The Obama Regime's policy of Appeasement is coming along nicely with the latest pronouncements to the Iranians.
From Debka
The moderate mien of Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani has had its intended effect – even before nuclear dialogue began. President Barack Obama had only one demand of Tehran: “Iran would have to demonstrate its own seriousness by agreement not to weaponise nuclear power,” he said Wednesday, Sept. 18. He thus took at his word Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who declared the day before: “We are against nuclear weapons. And when we say no one should have nuclear weapons, we definitely do not pursue it ourselves either.”
The symmetry between the words from Washington and Tehran was perfect in content and timing – and not by chance.
debkafile’s Washington and Iranian sources disclose that it was choreographed in advance.
Obama and Khamenei have been exchanging secret messages through Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said of Oman, who visited Tehran in the last week of August and conferred with both Khameini and Rouhani.
In the last message, carried to Tehran by Oman’s Defense Minister Sayyid Badr bin Saud Al Busaidiat, the US president said that Rouhani’s conciliatory gestures towards Washington needed to be backed up by an explicit pledge not to weaponise Iran’s nuclear program.
That pledge must come from the supreme leader in person and delivered publicly to Iran’s most hawkish audience, Revolutionary Guards chiefs.
And indeed, Khamenei acted out his part Tuesday under TV cameras.
Full details of the exchanges going back and both between Washington and Tehran will appear in the coming DEBKA Weekly 603 out Friday, Sept. 20.
They will confirm that the US president has come to terms with a nuclear-capable Iran and will be satisfied with Ayatollah Khamenei’s word that Tehran will not take the last step to actually assemble a bomb.
Our sources note that in his direct secret dialogue with Tehran, Obama is pursuing the same tactics he used for the Syrian chemical issue with Russian President Vladmir Putin: Moving fast forward on the secret track while pretending that the process is still at an early stage and then a sudden leap to target – a particular form of diplomacy consisting of verbal calisthenics.
This pretense was played out at the G20, when the two presidents acted as though they were irreconcilably divided on the Syrian question, while secretly tying up the ends of the chemical accord.
Obama’s willingness to accept Khamenei’s oft-repeated assurance that his country’s nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes – while letting its military program advance to the brink – leaves Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu lagging far behind and his Iranian policy with nowhere to go.
At the Israeli cabinet meeting Tuesday, the prime minister said his White House talks with President Obama on Sept. 30 would focus on Iran and his four demands:
Complete halt of uranium enrichment;
Removal of enriched materials from Iran;
Closure of the Fordo enrichment plant;
Termination of plutonium production at Arak.
Notwithstanding the briefing offered by Secretary of State John Kerry when he visited Jerusalem on Sunday, Sept. 15, it looks as though Obama is keeping the Israeli prime minister in the dark on his moves towards Iran.
Who but an idiot would actually believe that Iran would not weaponize any nuclear components that they have in their possession? Once again Obama is trying to throw Israel under the bus. But will Netanyahu let him do this to Israel? Members of the Obama Regime have quietly told Netanyahu that if Israel attacks Iran the US will NOT block any sanctions and/or boycotts done to Israel by the UN Security Council. Blackmail is the Obama way.
Israel will soon be standing alone in the world without a friend. The perfect solution for his Muslim Brotherhood Masters. Isolate Israel, destroy Israel then finish the job started in 1933. Problem solved and World Peace reigns.
I for one do not believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu would believe anything Obama or Kerry is saying to him. I do believe he is buying time, but will it be time enough to prevent a nuclear bomb being exploded over Tel Aviv? I pray it is.
I have highlighted the traitor from my state in RED.
Please share this with as many as you can and I say these traitors are no better than the master they serve in the regime, Obama.PatriotUSA
Traitors
(46 of them) Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United
States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United
Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will
stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade
Treaty. The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the
Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the
import and export of small firearms, and had language that would have
implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give
away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power. Here are the 46
senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.
This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN
take our guns. They need to lose the next election. We have been
betrayed. 46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional
Rights to the U.N.
These are some of the ideas I came across as I composed my letter to my elected officials in Congress. Feel free to use whatever you like but get your letters out daily!!! Here are the links to finding the contact forms for your U.S. Representatives and Senators online.
The IRS must be completely reformed in the wake of the agency targeting tea party and other conservative groups.
The IRS has violated it’s own regulations and the American Constitution by targeting and unlawfully delaying and obstructing conservative organizations’ applications for a determination of tax-exempt status, and the IRS has continued to bully and intimidate Conservatives.
Additionally, the inspector general found that on many occasions the IRS made inappropriate and intrusive demands for information from conservative groups that applied for exemption under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code.
On May 29th, 2014 The American Center for Law and Justice filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of 25 Tea Party and conservative organizations against the U.S. Attorney General, Treasury Secretary, and Internal Revenue Service - including top IRS officials. (Read more here)
In the lawsuit, the ACLJ cited six counts arguing the federal government violated the Constitution, federal law, and even its own rules and regulations.
The IRS and the Obama Administration must be held accountable for these unlawful actions and reparations must be made on behalf of all Americans. It is not enough that certain parties be found guilty or that injunctive relief and punitive damages eventually be awarded.
The IRS must never again be in a position to target and/or intimidate any American group or individual because of race, religion, or political beliefs. The IRS must be completely reformed by Congress Now.
America no longer has any confidence in the IRS. This overgrown, complex, and corrupt agency has not earned the right to take on additional responsibilities that will effect the daily lives of all Americans. We cannot allow the IRS, as it exists today, to police Obamacare!
Now is the time to completely break this monster apart. Now is the time for comprehensive tax reform!
The U.S. tax code is at the heart of a system of institutionalized, legal corruption. The code is so vast because companies, industries and lobbying groups receive special preferences in return for campaign contributions, a cash-for-favors scheme that Washington would denounce as crony capitalism in any Third World country.
When I read this I was appalled. Why would any commander want to fire upon American civilians on American soil? Ever wonder why Sheik Obama wants a private army?
"I Would Fire Upon U.S. Citizens..."
