strong suits of health care and education. (Rasmussen report)
President Obama Job Approval with different poll watchers
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, taken since the climate change bill was passed on Friday, Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans say they are not willing to pay more in taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming. Fifty-two percent (52%) of all adults say it is more important to keep the cost of energy as low as possible then it is to develop clean, environmentally friendly sources of energy. Sixty-three percent (63%) state creating jobs is more important than taking steps to stop global warming. For 22%, stopping global warming is more important. So why is the President so hard pressed to only listen to the small left wing of his party. When campaigning he stated he would listen to the people, and not be like President Bush when it comes to pushing his own agenda without a care in the world for what you think. This bill is supposed to be intended to reduce heat-trapping gases that some scientists say cause global warming. Even its supporters on the left say the measure, which includes a so-called “cap and trade” plan,” will have a major impact on the economy by raising taxes on middle class. President Obama over the past 6 months has pressed upon the American people the need for every bill he has asked for from the congress pushing the government spending to trillions and trillions of dollars; even with the stimulus spending bill President Obama warned the American people if congress didn't pass the bill then we would be facing 8.5% unemployment, here we sit today just under 10%.
The president when campaigning promised he would not raise taxes on those making less then $250,000 thousand, but even then senator Obama changed that figure to suite the crowed he was campaigning to at that time. If the senate passes this bill all Americans will see their rates raised by a President only worried about his own agenda and not the promise made to Americans; While campaigning that he would not raise taxes on folks making less then $250,000, "Shame on you President Obama"
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's public broadcaster was wrong to show a skit that joked about the possible assassination of President Barack Obama and suggested he could be a thief, an industry panel ruled on Monday.
WASHINGTON — Federal judges are rarely famous or widely celebrated. Yet during a brief period in 1995, Judge Sonia Sotomayor became revered, at least in those cities with major league baseball teams.
As we enter the eve of the G-20 meeting, the couple of months of Obama's presidency have raised the anxiety levels in parts of Europe. There is talk among many Europeans country leaders that President Obamas policies on his record spending could weaken the economy of all countries in the long run. With Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, who holds the rotating EU Presidency, described U.S. fiscal spending as a "road to hell." Chancellor Angela Merkel has expressed skepticism about using heavy borrowing to solve a global crisis she has no intention of injecting more money. Even Finance Minister Jean-Claude Juncker of France said "Recent U.S. calls on Europe for an additional budgetary effort do not suit us.'' , and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said he is "a little bit worried" about his country's big investment in U.S. debt.
From a Interview with the Financial Times newspaper German Chancellor Angela Merkel said ‘we cannot borrow forever’ throwing too much money into reviving global economic growth would make the recovery unsustainable, She added: “We must look at the causes of this crisis. It happened because we were living beyond our means ... governments encouraged risk-taking in order to boost growth.
“We were spending too much to create growth that was not sustainable. It isn’t just that the banks took over too many risks. Governments allowed them to do so by neglecting to set the necessary [financial market] rules. I for one never thought in my lifetime I would ever hear the amount of complaining by Socialist Europeans about the way the United States is going about spending there way out of a crisis. The calls from all countries to President Obama to halt the spending are going on deaf ears; President Obama is determined to listen only to the extreme left wing of his party regarding the restructuring of the United States giving the government control over private institutions within this administration. But President Obama who stated his administration would listen to the cries of American people doesn't seem to care about what others think unless you are on board with the way the administration wants to spend our tax dollars.
All I have heard from the Obama administration over the last few days has been about the reversal of freedoms of all classes of people by the destruction of the so-called privileged classes of our country by saying greed is bad, that if you have the will to build or create a successful profit for your business that you are taking from those who are the have nots of our society. The United States was built on the idea that every American has the same opportunity to earn a good wage, and that good competition would increase wealth for all people living in America.
The Obama Administration has also changed the way foreign policy is handled by embracing the worst of the worst dictators and allowing them to control the agenda. Now China is controlling the waterways of the Oceans, Russia is in talks with Cuba and other South American countries in our hemisphere about opening up bases to patrol our boarders and to spy on the United States. North Korea will continue to build nuclear missiles until they can reach the west coast of the United States, and Iran will continue to build there own nuclear missiles in its quest to rid the middle east of Israel. The Administration has chosen to not call those few people who killed 3,000 Americans on 911 terrorists because they don't want to offend so these terms like "terrorism" and "September 11" Global War on Terror are out and these new terms are "overseas contingency operations", “man-caused disasters” and yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Mexico's Leaders that it is the fault of the United States with regards to the violence that has taken over that countries' cities and is now crossing over into the communities of the United States by there own drug lords. This is just the beginning of America losing its identity by letting other countries control the agenda on foreign policy.