The RESISTER has confirmed that US Navy SEAL platoons, including SEAL Team Six, Marine combat veterans stationed at Twenty-Nine Palms, CA, and Marine basic trainees at Camp Pendelton, CA, have been administered a questionnaire asking, among other things, if they would "...fire upon US citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the US government."
The questionnaire was first administered to operators by the commanders of SEAL Team Six on 15 September 1993, then subsequently to the remaining SEAL platoons throughout September and October. Rumors began circulating in November that US Army DELTA operators were given the same or similar questionnaire. The SF Underground had been aware of the questionnaire since late September but our observers had been unable to secure a copy or confirm other than its substance consisted of questions pertaining to the subordination of the US Military to the UN and confiscation of the firearms of US citizens. In early January, 1994, we obtained a copy of the questionnaire from one of our DOD sympathizers but lacking corroboration we ran the story in Vol.I, No.1 of The RESISTER as a rumor.
On January 22, 1994, one of our observers copied a chilling message off the Internet from Petty Officer 2nd Class W. Kelly, US Navy Special Warfare Team Six, to D. Hawkins, Re: Gun Confiscation. Kelly began by stating that the questionnaire was "...to find out if we would follow the orders of commanding officers without question." (Kelly omitted the fact that the questionnaire assumes "commanding officers" gives equal authority to UN officers commanding US forces.) Kelly continued; "If you wish to find out how I answered I said yes I would fire and kill all persons attempting to resist...we aren't around to be the good guys." Remember, Kelly is referring to American civilians.
In February, 1994, MODERN GUN magazine ran a story on the elusive questionnaire which was subsequently circulated by various patriotic citizens groups. Then, on 10 May, 1994, the questionnaire was administered to Marine Desert Storm veterans at Twenty-Nine Palms, CA. A Marine smuggled a copy of the questionnaire out of the testing center and mailed it on 15 May, 1994, with a cover letter, to the editor of THE NEW AMERICAN, which ran the story in their July 11, 1994, issue. THE NEW AMERICAN quotes the Marine's impression that the questionnaire "was just research for this (Navy) commander's(sp) degree." The RESISTER obtained a copy of the Marine's letter, which actually states: "A Navy Commander came before us and said he was working on his masters degree and he was writing a paper about giving up our military's soverenty(sp) to the United Nations Secretary General."
The official DOD lie surrounding the questionnaire entitled "Combat Arms Survey," supports that of the Navy Commander. Significantly, the Combat Arms Survey was first given at the time Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 25 was being prepared. The RESISTER's correspondent in the Pentagon staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff confirms that PDD 25 surrenders control of the U.S. military to the United Nations. (A cursory survey of articles written by MACOM commanders and staff members in official military journals for the past year reveals a universal acceptance of U.N. control of the American military.)
The RESISTER has been eliciting responses to the questionnaire for the past year. Frighteningly, among service members with less than 10 years of service, 63% agree or strongly agree with question # 46: "I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government." Among new recruits almost 90% give the response: "If it's the law and they order me to do it I guess it's okay." Our federally controlled public schools have done their job.
Of those with more than 15 years of service, 87% replied "disagree" or "strongly disagree." Responses by members of the Special Forces Underground were unprintable; basically, there will not be many officers who give that order more than once.
The RESISTER has enclosed a copy of the Combat Arms Survey with this issue. As you read it pay particular attention to the qualifiers and their relation to recent articles in the official publications of the Department of Defense, the civilian media, and the policies of the federal government. *
Editorial Note The enclosed Combat Arms Survey is a true and accurate reproduction of the contents of the questionnaire. We altered the format to accommodate the The RESISTER's layout. THE EDITOR
COMBAT ARMS SURVEY
This questionnaire is to gather data concerning the attitudes of combat trained personnel with regards to nontraditional missions. All of your responses are confidential. Write your answers directly on the questionnaire form. In Part II, place an "X" in the space provided for your response.
Part I. Demographics
1. What service are you in?
2. What is your pay grade? (e.g. E-7, O-7)
3. What is your MOS code and description?
4. What is your highest level of education in years?
5. How many months did you serve in Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield?
6. How many months did you serve in Somalia?
7. What state or country did you primarily reside in during childhood?
Part II. Attitudes
Do you feel that U.S. Combat troops should be used within the United States for any of the following missions?
14. Federal and state prison guards
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
15. National emergency police force
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
16. Advisors to S.W.A.T. units, the FBI or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms (B.A.T.F.)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
17. Border patrol (e.g. prevention of illegal aliens into U.S. territory)
Do you feel that U.S. combat troops under U.S. command should be used in other countries for and of the following United Nations missions?
22. Nation building (Reconstruct civil government, develop public school
system, develop or improve public transportation system, etc.)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
23. Humanitarian relief (e.g. food and medical supplies, temporary housing,
and clothing)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used in other countries, under command of non-U.S. officers appointed by the United Nations for any of the following missions?
31. The U.S. runs a field training exercise. U.N. combat troops should be
allowed to serve in U.S. combat units during these exercises under U.S.
command and control.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
32. The United Nations runs a field training exercise. U.S. combat troops
under U.S. command and control should serve in U.N. combat units during these
37. It would make no difference to me to have U.N. soldiers as members of my
team. (e.g. fire team, squad, platoon)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
38. It would make no difference to me to take orders from a U.N. company
41. I feel my unit's combat effectiveness would not be affected by performing
humanitarian missions for the United Nations.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
42. I feel a designated unit of U.S. combat soldiers should be permanently
assigned to the command and control of the United Nations.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
43. I would be willing to volunteer for assignment to a U.S. combat unit under
44. I would like U.N. member countries, including the U.S., to the U.N. all
the soldiers necessary to maintain world peace.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
45. I would swear to the following code:
"I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which
maintain world peace and every nation's way of life. I am prepared to give my
Our civilian readers maybe wondering why the Combat Arms Survey was circulated so heavily within the Department of the Navy. The reason is simple; the Navy is not subject to USC Title 10 Posse Comitatus prohibitions against using federal military forces for domestic law enforcement. This includes the US Marine Corps.
Just thought you would like to know.
Just putting these questions to our military is wrong. Asking them to fire upon their fellow citizens is treasonable. Add the concept of RIFing senior officers and NCOs and we get a military that is extremely young, inexperienced, and loyal to Obama above the Constitution. A recipe not only for disaster but for the destruction of the United States.
Somebody is going to find themselves in very hot water. After all threatening a military instillation is not only a serious criminal offense. In this case, it could lead to a charge of accessory to murder in the 1st degree and the death penalty.
Few details emerged Saturday on a reported threat at Fort Benning.
Thursday a solider found a suspicious package and a note threatening a massacre similar to the Nov. 5 attack at Fort Hood, Texas, Elsie Jackson, post spokeswoman at Fort Benning confirmed Saturday.
The anonymous note and package -- reported by The Army Times as a box of 20 hollow-point bullets -- were found Thursday morning outside a motor pool area at Fort Benning, located near Columbus.
The discovery coincided with a visit from Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command, who was in town for Officer Candidate School graduation. The threat prompted a criminal investigation and greater police presence on the Army base, the Army Times reports.
According to a witness on the scene, a box of 20 hollow-point shells and a handwritten note were found under the 197th Infantry Training Brigade.
“The note said ‘tell the commanding general to call off all charges or there will be a re-enactment of Fort Hood,’ ” a witness told Army Times. Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan is charged in the Nov. 5 shooting deaths of 13 fellow service members.
The newspaper, which serves an audience of Army personnel, active and retired, said military police acted quickly on the threat, cordoning off a 20-foot perimeter around the box.
But knowing the PC attitude that prevails in the US Army, they just might give in. After all appeasement worked so well for Czechoslovakia in 1938. Right?
On the Hasan front, it seems that he will be confined to his hospital bed (or prison cell once the real doctors release him). For those who don't understand the military justice system: There is no bail.
Hasan has no feeling from the chest down, limited movement in his arms and has been told that his condition is permanent. Not as permanent as the 14 he killed! But hopefully that will be arranged soon.
Our good friend fiend Hugo Chavez is now defending fellow Venezuelan Carlos the Jackal. Oh Carlos was a very good role model for Chavez. Carlos is the mastermind behind such infamous terrorist attacks as the Munich Massacre and the hijacking of Air France flight 139 which led to the successful Israel rescue of the hostages at Entebbe, Uganda.
Looking like the complete idiot he is, Chavez declared:
"They accuse him of being a terrorist, but Carlos really was a revolutionary fighter," Chavez said during a televised speech to socialist politicians from various countries, who applauded.
In his speech, Chavez also sought to defend other leaders he said are wrongly labeled "bad guys" internationally, including Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Chavez called both of them brothers and said he now wonders whether Ugandan dictator Idi Amin was truly as brutal as he was reputed to be.
On has to wonder if Chavez is a real idiot or just pretending to be one to rise up anger against him. One must assume the worse of him by the company he associates with: Robert (Trillion Dollar) Mugabe, Mahmoud (Monkeyman) Ahmadinejad, and now Idi (The Ugly Gorilla) Amin. These are added to his all time favorites: Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler.
Yes dear Hugo has become a great spokesman for his nation. And if one didn't know better, one could easily accuse Venezuelans of being extreme anti-Semites and not able to produce men with an IQ over the rating of 50.
Finally:
President Obama has appointed Dr. Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe to be the US ambassador to the UN Human Rights Council aka UN Final Solution Council. She should fit right in.
The California scholar and Obama donor tapped to be the first U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Council is a fierce critic of the United Nations' human rights record who some watchdogs hope will roll some heads on the controversial panel boycotted during the Bush administration.
What will roll here will be the peals of laughter from Libya, Cuba, and Iran when they eat this Moonbat for breakfast.
In what would be a drastic shift from current policy, she recommended in her 2006 Ph.D. dissertation that the United Nations condition a country's sovereignty on its human rights record. In other words, she argued that human rights abuses can justify invasion.
U.N. critics are cautiously optimistic she'll bring that hard-nosed attitude to the council and be willing to confront the despots and alleged human rights abusers represented there.
"The council has been awful," Hillel Neuer, director of U.N. Watch in Geneva, told FoxNews.com, saying he hopes the Obama administration doesn't think it's going to seek reform through "consensus" on the panel. "I'm confident that Donahoe, given her background, understands that and will take a vigorous approach to holding abusers to account."
Watchdogs, though, are reserving judgment, in part because they are so disenchanted with the panel and in part because Donahoe does not have diplomatic experience.
She does have experience in other matters it seems:
Donahoe also happens to be a top Obama fundraiser and the wife of eBay CEO John Donahoe. During the presidential campaign, she served as chairwoman of the National Women for Obama Finance Committee and was a prolific "bundler."
She hosted one high-dollar fundraiser at her home in 2007, and by the end of the campaign had reportedly raised more than $1 million for the presidential candidate.
So that is the price for an ambassadorship these days. I wonder how much you have to raise to become ambassador to Great Britain? Russia? China? Honduras?
These are today's Moonbats. I am sure there are others, but these just jumped right out at me.
The Shape of Things to Come is a work of science fiction by H. G. Wells, published in 1933, which speculates on future events from 1933 until the year 2106. The book is dominated by Wells' belief in a world state as the solution to mankind's problems.
And like all dreamers, liberals actually believe the propaganda of the One World Order being a benevolent dictatorship of the elites showering down their wisdom upon the unwashed masses.
A few days ago, the so-called experts and doctors examining the costs and effectiveness of early screening for breast cancer came down from their proverbial Mount Sinai and delivered the following pronouncement:
Women in their 40s should not get routine mammograms for early detection of breast cancer, according to updated guidelines set forth by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
Before having a mammogram, women ages 40 to 49 should talk to their doctors about the risks and benefits of the test, and then decide if they want to be screened, according to the task force.