The United States, if left up to the Obama Admintration the word "change" that Americans were looking for will change how Americans visualize moral values, and the social ideals with the socializing of our country by taxing those who work hard. By socializing our government, Banks, and corporations allowing unions to have more power to control more businesses who then can funnel those union dues to the Democratic Party so that they can maintain the government influence over the United States.
By Red County Contributor Tearesa Trujillo The president will visit Orange County, California today. One of the most conservative bastions in the nation is in the spotlight as the forty-fourth President of the United States tries to sell his economic stimulus package to the nation. He is visiting a county where six out of the seven congress members voted against the stimulus. Only Democrat Loretta Sanchez supported additional government bailout and unprecedented spending as a band-aid for the bad economic outlook. The Orange County Register was reporting on the rock concert vibe of people waiting in line for the coveted town hall tickets at the Orange County Fairgrounds. This feels more like a campaign swing through California than a serious trip by a president eager to govern. Obama is proud of the fact he is a great campaigner but hasn't really shone as a president. And that leads me to an important question. When does the campaign stop and the governance begin? The president has been in office less than two months. He inherited a much more sober nation than the one he campaigned in. The economic turmoil has only increased as the president, his Treasury Secretary, and his economic advisors have made doom and gloom predictions that have collectively caused the American public to recoil at the notion of spending one dime more than is absolutely necessary in their personal lives. All of this is going on while the government is on the biggest spending spree in government history. International leaders have decried American spending on both governmental and individual levels. Yet, Obama continues to press ahead with a massive government spending plan to cure the nation's woes. "There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy," the president reported on January 9, 2009. This was twelve days before he took office. Last week, 200 prominent economists responded to this statement in a signed public letter denouncing the president's stimulus package. The complete list of economist can be found here: http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf The Cato Institute advertisement states: "With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true. Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth." The list includes a Nobel laureate and prominent economists from major universities. The signers of the letter actually call the president out on his statement that, "There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy." In the religion of Obama there is no disagreeing with the messiah's proclamations. But, in an open and free society we can disagree. There seems to be plenty of economists willing to stand up to the rising tide of Obamaisms. The candidate that promised change is using the economic crisis to remake America with back door deals, massive earmark spending, money laundering to foreign banks and investors through the now government controlled AIG, and other tactics that looks too much like the business as usual Washington D.C. The promised transparency has been thrown to the wind as Obama has now signed at least five major bills without the promised web posting and five day waiting period. The nearly 1100 page stimulus bill, and major change in how and when employees can file a suit over sexual harassment and/or discrimination, and the largest appropriations bill in history, were all signed without the transparency promised. We have all had an opportunity to see what change means to Barack Obama. Change means much, much more of business as usual in Washington D.C. Change means saddling the taxpayers with massive debt for generations of Americans. Change means that we all lose when our take home pay buys less and our tax bill goes up. We need a president who governs, not a president who looks good campaigning long after the election is over. Get to work Mr. President.
The nation’s economic situation proved to still be slumping after a government report showed the number of workers collecting state unemployment benefits surged to a record high. The Labor Department reported that weekly jobless claims fell by 12,000 to 646,000 for the week ending March 14. Analysts were expecting 652,000 new claims. The number of people staying on state benefits jumped by 185,000 to hit a record 5.47 million for the week ending March 7. The four-week average for new claims jumped to 654,750 -- a 26-year high -- while the four-week average of continuing claims rose to 5.25 million. Continuing claims have increased 10 times in the last 12 weeks and are up 19% since last year. The slight dip in initial claims doesn’t leave much to celebrate, according to Mark Lieberman, senior economist for FOX Business “Despite the week-week dip, the four-week moving average increased again, and is 58% higher than the weekly average during the 2001 recession and 51% higher than the weekly average during the 1990-91 recession.” The government also revises last week’s report up to 658,000 from 654,000.
President Obama over the past few days along with the stupid press Secretary Gibbs has been telling the media pool how outraged they have been over these AIG bonuses, while all the time knowing that the Stimulus Bill President Obama had too ............................The buffoon President with his sorry Administration
Chas Freeman, the former ambassador appointed to be the military's top intelligence analyst, has withdrawn his name following complaints from Democratic and Republican lawmakers who said he was too entangled in foreign affairs to handle the job.
National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, who originally appointed Freeman to the post of National Intelligence Council chairman, announced the move in a statement Tuesday, saying he accepts the decision "with regret." The announcement came just hours after Blair defended Freeman before a Senate committee.