For women ages 50 to 74, it recommends routine mammography screenings every two years. Risks and benefits for women age 75 and above are unknown, it said.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is worried that women might get upset if they discover a lump in their breast. May have undue worry when they have their annual mammogram. It is just easier to pat the poor, dumb creatures on the head and send them back to the kitchen to cook their hubby dinner. Let the men decide what the best type of medicine you need to have.
Too bad nobody told these so-called experts that 15% of Breast Cancer survivors discovered their cancers in time by self-examination and routine mammograms.
Funny how this emerges just when Obama's health care bills have huge cost overruns in them. Strange that noone is looking to see how much money will be saved by insurance companies (especially government run ones) once they adopt these new recommendations.
But why stop with Breast Cancer. Why not continue on this idea and stop routine, yearly Pap Smears. After all, a false positive will lead to worry in that department.
Great Britain stopped Pap Smears for women under 25, and they were able to reduce costs by 10% (and increased cervical cancer deaths by 10%).
We could stop testing for Ovarian Cancer too. Why not? Not many women get Ovarian Cancer, and absolutely no men will contract the disease. According to the new ideas in Government Health Insurance, women's health doesn't really matter. So why even give the poor, defenseless things (they really cannot do much and are quite dumb about the world) yearly health exams. Once every 3 to 5 years will do better. If you let them even have that.
Oh the left talks big on equality. On Human rights. On cheep affordable Health Coverage for all. All except poor and middle class women. It is ok to let them die of a disease that is survivable if caught early and treated.
But not in the future America where the price of a test is worth infinitely more than a human life.
I sometimes wonder if I am living in the Twilight Zone. It seems that the world is going topsy-turvey. Consider this piece of news:
Saudis ask for aid if world cuts dependence on oil
BANGKOK — There are plenty of needy countries at the U.N. climate talks in Bangkok that make the case they need financial assistance to adapt to the impacts of global warming. Then there are the Saudis.
Saudi Arabia has led a quiet campaign during these and other negotiations — demanding behind closed doors that oil-producing nations get special financial assistance if a new climate pact calls for substantial reductions in the use of fossil fuels. (Emphasis mine)
That campaign comes despite an International Energy Agency report released this week showing that OPEC revenues would still increase $23 trillion between 2008 and 2030 — a fourfold increase compared to the period from 1985 to 2007 — if countries agree to significantly slash emissions and thereby cut their use of oil. That is the limit most countries agree is needed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. (Emphasis mine)
The head of the Saudi delegation Mohammad S. Al Sabban dismissed the IEA figures as “biased” and said OPEC's own calculations showed that Saudi Arabia would lose $19 billion a year starting in 2012 under a new climate pact. The region would lose much more, he said.
“We are among the economically vulnerable countries,” Al Sabban told The Associated Press on the sidelines of the talks ahead of negotiations in Copenhagen in December for a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
“This is very serious for us,” he continued. “We are in the process of diversifying our economy but this will take a long time. We don't have too many resources.”
Saudi Arabia, which sits atop the world's largest proven oil reserves, is seeing economic growth slide because of fallout from the global meltdown, but experts still expect the country, flush with cash from oil's earlier price spike last year, to be better able than other nations to cope with the current crisis.
Al Sabban accused Western nations of pursuing an agenda against oil producers, under the guise of protecting the planet.
“Many politicians in the Western world think these climate change negotiations and the new agreement will provide them with a golden opportunity to reduce their dependence on imported oil,” Al Sabban said. “That means you will transfer the burden to developing countries, especially to those highly dependent on the exploitation of oil.”
Al Sabban said his country wanted a new deal and was not impeding progress in talks as some activists have claimed.
An Arab environmental group IndyACT and the environmental group Germanwatch released a report today accusing Saudi Arabia of blocking key elements of the negotiations. Among their tactics, the groups said, was slowing negotiations by insisting that the economic woes of oil producers be included in the text.
“Despite the variability in the region, the current Arab position is mainly focused around protecting the oil trade rather than saving the planet form the adverse impacts of climate change,” said Wael Hmaidan, the executive director of IndyACT.
Most countries have agreed that any new pact should include provisions to avoid temperature increases of more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels — the threshold at which most scientists say serious climate change will ensue.
That would require emissions cuts from industrial countries of 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, far above the 15 to 23 percent cuts rich countries have offered so far. It would also require developing countries to scale back their emissions.
Both rich and poor countries are counting on a transition to a low carbon economy as a key component of meeting their reductions, a move that would require them to away from fossil fuels and toward renewables like solar, wind and hydro power.
Knowing the jackass we have in the White House, the Saudis should be getting at least $500 Billion of our tax dollars. After all the Chief Asshole is known for his respect for the Saudi government:
So what if the Saudis go broke over this? If they had invested their money in worthwhile projects like literacy instead of handouts to their people, making their people actually work for a living instead of hiring foreigners to run their factories, power plants, oil fields, etc..., instead of spending their money building lavish Mosques around the world and nonsense Arab study courses which are in reality a front for anti-Semitic rhetoric at Western Universities, then they would be in fine shape.
But instead they will plod along like always. Spending money as if it is water on a lifestyle that is so lavish and decedent it would embarrass Caligula. And they will demand that we pay for it.
To them and to the idiots in Washington who would pay them I say:
I received this in an email and thought I would share it with you.
Wishful Thinking!
A driver is stuck in a traffic jam going into downtown Chicago . Nothing Is Moving north or south. Suddenly a man knocks on his window.
The driver rolls down his window and asks, 'What happened, what's the hold Up?'
'Terrorists have kidnapped Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Rosie O'Donnell, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They are asking for a $10 Million ransom. Otherwise, they are going to douse them with gasoline and set them on fire. We are going from car to car, taking up a collection.'
The driver asks, 'On average, how much is everyone giving?'
Once again Barack Hussein Obama is reaching out to the Muslim World. This time it is a message to celebrate Ramadan. And once again he is showing his preference towards Islam.
President Obama gave no special speech or address on Easter, or Passover. In fact, all he did was add a paragraph to his weekly address.
This will be his fourth speech to the Muslim World. His first being a warm New Year (Nowruz) greeting to Iran, then the speech in Turkey, his Cairo speech, and now this one. How many more are to follow?
On behalf of the American people - including Muslim communities in all fifty states - I want to extend best wishes to Muslims in America and around the world. Ramadan Kareem.
Ramadan is the month in which Muslims believe the Koran was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, beginning with a simple word - iqra. It is therefore a time when Muslims reflect upon the wisdom and guidance that comes with faith, and the responsibility that human beings have to one another, and to God.
Like many people of different faiths who have known Ramadan through our communities and families, I know this to be a festive time - a time when families gather, friends host iftars, and meals are shared. But I also know that Ramadan is a time of intense devotion and reflection - a time when Muslims fast during the day and perform tarawih prayers at night, reciting and listening to the entire Koran over the course of the month.
These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam's role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.
For instance, fasting is a concept shared by many faiths - including my own Christian faith - as a way to bring people closer to God, and to those among us who cannot take their next meal for granted. And the support that Muslims provide to others recalls our responsibility to advance opportunity and prosperity for people everywhere.
For all of us must remember that the world we want to build - and the changes that we want to make - must begin in our own hearts, and our own communities.
This summer, people across America have served in their communities - educating children, caring for the sick, and extending a hand to those who have fallen on hard times. Faith-based organizations, including many Islamic organizations, have been at the forefront in participating in this summer of service. And in these challenging times, this is a spirit of responsibility that we must sustain in the months and years to come.
Beyond America's borders, we are also committed to keeping our responsibility to build a world that is more peaceful and secure. That is why we are responsibly ending the war in Iraq. That is why we are isolating violent extremists while empowering the people in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we are unyielding in our support for a two-state solution that recognizes the rights of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security. And that is why America will always stand for the universal rights of all people to speak their mind, practice their religion, contribute fully to society and have confidence in the rule of law.
All of these efforts are a part of America's commitment to engage Muslims and Muslim-majority nations on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect. And at this time of renewal, I want to reiterate my commitment to a new beginning between America and Muslims around the world.
As I said in Cairo, this new beginning must be borne out in a sustained effort to listen to each other, to learn from each other, to respect one another, and to seek common ground. I believe an important part of this is listening, and in the last two months, American embassies around the world have reached out not just to governments, but directly to people in Muslim-majority countries. From around the world, we have received an outpouring of feedback about how America can be a partner on behalf of peoples' aspirations.
We have listened. We have heard you. And like you, we are focused on pursuing concrete actions that will make a difference over time - both in terms of the political and security issues that I have discussed, and in the areas that you have told us will make the most difference in peoples' lives.
These consultations are helping us implement the partnerships that I called for in Cairo - to expand education exchange programs; to foster entrepreneurship and create jobs; and to increase collaboration on science and technology, while supporting literacy and vocational learning. We are also moving forward in partnering with the OIC and OIC member states to eradicate polio, while working closely with the international community to confront common health challenges like H1N1 - which I know is of particular to concern to many Muslims preparing for the upcoming hajj.
All of these efforts are aimed at advancing our common aspirations - to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. It will take time and patient effort. We cannot change things over night, but we can honestly resolve to do what must be done, while setting off in a new direction - toward the destination that we seek for ourselves, and for our children. That is the journey that we must travel together.
I look forward to continuing this critically important dialogue and turning it into action. And today, I want to join with the 1.5 billion Muslims around the world - and your families and friends - in welcoming the beginning of Ramadan, and wishing you a blessed month. May God's peace be upon you.
Once again we are seeing the big lie being told. Islam is not the religion that promotes justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings. In fact it is just the opposite. The truth is that Islam promotes justice for only Muslim. Tolerance if you pay the jizya.
From the Koran:
Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
From the Hadith:
Muslim (19:4294) - There are many places in the hadith where Muhammad tells his followers to demand the jizya of non-believers. Here he lays down the rule that it is to be extorted by force: "If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"
Bukhari (53:386) - The command for Muslims to spread Islamic rule by force, subjugating others until they either convert to Islam or pay money, is eternal: Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." This is being recounted during the reign of Umar, Muhammad's companion and the second caliph who sent conquering armies into non-Muslim Persian and Christian lands (after Muhammad's death).
Ishaq 956 & 962 - "He who withholds the Jizya is an enemy of Allah and His apostle." The words of Muhammad.
Not very tolerant is it. Then there is the dignity of all humans. He must mean the male ones only, for in Islam women have no dignity, no rights.
From the Koran:
Qur'an (4:11) - (Inheritance) "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females" (see also verse 4:176).
Qur'an (2:282) - (Court testimony) "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women." Muslim apologists have sometimes creatively tried to explain why a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's under Islamic law (based on this verse) while still attempting to maintain the semblance of equality. Unfortunately for them, studies consistently show that women are less likely to tell lies than men, meaning that they would make more reliable witnesses in any court - were it not for Islam's obvious sexism.
Qur'an (2:228) - "and the men are a degree above them [women]"
Qur'an (5:6) - "And if ye are unclean, purify yourselves. And if ye are sick or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have had contact with women, and ye find not water, then go to clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it" Men are to rub dirt on their hands if there is no water to purify them following casual contact with a woman (such as shaking hands).
Qur'an (24:31) - Women are to lower their gaze around men, so they do not look them in the eye.
Qur'an (2:223) - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will..." A man has dominion over his wives' bodies as he does his land. This verse is overtly sexual. There is some dispute as to whether it is referring to the practice of anal intercourse, which it has been used historically to justify. If this is what Muhammad meant, however, then it would appear to contradict what he said in Muslim (8:3365).
Qur'an (4:3) - (Wife-to-husband ratio) "Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four"
Qur'an (53:27) - "Those who believe not in the Hereafter, name the angels with female names." Angels are sublime beings, and would therefore be male.
Qur'an (4:24) and Qur'an (33:52) - A man is permitted to take women as sex slaves outside of marriage.