But Freeman released a lengthy statement of his own, accusing his critics of trying to destroy his credibility with libelous attacks.
"I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office," he said. "The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue." He said the attacks would prevent the National Intelligence Council from functioning effectively with him at the helm.
Freeman had become a political lightning rod since he was tapped two weeks ago for the post.
Lawmakers had objected to several controversial statements Freeman has made about Israel and Iraq. And they said the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia was too close to that country, as well as to China.
Freeman said he never accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia and China. He suggested he had fallen victim to what he called the "Israel Lobby."
"The libels on me and their easily traceable e-mail trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East," he said. "The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth."
Freeman has in the past compared Israelis to "colonists" and accused the United States of bringing the "Palestinian experience" of humiliation to Iraq.
In his resignation statement, Freeman said: "There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government -- in this case, the government of Israel."
Lawmakers had questioned Freeman's fitness for the intelligence post over the past two weeks, leading the inspector general for the director of national intelligence to agree to examine Freeman's foreign ties. At the time, Blair said the inquiry would put to rest any questions about Freeman.
But a number of top lawmakers, most of them Republicans, suggested Freeman's conflicts could be disqualifying.
Among their concerns were:
-- Freeman's role as president of the Middle East Policy Council, a think tank they say received funding from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Fuad A. Rihani, a consultant for the bin Ladin family's Saudi BinLadin Group, also sits on the group's board of directors -- another trouble spot for Freeman's critics. And they complained the council did not disclose its donors.
-- Freeman's role on a board for the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation, owned by China, and that company's reportedly $16 billion agreement with Iran to develop a gas field in the Middle Eastern country.
The controversy surrounding Freeman heated up last week when Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said he wanted Freeman to withdraw his name. That was after he wrote to Blair on Monday expressing his doubt that Freeman could restore credibility to the national intelligence estimates, or NIEs, the intelligence reports Freeman would be involved in producing.
"I am ... deeply concerned that an individual who reportedly holds radical and extreme views would be chosen to oversee NIEs, the IC's most comprehensive and authoritative intelligence assessments," Hoekstra wrote, according to a copy of the letter obtained by FOXNews.com.
Hoekstra applauded Freeman's decision to withdraw his name, but called the process "yet another breakdown in the Obama administration vetting."
As NIC chairman, Freeman would have been responsible for drawing from assessments from all 16 intelligence agencies and formulating mid-and-long-term strategic intelligence plans.
More than a dozen lawmakers had already called for an investigation by the time Blair's inspector general, Edward Maguire, decided to launch one. Democratic Rep. Steve Israel, N.Y., first urged Maguire to launch a probe in a letter Saturday. Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Israel also asked Maguire to look into Freeman's work with the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation and its deal with Iran.
Blair argued that Freeman's rich background would make him an asset to the intelligence community and other foreign policy analysts had dismissed the criticism of him as a smear campaign.
Freeman has a formidable resume of foreign policy positions that include U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under George H.W. Bush and assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs -- a position that earned him public service awards for his role in creating a NATO-centered post-Cold War European security system. Freeman also served as Richard Nixon's chief translator in China in 1972.
Blair's office said he did not seek White House approval for the appointment, which did not require Senate approval.
But statements the former ambassador made over the last three decades on U.S. peace efforts in the Middle East and Iran's threat to the international community had also prompted some to question his objectivity in a role that requires it.
In a speech to the Pacific Council on International Policy in October 2007, Freeman said the U.S. has "abandoned the role of Middle East peacemaker to back Israel's efforts to pacify its captive and increasingly ghettoized Arab populations."
"We wring our hands while sitting on them as the Jewish state continues to seize ever more Arab land for its colonists," he said.
In reference to the Iraq war, Freeman said, "Now the United States has brought the Palestinian experience -- of humiliation, dislocation, and death -- to millions more in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"By invading Iraq, we transformed an intervention in Afghanistan most Muslims had supported into what looks to them like a wider war against Islam. We destroyed the Iraqi state and catalyzed anarchy, sectarian violence, terrorism and civil war in that country."
Also, The Weekly Standard recently posted a 2006 e-mail from Freeman to a listserv in which he said the Chinese government was "overly cautious" in its effort to "intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud" during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests.
Bank of America delays foreclosures in 23 states
-
By ALAN ZIBEL
The Associated Press
Saturday, October 2, 2010; 1:51 AM
WASHINGTON -- Bank of America is delaying foreclosures in 23 states as it
examines wh...
Posts