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (6:301) - "[Muhammad] said, 'Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?' They replied in the affirmative. He said, 'This is the deficiency in her intelligence.'"
Bukhari (6:301) - continued - "[Muhammad said] 'Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?' The women replied in the affirmative. He said, 'This is the deficiency in her religion.'" Allah has made women deficient in the practice of their religion as well, by giving them menstrual cycles.
Bukhari (2:28) - Women comprise the majority of Hell's occupants. This is important because the only women in heaven ever mentioned by Muhammad are the virgins who serve the sexual desires of men. (A weak Hadith, Kanz al-`ummal, 22:10, even suggests that 99% of women go to Hell).
Bukhari (62:81) - "The Prophet said: "'The stipulations most entitled to be abided by are those with which you are given the right to enjoy the (women's) private parts (i.e. the stipulations of the marriage contract).'" In other words, the most important thing that a woman brings to a marriage is between her legs.
Bukhari (62:58) - A woman presents herself in marriage to Muhammad, but he does not find her attractive, so he "donates" her on the spot to another man.
Muslim (4:1039) - "A'isha said [to Muhammad]: 'You have made us equal to the dogs and the asses'"
Abu Dawud (2:704) - "...the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, an ass, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone's throw."
Ishaq 593 - "As for Ali, he said, 'Women are plentiful, and you can easily change one for another.'" Ali was raised as a son by Muhammad. He was also the 4th caliph. This comment was made in Muhammad's presence without a word of rebuke from him.
Ishaq 593 - "From the captives of Hunayn, Allah's Messenger gave [his son-in-law] Ali a slave girl called Baytab and he gave [future Caliph] Uthman a slave girl called Zaynab and [future Caliph] Umar another." - Even in this world, Muhammad treated women like party favors, handing out slave girls to his cronies for sex.
Ishaq 969 - "Men were to lay injunctions on women lightly, for they were prisoners of men and had no control over their persons." - This same text also justifies beating women for flirting.
Will someone please explain to me how any of those examples equate to the values founded in the US Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Then explain to me how Shar'ia Law is in any way compatible with American Jurisprudence. I don't see it, yet Harold Koh, a legal adviser for the State Department, and appointed by Obama would impose Shar'ia Law in the United States. So much for the Separation of Church and State, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
How many more speeches will Obama send to the Muslims before he just gives the speech declaring the US a Muslim Nation, forcing everyone to either convert to Islam or become Dhimmis, and forcing a strict interpetation of Shar'ia on us all. After all he has shown his true colors:
Is what President Obama told non-Orthodox Jewish leaders on Tuesday.
The conference call was placed to members of the Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist movements. All this in an effort to garner support for HR 3200.
(INN)Many American Jewish organizations have publicly offered words of support for U.S. President Barack Obama's healthcare nationalization plans. However, some expressed serious reservations over certain aspects of the likely reforms. On Wednesday, Obama devoted a single conference call to non-Orthodox Jewish religious leaders before addressing over 140,000 other American religious leaders to promote his ideas on healthcare.
In his first conference call of the day, President Obama spoke with over 1,000 rabbis and lay leaders from the Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist movements. The phone discussion with Jewish leaders was officially orchestrated by the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. It was promoted as a pre-Rosh Hashanah discussion, providing the rabbis with food for thought ahead of well-attended High Holiday sermons.
In the second phone conference, named "40 Minutes for Health Reform", President Obama spoke with clergy from various church, mosque and Jewish groups. He told the religious leaders, "I need you to spread the facts and speak the truth."
The U.S. leader said there was "a lot of misinformation" regarding his universal healthcare plans, with "some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness." Healthcare, Obama said, is a "a core ethical and moral obligation" that "goes to the heart of who we are as a people."
While the Reform movement's leading official body has offered support for the U.S. president's plans for healthcare, other Jewish religious groups - not invited to join Wednesday's Jewish-only phone call - have expressed reservations without rejecting nationalization in principle.
The Orthodox Union has not issued a statement of support or rejection of the Obama healthcare reform. However, in part, the financing of national healthcare is slated to draw on funds raised by reducing tax deductions from charitable contributions. In the past, the OU has staked out a position opposing changes to the tax benefits of donations to the non-profit sector.
Agudath Israel of America, a hareidi-religious body, decided to issue an explicit statement on the healthcare reform issue on Wednesday. The group praised universal health coverage, but warned about "challenges that health care reform may pose in the realm of religious rights."
In a letter to President Obama, Agudath Israel's Washington Office director and counsel, Rabbi Abba Cohen wrote that for Orthodox Jews "the preservation of life and the promotion of good health and well-being are religious imperatives." At the same time, he expressed concerns over "cost-benefit" analyses or judgments about "quality of life" that may cause treatment to be denied in opposition to religious convictions regarding these issues.
Furthermore, Rabbi Cohen noted, government fiat may force healthcare providers "to perform medical procedures they consider religiously or morally objectionable" or private sector companies "to provide coverage for such procedures." Agudath Israel asserts that the rights of the healthcare providers should be safeguarded in any national reform.
There is a great Tradition in Judaism to provide care for those who are injured or ill. And for generations rabbis have asked their congregations to donate to charities that provide health care and hospitalization to the poor. Charities like Hadassah and Deborah have helped and is continuing to help millions of poor people through out the world, regardless of their ability to pay.
But never before have I ever heard of a US President demanding that a rabbi alter their High Holy Day Sermons to push his agenda on their congregation. I do not believe that this is even permissible under Jewish Law (Halakha).
In the United States there is a tradition that the government should stay out of religious matters. That each person has a right to believe what they wish to, and the government cannot dictate what the tenets of each faith should be. President Obama is coming very close to crossing that line. Today he asks for their support, tomorrow he can be assigning a czar to write their sermons for them.
I ask all rabbis to ignore this plea from the President, write a sermon that is non-political, dealing with the days, the traditions, and our faith instead. It will be received a lot better than the political advertisement the President is proposing for you to give.
Crime 1: Another multi-billion dollar subsidy for Government Motors.
When Obama stole Chrysler from its stockholders and gave it to his union cronies, we knew he would take every opportunity to waste taxpayer dollars trying to keep this lead balloon afloat. The Cash for Clunkers subsidy is just particularly egregious, since it works by subsidizing the last people in the world who need a subsidy: those who are well off enough to be buying new cars in the midst of a deep recession. Talk about a middle class welfare program!
Crime 2: Eliminating Government Motors’ competition by gratuitously slagging an expected 750,000 perfectly good used cars in the sub-$4500 price range.
The Obamacrats aren’t just subsidizing cars for the well-to-do. They are destroying the cars that the less well-off are in the market for, driving up used car prices as part of their effort to make new cars more attractive:
Some parts may be kept but the engine and drive-train must be destroyed. Specifically the engine will be injected with a liquid glass solution to permanently disable the engine and it will be the responsibility of the dealer to make sure this is done to the engine.
Injected with liquid glass? Sounds like a Quentin Tarentino murder fantasy, and the reality isn't any prettier. Witness Obama's procedure for destroying the would-be cars of the non-wealthy:
Here is another one, a spiffy-looking Volvo that holds out for 4-plus minutes. Some clunker, and check out the row of semi-new cars lined up to go next:
Take THAT all you graduate students, newlyweds, store clerks, aspiring actors, single moms, non-deadbeat dads, warehouse workers, journalists, hippies, and other assorted poor relations. You want a car, you can scrape together your savings for a down payment on the privilege of paying hundreds of dollars a month to Government Motors for FIVE YEARS, just like everybody else.
How big is this crime?
A very substantial portion of the population NEVER buys a new car. I, for instance, have never bought a new car, and I never expect to. Why would I, when California has the best used car market in the world? In the last 10 years I have bought two 1984 Toyota Vans, one with 45,000 miles, one with 115,000 miles, each for $1500. Both still run great. One is set up as a work vehicle. One converts from passenger van to camper. No new vehicles would serve as well, or look as sharp.
My two uber-vans, one extra-dirty from its recent 2000 mile trek to Seattle and back. (Shasta, Crater Lake, Boeing Museum of Flight, Blue Angels, Olympic Peninsula, Fort Stevens, Oregon Dunes, North Coast, and back across the Golden Gate. Ain’t that America?)
The vehicles that are being gratuitously destroyed are newer than my two vans (which are just outside the 25 year age limit) and they are up to three times the price. For instance, the immensely popular Toyota Previa vans (1990-96) all qualify.
A good California Previa with a hundred thousand miles left on it sells for two to three thousand dollars. The government's offer of 35-45 hundred is outbidding the market even on these top quality used vehicles. Cash for Clunkers is a misnomer. Some bottom-of-the-barrel cars will be turned in, but the rules insure that most will not be these “clunkers.”
To qualify, a car must have been registered the name of the new car buyer for the last 12 months and it must have been insured for the last 12 months. These actively-used cars of people who buy new cars are the quality core of the used car market. Most “clunkers” will be perfectly good cars that would be prize possessions for a half million less well-off Americans, wantonly destroyed only because the Obamacrats prefer that they be destroyed. Dollar for dollar, this is the equivalent of trying to solve the glut of housing foreclosures by purchasing the houses with taxpayer money then burning them down.
Any Obama supporter who claims to be motivated by distributional justice, go soak your head. You want to subsidize the better off? Be as stupid as you want. But don’t go destroying en masse what the less well-off need to survive.
All justified by a lie
Obama’s excuse for decimating the last two generations of used vans, SUV’s, pick-up trucks and full size cars is the global warming hoax. The ascendancy of Obama is, in his own narcissistic vision:
...the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.
Energy consumption must be curtailed in the extreme:
…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.
It is all about CO2 and the phony global warming industry that Vice President Al Gore created with $10b of seed money when he pioneered and administered the executive branch’s global warming portfolio (now called “climate change,” since the earth stopped warming 10 years ago). Gore’s appointees have directed almost all of the full $79b that the U.S. has spent on climate science since 1989, and they don't care at all whether CO2 is actually warming the planet. Their real motivation is an eco-religious belief that economic activity is gobbling up the natural world, so that for the natural world to survive, economic activity must contract.
To these high priests of green religion, CO2 is the perfect fall guy, no matter how insignificant its actual impact on climate. If the CO2 released by fossil fuel burning can be framed as a threat to the planet, that provides a rationale for drastically curtailing human economic activity, thereby stopping economic activity from gobbling up the natural world, whether or not CO2 itself actually has any harmful effects.
CO2 alarmists reject the scientific method
We can say with nearly complete certainty that the bulk of 20th century warming was NOT caused by CO2. This is because we know what DID cause the warming: the “grand maximum” levels of solar-magnetic activity that obtained for most solar cycles between 1930 and 2003.
Numerousstudies have found a high degree of correlation (.6 to .8) between solar-magnetic activity and global temperature. That is, solar-magnetic activity "explains" statistically 60-80% of global temperature change on all time scales. That degree of correlation, observed over thousands and millions of years, HAS to be causal, and the causation can only go one way. It is not the temperature of the earth that is causing sunspots.
What is not well understood is HOW solar-magnetic activity drives global temperature. We just know that it does, just as before Einstein we did not know what mechanism causes massive objects to fall towards each other, we just knew that they do.
We actually have some pretty good theories of how solar-magnetic activity drives global temperature but set that aside. The eco-religionists, who thanks to Al Gore control ALL of the research funds for the “climate change” industry, use uncertainty about HOW solar-magnetic activity drives global temperature as an excuse for completely omitting the solar-magnetic variable from their models. They explicitly put theory over data, exactly the opposite of the scientific method, which says that data is always supposed to trump theory.
This anti-scientific method misattributes to CO2 the warming caused by high 20th century levels of solar-magnetic activity. Put solar-magnetic activity back into the equation, attributing to it what warming has historically been correlated with high levels of solar-magnetic activity, and the levels of warming that could possibly be attributable to CO2 become small. In particular, they become benign.
Warming in general is good. When Greenland was green, civilization prospered, as did plants and other living things. Nothing gobbles up the natural world like ice. It is only by claiming that CO2 could cause some unprecedented “runaway warming” that the alarmists have been able to present CO2 as dangerous. Stop misattributing solar-magnetic warming to CO2 and that possibility is off the table.
The dominant driver of global climate is solar-magnetic activity and any modicum of warming we can get out CO2 is all to the good. If our fossil fuel burning has the side effect of making our warm times a little warmer and our cold times a little less cold, that is a happy bit of luck for a world that ALWAYS seems to be colder than the optimum, with the next glacial period due any Millennia.
Proof that the IPCC completely omits the solar-magnetic variable
Just look at any of the IPCC assessment reports. They all include the following graphic (slightly updated over the years):
From the 4th Assessment Report (figure 2.4 on page 39 of the Synthesis Report).
The only "natural" climate influence accounted by the IPCC is "solar irradiance," which means visible light and other electro-magnetic radiation. It does in any way include the solar-magnetic flux, which is completely omitted from all IPCC models, even though every climate scientists knows full well that, according to the raw data, magnetic effects are the primary driver of global temperature.
EVERY educated person who accepts CO2 alarmism on the authority of the global warming anti-scientists is failing the most basic due diligence.
Technically, the alarmists’ anti-scientific inversion of theory and evidence takes the form of what is called “omitted variable fraud,” where the omission of any important explanatory variable causes its explanatory effect to be misattributed to whatever correlated variables are included (in this case CO2 which, like solar activity, also went up in the 20th century). This is the most basic, the most common, the most familiar form of statistical fraud. Everyone who has ever studied not just any physical science but any social science at any moderately high level is fully competent recognize for themselves the statistical fraud that is being committed by the CO2 alarmists.
The educated Democrat-voting elites who are pushing to unplug industrial capitalism on the authority of alarmist anti-scientists have an obligation of due diligence to check for themselves whether the facts of the matter are beyond their own competence, and they are ALL failing this basic obligation. They are just assuming that they have to accept on authority that the survival of the planet requires the radical curtailment of CO2, when even a quick look at the facts reveals that the statistically most important variable is omitted from the alarmist models.
Why this willingness uncritically enlist as foot-soldiers for the destruction of modernity? Because like the CO2 anti-scientists themselves, these Democrat elites also don’t care whether CO2 is actually a threat. They too are eco-religionists who are glad for any excuse to curtail the economic growth that according to their presumptions is gobbling up the natural world.
Wrong about economics too
Of course the eco-religionists are also wrong about economic growth being bad for the environment. Economic growth creates and is created by technological advance, and it is technological advance that is allowing mankind and the natural world to both thrive at once. Economic activity is not the enemy of the natural world. It is the salvation of the natural world.
Having dedicated their intellectual resources to maintaining their religious presumptions instead of following reason and evidence, our Democrat elites have become pure political animals in the lowest sense, driven entirely by their lust for power. Every excuse, be it phony concern for distributive justice or phony concern for the environment, is wielded with complete dishonesty, utterly heedless of how distributive justice or the environment are actually affected, until all that is left is their ultimate presumption: that the one thing most necessary is that THEY have power.
This pathology finds its epitome in President Obama. Cash for Clunkers is just one paltry multi-billion dollar program, but the same coming-and-going perversity is manifest in Obama’s larger jihad against CO2—his push for cap and trade legislation. If we would uncork energy, the economy would rebound tomorrow, but Obama is determined to close the energy spigot down, not open it up.
Anybody who thinks this recession is ending is out of their minds. Obama is draining the oil and pouring in the silica slurry. If you want to hear where the economy is headed, listen to the “squirk” from the end of the Obama-car-death video, when the engine jerks at the end of the hangman’s rope.
This is the sound of a valuable helper being sacrificed by government to the false idols of green religion. It isn’t just barbarous. It is a clear violation of the establishment clause. Execute the worst human criminals, yes, but Mission Solano has it right: “No Death Penalty for Cars!”
I find it ironic and a bit strange that in the Land of the Free, elected officials would be using strong arm tactics to silence dissent. Instead of inquiring why their constituents are upset with HR 3200, and listening to their concerns, they are employing hired goons (union workers and members of ACORN) to stifle dissenting opinions. These goons are not registered in their districts, thus are not their constituents.
There are valid points that the "Angry Mob" as Speaker Pelosi and other members of the Democratic leadership calls them. Points they refuse to listen to.
Here are just a few of the points of contention in HR 3200 that has angered so many: (Just a listing of less then 1/2 of the 1,017 pages of the bill.)
Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the government option!
Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
Page 72: All private health care plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Health care Exchange.
Page 84: All private health care plans must participate in the Health care Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens.
Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
Page 126: Employers MUST pay health care bills for part-time employees AND their families.
Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll.
Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll.
Page 167: Any individual who doesn't have acceptable health care (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Health care Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.
Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.
Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private health care industries.
Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited from owning and investing in health care companies!
Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (health care by phone). Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.
This bill is a recipe for death and disaster. Forced Euthanasia, Rationed Health Care, and a Government control of your Medical and Financial records, with no say from you.
Our "Elected Officials" seem to have forgotten that they do not hold permanent positions. They have a "Temp Job" predicated on the supposition that the constituents bosses are pleased with the job they are doing. Today the members of Congress act as if their constituents' bosses' opinions have no merit. Their hubris is beyond measure, with most, if not all of the members of Congress feeling as if their seats are safe and secure.
They are not! No seat in Congress is a safe seat. Anger enough of your constituents bosses and they will discover that simple, but basic fact.
The time has come for the people of the United States to take back their government. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote:
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
It is time to stop fearing our Government, but to have the Government start fearing us.
It is time we tell Congress that this bill is unacceptable to the American people, that if you vote for this bill it will result in a rude awakening for you on Wednesday, November 3, 2010 when their Constituents Bosses relay the words to them:
