NEWS TRACK

Angry & sending it to Everyone

2009-04-09T23:07:00.002-08:00

----- Original Message -----
From: Margie Padilla and
From: marjory egger
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:44 AM
Subject: FW: Angry & sending it to Everyone

Subject: Fw: Angry & sending it to Everyone

SHALL WE HIRE A MONUMENT ENGRAVER TO GO TO ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY AND ADD THE MISSING WORDS?

A MESSAGE FROM AN APPALLED OBSERVER:

Today I went to visit the new World War II Memorial in Washington , DC . I got an unexpected history lesson. Because I'm a baby boomer, I was one of the youngest in the crowd. Most were the age of my parents, Veterans of 'TheG reatest War,' with their families.

It was a beautiful day and people were smiling and happy to be there. Hundreds of us milled around the memorial , reading the inspiring words of Eisenhower and Truman that are engraved there. On the Pacific side of the memorial, a group of us gathered to read the words President Roosevelt used to announce the attack on Pearl Harbor:

"Yesterday, December 7, 1941-- a date which will live in infamy--the UnitedStates of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked." One elderly woman read the words aloud: "With confidence in our armed forces, with the abounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph."

But as she read, she was suddenly turned angry. "Wait a minute," she said,"they left out the end of the quote. They left out the most important part. Roosevelt ended the message with ' so help us God .' " Her husband said, "You are probably right. We're not supposed to say things like that now."

"I know I'm right," she insisted. "I remember the speech." The two looked dismayed, shook their heads sadly and walked away. Listening to their conversation, I thought to myself, 'Well, it has been over 50 years. She's probably forgotten.' But she had not forgotten. She was right...

I went home and pulled out the book my book club is reading --- " Flags of Our Fathers " by James Bradley . It's all about the battle at Iwo Jima .I haven't gotten too far in the book. It's tough to read because it's agraphic description of the WWII battles in the Pacific . But right there it was on page 58. Roosevelt 's speech to the nation ends in

' So help us God .'

The people who edited out that part of the speech when they engraved it on the memorial could have fooled me. I was born after the war! But they couldn't fool the people who were there. Roosevelt's words are engraved on their hearts. Now I ask: "WHO GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE WORDS OF HISTORY?????????"

Send this around to your friends. People need to know before everyone forgets. People today are trying to change the history of America by leaving God out of it but the truth is God has been a part of this nation since the beginning! He still wants to be and He always will be!!! If you agree, pass this on and God Bless YOU!!! If not, May God Forgive You!!!!!

Democrats by the Numbers

2009-04-09T23:00:00.000-08:00

Subject: Democrats by the Numbers

And Rome continues to burn, vigorously.

The Obama Democrats: By The Numbers
$34,000: the amount of federal taxes that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner (D) failed to pay during his employment at the International Monetary Fund despite receiving extra compensation and explanatory brochures that described his tax liabilities.
$75,000: the amount of money that the head of the powerful tax-writing committee, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), was forced to report on his taxes after the discovery that he had not reported income from a Costa Rican rental property. His excuses for the failure started with blaming his wife, then his accountant and finally the fact that he didn't speak Spanish.

$93,000: the amount of petty cash each Congressional representative voted to give themselves in January 2009 during the height of an economic meltdown.

$133,900: the amount Fannie Mae "invested" in Chris Dodd (D-CT), head of the powerful Senate Ban king Committee, presumably to repel oversight of the GSE prior to its meltdown. Said meltdown helped touch off the current economic crisis. In only a few years time, Fannie also "invested" over $105,000 in then-Senator Barack Obama.

$140,000: the amount of back taxes and interest that Cabinet nominee Tom Daschle (D) was forced to cough up after the vetting process revealed significant, unexplained tax liabilities.

$356,000: the approximate amount of income and deductions that Daschle (D) was forced to report on his amended 2005 and 2007 tax returns after being caught cheating on his taxes. This includes $255,256 for the use of a car service, $83,333 in unreported income, and $14,963 in charitable contributions.

$800,000: the amount of "sweetheart" mortgages Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) received from Countrywide Financial, the details for which he has refused to release despite months of promises to do so. Countrywide was once the nation's largest mortgage lender and linked to Govern ment-Sponsored Entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their meltdown precipitated the current financial crisis. Just days ago in Pennsylvania , Countrywide was forced to pay $150,000,000 in mortgage assistance following "a state investigation that concluded that Countrywide relaxed its underwriting standards to sell risky loans to consumers who did not understand them and could not afford them."

$1,000,000: the estimated amount of donations by Denise Rich, wife of fugitive Marc Rich, to Democrat interests and the William J. Clinton Foundation in an apparent quid pro quo deal that resulted in a pardon for Mr. Rich. The pardon was reviewed and blessed by Obama Attorney General and then Deputy AG Eric Holder, despite numerous requests by government officials to turn it down.

$12,000,000: the amount of TARP money provided to community bank “OneUnited” despite the fact that it did not qualify for funds, and was "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses." It turns out that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), a key contributor to the Fannie Mae meltdown, just happens to be married to one of the bank's ex-directors.

$23,500,000: The upper range of net worth Rep. Allan Mollohan (D-WV) accumulated in four years time according to The Washington Post through earmarks of "tens of millions of dollars to groups associated with his own business partners."

$2,000,000,000: ($2 billion) the approximate amount of money that House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) is earmarking related to his son's lobbying efforts. Craig Obey is "a top lobbyist for the nonprofit group" that would receive a roughly $2 billion component of the "Stimulus" package.

$3,700,000,000: ($3.7 billion) not to be outdone, this is the estimated value of various defense contracts awarded to a company controlled by the husband of Rep. Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Despite an obvious conflict-of-interest as "a member of the Military C onstruction Appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband's firms ."

$4,190,000,000: ($4.19 billion) the amount of money in the so-called "Stimulus" package devoted to fraudulent voter registration ACORN group under the auspices of "Community Stabilization Activities". ACORN is currently the subject of a RICO suit in Ohio.

$1,646,000,000,000 ($1.646 trillion): the approximate amount of annual United States exports endangered by the "Stimulus" package, which provides a "Buy American" stricture. According to international trade experts, a "US-EU=2 0trade war looms", which could result in a worldwide economic depression reminiscent of that touched off by the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Act.

It's not just a culture of corruption. It's a culture of corruption and stupidity. And, unlike Republicans, Democrats appear to be above the law. All of the aforementioned clowns are still in office, ruling like the royalty they've become.
********
AND, IT’S ONLY BEEN SIX WEEKS, FOLKS

Fethullah Gulen: Infiltrating the U.S.

2009-04-09T15:24:00.003-08:00

The question keeps coming up "Who is watching the farm" The media
which is supposed to keep us aware of everything that effects our
lives only says something that is politically correct. Nothing
adverse or currently controversial.

Fethullah Gulen: Infiltrating the U.S.

.
Through Our Charter Schools?

An ACT! for America Exclusive
by Guy Rodgers

www.actforamerica.org

For some time we have been researching a Turkish-based Islamist movement that has a significant network here in the United States. Given Turkey’s history of secular, democratic government, and some of the remarks made by President Obama in his recent speech there, many of our members and other readers will likely be surprised by what we have found.

I suspect that even many who are well-read on the issue of Islamism are unfamiliar with the Fethullah Gulen Community (FGC), a movement a February 2009 article in the respected Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst labeled “Turkey’s third power.” Indeed, the article noted in its Key Points: “Turkey’s Islamist Gulen movement, while a powerful political force, is largely an unfamiliar entity to the West.”

The FGC is named after Fethullah Gulen, a Turkish imam who now lives in the United States. He fled Turkey in 1998 to avoid prosecution on charges that he was attempting to undermine Turkey’s secular government with the objective of establish an Islamic government. Since Gulen’s arrival here the Department of Homeland Security tried to deport him, but he successfully fought the effort in federal court because it was ruled he was an individual with “extraordinary ability in the field of education” – although he has no formal education training.

The FGC emerged in Turkey in the 1970’s. According to the Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst piece, Gulen stated that “in order to reach the ideal Muslim society 'every method and path is acceptable, [including] lying to people.’” This public acknowledgement of taqiyya (employing deception to advance Islam) is highly pertinent to Gulen’s activities here in the United States.

A recent article in the Middle East Quarterly by Rachel Sharon-Kreskin titled “Fethullah Gulen’s Grand Ambition” sheds light on Gulen’s background:
Gülen was a student and follower of Sheikh Sa'id-i Kurdi (1878-1960), also known as Sa'id-i Nursi, the founder of the Islamist Nur (light) movement. After Turkey's war of independence, Kurdi demanded, in an address to the new parliament, that the new republic be based on Islamic principles. He turned against Atatürk and his reforms and against the new modern, secular, Western republic.
Sharon-Kreskin documents how the FGC, in league with Turkey’s ruling party, Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi (AKP), has been successful in gradually moving Turkey away from its secular democratic governance, towards an Islamist state governed by Shariah law, and reorienting itself toward Iran. What’s more, other evidence suggests that Gulen’s ultimate goal may well be the resurrection of the Ottoman Empire so as to reinstate the Islamic Caliph. Clearly this has immensely serious ramifications for geo-political affairs in the Middle East as well as for the continued rise of radical Islam throughout the world.

What makes Gulen particularly dangerous is his strategic and tactical means to achieving this goal. He oversees a worldwide network of businesses, schools, foundations and media outlets, with an estimated budget of 25 billion dollars. Here’s what Gulen had to say in a sermon in 1999 aired on Turkish television:
You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers … until the conditions are ripe, they [the followers] must continue like this. If they do something prematurely, the world will crush our heads, and Muslims will suffer everywhere, like in the tragedies in Algeria, like in 1982 [in] Syria … like in the yearly disasters and tragedies in Egypt. The time is not yet right. You must wait for the time when you are complete and conditions are ripe, until we can shoulder the entire world and carry it … You must wait until such time as you have gotten all the state power, until you have brought to your side all the power of the constitutional institutions in Turkey … Until that time, any step taken would be too early—like breaking an egg without waiting the full forty days for it to hatch. It would be like killing the chick inside. The work to be done is [in] confronting the world. Now, I have expressed my feelings and thoughts to you all—in confidence … trusting your loyalty and secrecy. I know that when you leave here—[just] as you discard your empty juice boxes, you must discard the thoughts and the feelings that I expressed here.
Simply put, he is brilliantly and patiently employing taqiyya on a global scale, because this strategic approach is not confined to Turkey.

Here in the U.S. the FGC runs over 90 charter public schools in at least 20 states. This was brought to our attention by ACT! for America members who actually have relatives who teach in one of these schools, an illustration of the growing reach of ACT! for America’s “eyes and ears” across our country. For obvious reasons we cannot reveal the identity of our sources.

Our readers may be familiar with the numerous emails we have released regarding the operation of the Tarek ibn Zayed Academy (TiZA), a publicly funded charter school in Minnesota that is so blatantly Islamic in nature that the Minnesota Department of Education issued two citations against it and the ACLU is suing it. FGC schools appear to be very different, and reflect the Gulen’s exhortation to “move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers…”

Indeed, the fact that so little has been written about the FGC schools here in the U.S., as well as the accolades that have been accorded the FGC as a model of “moderation” by some in our government, would appear to confirm that the FGC and its schools are doing an excellent job of heeding Gulen’s exhortation and masking their true intent.

During several discussions and emails with our sources inside FGC schools, I asked specifically if the schools promote Islam in the way that the TiZA school in Minnesota does. I was told that this was not the case in the schools these sources were familiar with. However, one particular school (and likely numerous others) appears to be in violation of state law because the school’s affidavit for its charter does not acknowledge that it is connected with a religious institution or group. In other words, those who chartered this school practiced taqiyya by hiding this fact. (Enterprising readers may want to research this with respect to FGC schools around the country. For a list of the FGC network in America and its schools, click here).

What’s more, the schools appear to be a source of recruitment for outside school activities sponsored by the FGC, such as summer camps, which would be in keeping with the pattern of recruitment of members and followers that FGC employs worldwide, according to both the Jane’s and Middle East Quarterly articles.

As a further example of the use of taqiyya, the Jane’s article gives examples of how FGC’s Turkish language media outlet Zaman runs stories with information and headlines that are missing from the English language media outlet Today’s Zaman. This practice of two different messages, one to the indigenous Islamic population and one to the West, is common in the Islamic world, and has led many in the West, including political leaders and academics, to be misled as to the true intentions of Islamists.

In building a sophisticated and well-funded worldwide network, including a substantial presence here in the U.S., Fethullah Gulen is following in the footsteps and exhortations of Mohammed, who counseled patience and deception as a means of overcoming the infidel when the power of the infidel was greater than the power of the umma, the Muslim community. In a very real sense this is as or more sinister than the frontal assault strategy of Islamist organizations such as al Qaeda and Hamas, because, like the proverbial “frog in the kettle,” we are incrementally “boiled alive” without realizing it.

For years American Congress for Truth, and now its “sister” organization ACT! for America, have been ringing the alarm bells about what is variously known as “cultural jihad,” “creeping jihad,” “stealth jihad,” and “creeping shariah.” Much of Europe and Great Britain has been Islamized through this process, a process that invariably does not lead to peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims, but leads to Islamic self-segregation, increased Islamist militancy and aggression, and the eventual forced imposition of Islamic shariah law within the society.

The FGC charter schools in America may outwardly appear innocuous, but they are serving a greater and long-range objective of Fethullah Gulen. We in the West need to be less gullible and more discerning when it comes to the elements of “stealth jihad” within our midst.

Guy Rodgers is Executive Director of ACT! for America.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

Bachmann: 'Cap-and-Trade' Huge Tax for Americans

2009-04-09T13:09:00.002-08:00

At lest there is one person om the hill that is paying attention and still
has a feeling for the working folks in America, we must support
Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann for her stand against the Obama
"Cap and Trade" policy.

Bachmann: 'Cap-and-Trade' Huge Tax for Americans

Sunday, April 5, 2009 6:20 PM

By: Jim Meyers

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann tells Newsmax that the Obama administration’s “cap-and-trade” plan should be called the “China and India Stimulus Plan” because it would result in American jobs being shipped overseas.

Rep. Bachmann also said the plan — which seeks to reduce pollution by setting limits on carbon emissions and requiring businesses to pay to surpass them — would constitute an “energy tax” and be devastating to all Americans.

Newsmax TV’s Ashley Martella noted that Rep. Bachmann has criticized President Obama’s $3.5 trillion budget, and asked what most concerns her about the spending plan.

[Editor's Note: Watch Rep. Michele Bachmann discuss Obama’s huge cap-and-trade tax - Go Here Now]

“The number one thing I’m worried about is the debt load for our generation as well as for the subsequent generation,” said Bachmann, a member of the House Financial Services Committee.

“Within five years, President Obama’s budget will double the national debt,” she said. “Within 10 years it will triple the national debt. These are astounding figures — so astounding that President Obama’s budget director, Peter Orszag, himself has said this is not a sustainable budget.

“And we all know President Obama’s former commerce secretary [nominee], Senator Judd Gregg, also said this budget will bankrupt our country. That’s very concerning.”

Martella noted that by some estimates cap-and-trade will add more than $3,000 a year to every American’s bill for gasoline and energy.

“At a minimum it will add that much, Bachmann responded.

“In Minnesota, for instance, we’re probably looking at a doubling of our monthly energy bill, whether it’s natural gas or electricity. In Minnesota that’s a huge deal, as it is in most states, because in October we don’t have a choice — you have to turn your furnace on and that furnace will stay on usually through the month of April. If people see a doubling in their monthly energy bill, this will be devastating.

“It’s not just that — it’s also reducing the American standard of living,” she said. “I was in a meeting that talked about the potential for job loss in our country. Businessmen are savvy and they’re preemptive and they’re looking at what President Obama wants to do with this new tax on energy. Because that’s what this is, a tax on the right to use and consume energy — as if energy didn’t cost enough already.

“And what we’re very concerned about is that businesses are already looking at plans to locate new business expansion overseas. This will cause tremendous what they call leakage. It’s essentially jobs fleeing the United States for other countries.

“As a matter of fact, you might as well call this the ‘China and India Stimulus Plan’ because China and India have said, we’re not going to have any part of a cap-and-trade system. We’re not going to do it. So that means American jobs will leave and go overseas.”

Martella asked if the cap-and-trade plan can be stopped.

“Sure it can be stopped, if the American people rise up and say not me, no how,” Bachmann declared.

“Senator Harry Reid has said he believes by the end of August we’ll see the cap-and-trade bill go through. That gives the American people a little time…

“We want to make sure they understand what’s at stake for them, because there are very real implications — not just for businessmen, not just for a few Americans, but for 100 percent of Americans.

“All Americans will be impacted by this new tax on energy, and we need to be prepared.”

Israel Steps It Up

2009-04-09T12:54:00.002-08:00

*****
Iareal to it's credit stands firm in its obligations to its citizens, this comver
the gamet of obligations from security of its borders, and the safety of the
citizens, You can bet that unlike the president of the United States when the
Iranian Factor of push comes to shove that Isreal will NOT back off but rather
move forward. Meekness begets being pushed around, strength garners praise and respect, what we have lost since Obama became president.

Israel Steps It Up

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, April 08, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Defense: On the same day a plot to supply Iran with nuclear materials is revealed, Israel conducts a missile defense test. Nothing concentrates the mind quite so wonderfully as the threat of imminent extinction.

On Tuesday, word came that the Manhattan district attorney's office had smashed a plot to smuggle nuclear weapons materials to Iran through unwitting New York banks. A 118-count indictment accuses Chinese financier Lei Feng Wei of setting up fake companies to hide that he was selling millions of dollars in potential nuclear materials to Tehran.

As the New York Daily News reports, among the materials involved were 33,000 pounds of a specialized aluminum alloy used almost exclusively in long-range missile production, 66,000 pounds of tungsten copper plate used in missile guidance systems, and 53,900 pounds of maraging steel rods, a super-hard metal used in uranium enrichment and to make the casings for nuclear bombs.

We have commented on Iran's cooperation with North Korea on missile technology. The pledge by Iran's mad Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to wipe Israel off the map remains in full force.

Unlike the U.S., Israel is moving full speed ahead on missile defense, and even if Iran's missile threat went away tomorrow, Israel's determination to defend itself would not.

The Israelis aren't waiting for missile defense to be proven "cost-effective." They know the cost of defending themselves against nuclear missile attack pales in comparison to the cost of losing a nation.

As Lei's indictment was announced, the Israeli air force conducted its 17th test, a successful one, of its newly upgraded Arrow 2 missile defense system. It hit a Blue Sparrow missile, modified to mimic an incoming Iranian Shahab-3 missile, fired from an F-15.

The test was conducted jointly by the IAF and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. It was the first Arrow test in conjunction with a high-powered American X-band radar deployed in Israel's Negev desert. X-band was a parting gift to Israel from President Bush.

The Jerusalem Post reports that an Arrow interceptor was launched from the Palmahim air base after the target missile was detected. The target missile carried a multiple warhead with radar-evading capabilities that Iran does not possess.

Iran is working hard to improve its missile capabilities. In November, it successfully test-fired the Sajjil, a solid-fueled high-speed missile with a range of 1,250 miles. It recently showed its global reach with the launching of its Omid satellite.

In January 2007, Germany's Bild magazine reported that Iran had bought 18 BM-25 land-mobile missiles from North Korea. The BM-25 is a variation of the Russian SS-N-6 submarine-launched ballistic missile, with a range of 1,800 miles.

According to Uzi Rubin, former head of the Arrow anti-missile program, the BM-25 "is a nuclear missile. . . . There is no other warhead for this other than a nuclear warhead."

The Arrow project is being jointly developed by Israel Aerospace Industries and Chicago-based Boeing, which recently saw its airborne laser missile-defense system put on hold. Several operational Arrow missile batteries have already been deployed.

"This was the most advanced version of the Arrow weapons system in terms of the ability to perform the type of intercept that would be necessary to destroy a ballistic missile target," said Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the U.S. Missile Defense Agency.

Israel has now "deployed a layered defense," he added. This is something the U.S. needs but which recent budget cuts prevent.

Israel is also developing a defense against short-range Katyusha and Qassam rockets called Iron Dome, which uses an early-warning system known as Red Dawn.

While the U.S. dawdles on its own missile defense, Israel isn't waiting until its enemies' missiles are proven and cost-effective.

Email To Friend |

North Korea, Islamism,

2009-04-08T18:32:00.001-08:00

North Korea, Islamism, and the
Axis of Nuclear Proliferation

by Brigitte Gabriel
www.actforamerica.org

While President Obama recently made a commendable effort to “connect” with the Islamic world, especially during his visit to Turkey, he went perilously too far by saying things that simply are not accurate and thus should not have been said.

For example: Obama said: "We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better..."

I can understand why Obama would not want to say, “1,400 years of Islam has resulted in 270 million deaths and countless millions enslaved.” But such a history hardly qualifies as “shaping the world for the better,” and he would have been advised to simply not make such a historically unsupportable statement.

Obama also said that he wants to “strengthen Ataturk's vision of democratic Turkey.” What Mr. Obama needs to thus say to the Muslim world is remind them what Ataturk’s vision was – a vision which ended the Islamic Empire in 1924, rebelled against Islam and its Sharia law, and gave women rights to vote, to get an education, to work, etc. It was Ataturk's vision that put the last nail in the coffin of the Islamic empire, ending centuries of murder and terrorism. It was because of Ataturk's action that the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt five years later, to reclaim and revive the Islamic Empire and setting the course for present-day Islamism. The Muslim Brotherhood is now the oldest and largest terrorist organization in the world, boasting 70 offshoots including Al-Qaida.

While Obama eloquently stated that America is not at war with Islam, which was necessary to speak with such clarity, it was important to continue by saying: "However, we are all challenged today by Islamist radicalism that has declared war, not only on America but also on moderate, peace-loving Muslims. Islamism, or the ideology of political Islam, threatens the entire world, including the millions of Muslims who don’t adhere to it, and it is growing in strength with every passing day.” Attempting to disconnect terror and radicalism from the political ideology that underlies it is precisely what Western Europe and Great Britain have tried, without success.

Obama missed a great opportunity to challenge the moderate Muslim world to stand up with us against the Islamists who wish to destroy not only our way of life but change the political landscape in their own countries through overthrow of their leadership and their governments.

Such an outreach by Obama would have created solidarity between moderate Muslims and America, because moderate Muslims are more likely to hear and respect what Obama says due to his Islamic heritage. This was Obama’s opportunity to make a statement that could have set the stage for real and historic change, but sadly, he missed it.

Meanwhile, North Korea conducts another missile launch, which has enormous ramifications for the world’s ability to defeat Islamism. North Korea is doing more than manufacture nuclear weapons for itself. North Korea's business is selling arms technology to the cash-rich Arab nations who provide it with the cash it so desperately needs.

A few years ago North Korea supplied Syria with the nuclear reactor that Israel bombed in September 2007. North Korean engineers were killed and many injured at the Syrian facility during the Israeli bombing.

On another Islamist front Iran is clearly set on attacking Israel and America. Iran is very interested in buying the North Korean missile technology which they can then deliver an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) attack against America. So while North Korea may not attack us directly, its technology is what our die-hard enemies are going to use to destroy us.

The United Nations has proven to be virtually impotent in dealing with such serious issues. Saddam Hussein ignored UN sanctions, North Korea ignores the UN, and Iran marches on, ignoring UN sanctions. The United States needs to take a bold step to disrupt the “nuclear proliferation axis” that exists between North Korea and the militant nations of the Islamic world.

We can and should go directly to China and ask them how would they feel if we made nuclear and missile technology available to Japan and Taiwan? We can exert great pressure on China in this area because those two nations are a major threat to China if we make our technology available to them.

This will give China a vested interest in pressuring North Korea to stop their missile program. What we are concerned about right now is the political victory that North Korea has achieved with this launch. Even though this was not a military victory because the launch was not successful to the point they expected, it achieved a political victory against America.

This message is not being wasted on Iran and other nations, like Syria and Libya for example, who are trying to stand up to the United States. America is establishing a clear track record of “no-response.” In 2006 Kaddafi, who signed an agreement in 2003 to get rid of his 30 tons of mustard gas, reneged on the contract and changed his mind after watching America's lack of decisive action against Iran.

North Korea is so dangerous because its missiles could carry a nuclear warhead to America or it could continue to provide the technology to other nations wanting to harm America. In other words, the nuclear threat to America and the West will continue to escalate beyond North Korea to Islamist regimes unless we bring it to a screeching halt.

The clock is ticking ever closer to midnight.

Brigitte Gabriel is the New York Times Best Selling author of “They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It.” She is also the founder and president of ACT for America.org

Obama’s Christian Appointee

2009-04-08T18:01:00.002-08:00

******Obama’s Christian Appointee

True to his inner hate for the feelings of the majority of Americans
Mr. Obama has again decided to throw these feelings in the face of
the nation. By appointing Harry Knox, a professed gay. as a member
of his Advisory council of Faith Based Partnerships, he is clearing
the way for legislation allowing the format teaching of the before
banned introduction of homosexuality. Thus President is the PITS>
Dave Anderson oad@alaska.net

Obama’s Christian Appointee to Faith-Based Program Says New Testament Teaching on Homosexuality Is ‘Not True’
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

President Barack Obama (AP Photo) (CNSNews.com) – President Obama has named to his faith-based advisory council a self-professed Christian who holds that the New Testament's teaching that homosexual behavior is unnatural and wrong--which is found in St. Paul's letter to the Romans--“is not true."

The appointee, Harry Knox, has also said that Obama's decision to invite the Rev. Rick Warren to say a prayer at the Inauguration "tainted" the ceremony and that Pope Benedict XVI is a "discredited leader."

Harry Knox, a professed gay Christian who is director of the religion and faith program at the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual rights group, was named to President Obama's Advisory Council on Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships on Monday. The advisory council gives federal grants to faith-based organizations.

The appointment came after Knox criticized Obama prior to the Inauguration for selecting Warren, a California megachurch pastor and best-selling author, to deliver the invocation. Writing in The Huffington Post blog, Knox said to Obama, “We don’t feel hopeful anticipation of a new day in our country, and we don’t feel optimism. We feel betrayed.”

Knox said in the December article that Warren’s invocation would make the Jan. 20 Inauguration a “tainted” event because Warren supported the ballot initiative in California to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

On the PBS News Hour in December, Knox said that Warren “has in fact leveraged homophobia to get ahead in his career. … This is the worst possible choice the president could have made. This is a divisive choice. … We said to the president-elect today in very strong language, the strongest we can think of and be respectful of the office, you have really slapped us. And we want you to think about that and think very hard what your actions will be going forward because this very symbolic, early decision has sent the exact wrong message.”

Knox could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Knox is one of 25 members of the advisory board of the White House Office Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Obama announced the formation of the office in early February, a continuation of a similar office started by President George W. Bush to issue federal grants to faith-based, non-profit charitable organizations.

Other members include Bishop Charles Blake of the Church of God in Christ in Chicago; the Rev. Peg Chemberlin, president-elect of the National Council of Churches USA; Dr. Frank Page, president emeritus of the Southern Baptist Convention; the Rev. Jim Wallis, president of the liberal Christian group Sojourners; and the Rev. Joel C. Hunter of Northland Church in Longwood, Fla.

Knox has been a long-time gay activist focusing on the faith community. He previously worked for the New York-based Freedom to Marry group, for Georgia Equality and Equality Florida. He has won awards from liberal religious organizations.

In a debate with the Rev. Gino Jennings recorded Nov. 28, 2004 at the First Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Philadelphia, the two men sparred over various biblical verses references homosexual behavior.

This included the Book of Romans, in which St. Paul wrote, “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

After reading the scripture, Jennings asked, “Do you believe that? That if a man lie with a man or a woman with a woman it is against nature?”

“I do not believe it,” answered Knox, who at the time was the program director for the group Freedom to Marry.

Jennings responded, “So this is a lie?”

Knox affirmed, “That is not true.”

“Paul did not have any idea of the kind of love that I feel for a partner when I am partnered. He didn’t know what that was about,” Knox said. “The straight man, the heterosexual man who got the privilege of writing the book, the educated, rich, heterosexual man, Paul, who got to write the book, didn’t think it was natural because for him it must not have been.”

Jennings later responded that Paul was not the sole author of the writings. “So you are saying Paul was just closed-minded. I totally disagree because the book says this, the book tells us that all scripture, all of the scripture, not some of it, but all scripture are given by the inspiration of God,” said Jennings.

Before starting at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) in 2005, Knox also worked as development director of Equality Florida and was the executive director of Georgia Equality. While in Georgia, his groups successfully lobbied corporations such as Coca-Cola, Bell South, Delta, and Cingular to extend same-sex benefits to employees.

At the HRC, Knox established a weekly preaching resource that provides scriptural commentary to pastors interested in homosexual perspectives on the Bible. He also helped create a network of 22 “progressive state clergy coalitions” around the country, according to the HRC Web site.

Knox has the potential to be a polarizing figure, said the Rev. Louis Sheldon, chairman of the conservative Traditional Values Coalition.

“Everything he says will be front-page news,” Sheldon told CNSNews.com. “He will be a political liability to the president. All the good that the faith-based office does will get buried by a loose cannon that fires over the bow. But that’s what Obama wants.”

Last month, Knox was quoted in a gay newspaper criticizing the pope and the Catholic group Knights of Columbus, mainly because the Knights supported the traditional marriage amendment to the California constitution.

Knox told the San Francisco-based gay newspaper the Bay Area Reporter, “The Knights of Columbus do a great deal of good in the name of Jesus Christ, but in this particular case, they were foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression.” In the newspaper, he included among the “discredited leaders” Catholic bishops and Pope Benedict XVI, as “A pope who literally today said condoms don't help in control of AIDS."

In a brief interview Monday with CNSNews.com, Knox stood by his comments on the pope.

“The pope needs to start telling the truth about condom use,” Knox told CNSNews.com. “We are eager to help him do that. Until he is willing to do that and able, he’s doing a great deal more harm than good--not just in Africa but around the world. It is endangering people’s lives.”

The pope’s comments were mischaracterized by Knox, said Catholic League President Bill Donohue.

“When Pope Benedict XVI recently said that condoms are not the answer to HIV/AIDS, he was simply voicing common sense: the promiscuous distribution of condoms has coincided with a precipitous increase in HIV/AIDS,” Donohue said in a statement Tuesday. “But to gay activists like Knox, the pope is a liar. Indeed, he instructed the pope to ‘start telling the truth about condom use,’ holding the Holy Father accountable for ‘endangering people’s lives.’ He never explained how calls for abstinence could possibly jeopardize anyone’s life.”

In 2000, Knox won the Cordle Award for Promoting God’s Diversity, and the Lancaster Theological Seminary’s 2005 Robert V. Moss Medal for Excellence in Ministry.

European Socialism to Run Our Financial System

2009-04-08T17:37:00.002-08:00

******
We must now prepare ourselves for the final thros of anguish for
our wonderful country< With the advent if fiscal capitulation on
the part of our Communist Socialist president the dollar will
become second or third or what ever to some Euro, Pound or Franc.
Which means that the Dollar won't buy what it used to, and will
have less value than maybe even the yen. And yet the misguided
portion that elected this P O S hold him in adoration. Lord
help us Please.
******

European Socialism to Run Our Financial System

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 8:50 AM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size

On April 2, 2009, the work of July 4, 1776 was nullified at the meeting of the G-20 in London.

The joint communiqué essentially announces a global economic union with uniform regulations and bylaws for all nations, including the United States. Henceforth, our SEC, Commodities Trading Commission, Federal Reserve Board and other regulators will have to march to the beat of drums pounded by the Financial Stability Board (FSB), a body of central bankers from each of the G-20 states and the European Union.

The mandate conferred on the FSB is remarkable for its scope and open-endedness. It is to set a "framework of internationally agreed high standards that a global financial system requires."

These standards are to include the extension of "regulation and oversight to all systemically important financial institutions, instruments, and markets [including] systemically important hedge funds."

Note the key word "all." If the FSB, in its international wisdom, considers an institution or company "systemically important," it may regulate and over see it. This provision extends and internationalizes the proposals of the Obama administration to regulate all firms, in whatever sector of the economy that it deems to be "too big to fail."

The FSB is also charged with "implementing . . . tough new principles on pay and compensation and to support sustainable compensation schemes and the corporate social responsibility of all firms."

That means that the FSB will regulate how much executives are to be paid and will enforce its idea of corporate social responsibility at "all firms."

The head of the Financial Stability Forum, the precursor to the new FSB, is Mario Draghi, Italy's central bank president. In a speech on Feb. 21, 2009, he gave us clues to his thinking. He noted that "the progress we have made in revising the global regulatory framework . . . would have been unthinkable just months ago."

He said that "every financial institution capable of creating systemic risk will be subject to supervision." He adds that "it is envisaged that, at international level, the governance of financial institutions, executive compensation, and the special duties of intermediaries to protect retail investors will be subject to explicit supervision."

In remarks right before the London conference, Draghi said that while "I don't see the FSF [now the FSB] as a global regulator at the present time . . . it should be a standard setter that coordinates national agencies."

This "coordination of national agencies" and the "setting" of "standards" is an explicit statement of the mandate the FSB will have over our national regulatory agencies.

Obama, perhaps feeling guilty for the U.S. role in triggering the international crisis, has, indeed, given away the store.

Now we may no longer look to presidential appointees, confirmed by the Senate, to make policy for our economy. These decisions will be made internationally.

And Europe will dominate them. The FSF and, presumably, the FSB, is now composed of the central bankers of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States plus representatives of the World Bank, the European Union, the IMF, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Europe, in other words, has six of the 12 national members. The G-20 will enlarge the FSB to include all its member nations, but the pro-European bias will be clear. The United States, with a GDP three times that of the next largest G-20 member (Japan), will have one vote. So will Italy.

The Europeans have been trying to get their hands on our financial system for decades. It is essential to them that they rein in American free enterprise so that their socialist heaven will not be polluted by vices such as the profit motive.

Now, with President Obama's approval, they have done it.

© 2009 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Print Page |

Shooting Down Missile Defense

2009-04-07T20:59:00.003-08:00

When you choose as a leader whose propensity to lie, to self satisfy his position by doing something that was abolished at the creation of the United States, the bowing or cur sty to a foreign royalty (King Queen or Potentate) was to NEVER happen to the citizens of our country. Other than God we pay homage to no one.

Yet yesterday this pompas arrogant pretender to the Presidency of the US bowed and nearly kissed the hand of the King of Saudi Arabia. This is the Muslim that is now in the process of depleting our military to the likes of what the other inept president (Carter) did before we shit canned him.

This Muslim Communist Socialist is next for the can if we still have a country in
four years.

My thoughts and I am DAVE ANDERSON reach me at oad@alaska.net.

Shooting Down Missile Defense

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, April 07, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Defense: Overlooked in the defense budget cuts is the decimation of missile defense systems. As North Korea tested an ICBM, our defense secretary was scrapping a system that could have destroyed it with a single shot.

We will miss the F-22 Raptor, perhaps the only plane that could evade the sophisticated S-300 surface-to-air missile defense system Russia is selling to Iran.

Russia's S-300 system is "one of the most lethal, if not the most lethal, all-altitude area defense" systems, according to the International Strategy and Assessment Service, a Virginia-based think tank.

But the aircraft we and the nation will miss the most is the Airborne Laser (ABL) program, killed in Gates' general slashing of missile defense, cuts which will reduce the budget of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) by $1.4 billion in 2010, or about 15%. Gates proposes turning the ABL into a research program.

Whoopee.

The YAL-1A, a modified Boeing 747-400F equipped with a megawatt-class, high-energy Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL) is designed to destroy ballistic missiles in their very vulnerable boost phase, missiles such as Iran's Shahab series and North Korea's Taepodong series.

According to the MDA, the ABL provides a unique capability "to detect, track, and destroy ballistic missiles shortly after launch during the boost phase. Its revolutionary use of directed energy makes it unique among the United States' airborne weapons systems, with a potential to attack multiple targets at the speed of light with a range of several hundred kilometers."

Gen. B.B. Bell, the former commander of the U.S. Forces Korea, wrote in 2007 that "from a war fighter's perspective, the ABL will be an important ingredient in our much needed and required layered missile defense capability for the Korean Peninsula."

It would also be part of a layered defense for the U.S. But not any more.

A layered defense against ballistic missiles was what President Ronald Reagan had in mind when he launched the Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983. It would include space-based, sea- and land-based defenses as well as mobile theatre systems such as THAAD (Theatre High Altitude Area Defense), Patriot missiles and the airborne laser.

Such a layered system could deal with all threats from all sources.

Unlike its fixed-site cousins, the ground-based interceptors deployed in California and Alaska and (hopefully) Europe, ABL aircraft can be deployed where needed and are reusable.

Imagine them patrolling the Persian Gulf or the Taiwan Strait, or off the Korean Peninsula.

Not only can they patrol off unfriendly nations, they could patrol our shores, too.

We have pointed out the dangers of an Iranian freighter launching a Shahab that would detonate its warhead high over the U.S., unleashing an electromagnetic pulse that would send our high-tech economy back to the days of covered wagons.

ABL aircraft would patrol in pairs at 40,000 feet, flying in orbits over friendly airspace or international waters, scanning the horizon for plumes of rising missiles. The ABL would acquire and track the missile with a tracking laser, while computers calculate the distance to and trajectory of the target.

Gates has also put on hold additional ground-based interceptors based at Ft. Greeley in Alaska.

Also targeted for elimination by Gates is the Multiple Kill Vehicle.

A single interceptor equipped with this payload of multiple kinetic missile killers, will not only destroy the re-entry vehicle, but all credible threat objects including countermeasures the enemy deploys to try and spoof our defenses.

Six Senators, Republicans Murkowski, Sessions, Inhofe, and Kyl as well as Democrats Lieberman and Begich, have written a letter to President Obama calling on him to restore Gates' cuts, noting that "our adversaries continue to invest large sums in the development" of offensive missiles of all types.

While Gates does provide additional support for theatre defenses such as Aegis and THAAD, it is a minimalist approach in a world in which our enemies are turning out missiles like sausages, and only a single warhead can end life in the United States as we know it.

Email To Friend |

Return N. Korea to Terror-Sponsor List

2009-04-07T12:37:00.002-08:00

Return N. Korea to Terror-Sponsor List
Invest in Missile Defense, Lawmakers Say

Monday, April 06, 2009

By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor

In a successful test of U.S. missile defense capabilities, a ground-based interceptor missile lifts off from Vandenberg AFB in California on December 5, 2008, en route to intercept with and destroy a target missile launched in Alaska several minutes earlier. (Photo: Missile Defense Agency)(CNSNews.com) – With slim chance of a firm U.N. Security Council response to North Korea’s defiant long-range missile launch, U.S. lawmakers are pressing for a determined unilateral U.S. response, including returning Pyongyang to a list of terror-sponsoring states and stepping up investment in missile defense.

As anticipated, veto-wielding permanent council members China and Russia urged “restraint” Sunday as the decision-making body held urgent talks following the launch.

After the closed-door meeting ended without agreement, Chinese envoy Zhang Yesui said council reaction must be “cautious and proportionate.”

Earlier, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said “actions that could make the situation even more tense” must be avoided, while Russia’s foreign ministry called for “restraint in judgments and actions.”

The council meeting was requested by Japan after North Korea on Sunday morning fired a multi-stage rocket which it claimed had placed a communications satellite into orbit.

The U.S. military said the rocket, which it identified as a Taepodong-2 long-range missile, had not succeeded in putting an object into orbit. The missile’s first stage landed into the sea between the Korean peninsula and Japan, and the payload, along with the remaining stages, had landed in the Pacific Ocean, U.S. Northern Command reported.

While generally characterized as a failure, the launch did accomplish some progress for the North Korean program, experts suggested.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, head of the Pentagon’s missile defense agency until the beginning of this year, called the fact that the rocket had successfully surpassed its first stage “a significant step forward for any missile program.”

“The bottom line is they are continuing to advance in their ranges and I think it’s why it’s important that we have the ability to defend against these types of threats,” he told CNN.

Riki Ellison, chairman of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, also pointed to the successful first staging, and said it appeared from early indications that the missile had traveled at least 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles).

North Korea’s first Taepogong-2 test, in 2006, ended in failure just 42 seconds later.

By contrast, the missile launched at around 11:30 AM local time Sunday reportedly flew for about 18 minutes. Japanese officials said the country’s defense system tracked it until 11:48 AM, by which time it had reached a point about 2,100 kilometers (1,260 miles) east of Japan.

The Japanese military had been placed on high alert but made no attempt to shoot down the projectile as it passed over the archipelago, saying the falling debris posed no threat.

The missile launch drew widespread condemnation from around the world – significantly more than the reaction that met Iran’s successful satellite launch last February, which experts said essentially tested similar ballistic missile technology.

In a successful test of U.S. missile defense capabilities, a ground-based interceptor missile lifts off from Vandenberg AFB in California on December 5, 2008, en route to intercept with and destroy a target missile launched in Alaska several minutes earlier. (Photo: Missile Defense Agency)Pyongyang’s missile advances are regarded as a particular threat because of its confirmed nuclear weapons capability, although Defense Secretary Robert Gates said last month he did not believe North Korea had yet mastered the technology to mount a nuclear warhead onto a missile.

Diplomatic attempts to negotiate an end to North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs through the “six-party” talks have been stalled since December, and the missile test is widely viewed as the latest bid by Kim Jong-il to pressure the U.S. and its allies to make more concessions.

In an earlier attempt to break a deadlock, the Bush administration last October met North Korea’s longstanding demand to be removed from Washington’s list of terror-sponsoring states, but progress in the talks was short-lived.

Sunday’s missile test prompted fresh calls for the U.S. government to reverse the delisting.

“Rather than only seeking more U.N. sanctions that failed to stop this launch in the first place, the administration instead should return North Korea to the terrorism list, tighten financial sanctions, and commit publicly and forcefully to addressing the abysmal state of North Korean human rights,” said Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas.

“The six-party talks were based on the principle of action for action, and now is the time to respond with real action.”

Missile defense funding focus

Brownback also urged the administration to push ahead with missile defense development, and not to cut funding for the programs.

Similar calls from Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the state which along with Hawaii would potentially be first to be targeted by a North Korean long-range ballistic missile.

Murkowski said in a statement she was “disappointed to hear continued rumors of budget cuts to our missile defense programs. The firing of this missile illustrates the critical role these systems play in our nation’s defense. In light of the actions taken by North Korea, now is not the time to make cuts to these essential programs.”

On Monday, Gates is due to brief congressional leaders and then publicly announce the restructuring of several defense programs, and speculation is rife that missile defense will be among the targets for budget cuts.

Apart from sea-based assets, the U.S. deploys ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California and as part of a vision for multilayered missile defense has for several years been planning another shield in Central Europe, designed to counter the threat from Iran.

The Obama administration applied the brakes on the European proposals, questioning its cost and effectiveness.

But President Obama, speaking in the Czech Republic on Sunday, said he intended to continue with the plans “as long as the threat from Iran persists,” repeating the conditions that the system be “cost-effective and proven.”

Anticipating that the North Korean launch would be used by missile defense advocates to call for more spending, critics are arguing against the move.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) said ahead of the launch that missile defense was not the answer, citing studies concluding that decoys built into missile designs could defeat anti-missile shields.

“If U.S. policymakers believe a missile attack is a significant security threat, it is irresponsible for them to advocate missile defense as a realistic response,” said David Wright, UCS global security program co-director.

“Doing so could create a false sense of security, divert defense dollars from more important uses, and reduce any incentive to develop more effective measures to reduce a missile threat.”

The USC argues that a sensible missile defense policy would give long-range anti-missile systems a much lower priority, while favoring stepped-up efforts to reduce the number of missiles and missile programs through international diplomacy.

‘Don’t end diplomatic isolation’

In the House of Representatives, meanwhile, the ranking Republican in the Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, said she would introduce legislation requiring economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation to remain in place until North Korea changes its behavior.

“North Korea must abandon its illegal and destabilizing weapons programs and uphold human rights before it can reap the benefits and recognition afforded to responsible nations,” she said Sunday. “Pyongyang cannot have it both ways.”

Ros-Lehtinen also highlighted concerns about longstanding missile collaboration between North Korea and Iran.

“Our response to today’s belligerent demonstration by North Korea must not just send a message to Pyongyang about U.S. commitment to nonproliferation and protecting our critical security interests, but to Iran and other countries of proliferation concern.”

For Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the launch called for a multilateral reaction.

He said “a stern, unified response” was required from those involved in the six-party talks – the U.S., South Korea, Japan, China and Russia.
\
Sign up to receive our free daily E-Brief newsletter

Like this story? Then sign up to receive our free daily E-Brief newsletter

Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.

Showing 1-2 of 2 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...

moriarity at 04:22 AM - April 07, 2009
Hey ambassador Rice and Secty. Clinton! Where is all your "power diplomacy" now? You and all your "touchy feely" cohorts are simply foolish children engaged in adult scenarios. Maybe you should consider drafting Jimmy Carter for support if he isn't too busy defending the Palestinians trying to wipe Israel out of existence.

Granny in Georgia at 09:51 PM - April 06, 2009
We can only pray that Obama wakes up before before it's too late. He has surrounded himself with "yes men", just as he accused GWB of doing, so no one is going to tell him how he has messed up! God help us.

Federal Takeover

2009-04-06T19:19:00.001-08:00

Federal Takeover
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, April 06, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Bailouts: Didn't Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner say that it was not the administration's intent to control private companies? Then why is it reportedly reluctant to accept TARP repayments from some banks?

If it has indeed declined to accept $340 million in payments from banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California, the administration is tacitly admitting that it wants to control those banks as well as others that will try to pay back the taxpayers' money they took in the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

By refusing repayment, the government can keep the leverage it bought with the bailouts. Banks that still "owe" would not be in position to reject the administration as a "partner."

This reminds us of mobsters making a small "investment" in a family-owned shop, which is not always wanted by the owners, and then using it to justify taking over the business.

Joseph DePaolo, president and CEO of Signature Bank in New York, one of the four banks making TARP repayments last week, said his company wanted to return $120 million it received because, in part, it wasn't comfortable with legislation passed that would limit compensation for salespeople. Those limits, he explained, would make it hard to recruit top professionals.

And then there's the fact that the bank didn't actually need the money. But, as we have learned, need is not relevant in the era of the bailout.

Andrew Napolitano reported last week on Fox News that he had spoken to the head of a $250-billion bank the night before who said Washington forced him to take TARP funds last September.

Napolitano said this bank "has no subprime loans, it has no bad debts, wasn't involved in credit default swaps. It didn't need any money. It didn't ask for the money and didn't want it. . . . officials from both the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Treasury said if you don't take this money, we will conduct a multi-year public audit of you."

The Fox News analyst said the bank's "board was forced to issue a class of stock just for the federal government. The federal government owns 2% of this huge bank."

That was done under the Bush administration. Enter the Obama White House. Last month, Napolitano said, Treasury told the bank "we own 2%, we're going to tell you how to run the place."

"As a result of that minority ownership, they now want to control salaries. They want to see his books, and they want to tell him who he can do business with," Napolitano reported.

Before his trip to Europe, President Obama, according to Politico, told a group of financial institution CEOs who were unhappy with the federal war on executive salaries and bonuses, "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks." At the time, that sounded like nothing more than exaggeration.

An incident at the same meeting in which Geithner declined to take a fake $25 billion TARP repayment check from JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon also seemed to be meaningful.

Later, says Politico, "Dimon also insisted that he'd like to give the government's TARP money back as soon as practical . . . But Obama didn't like that idea — arguing that the system still needs government capital."

Looking back, these are small signs that reveal the administration's desire to seize command of the nation's financial system. The bigger, unmistakable sign is the reluctance — or is it outright refusal? — to take $340 million from four banks trying to be responsible and operate on their own.

This shouldn't be happening in this country. The private sector and the state are not to be mixed. The American financial system is best directed by markets, not politics. Prosperity and liberty suffer when the latter excludes the former.

Email To Friend |

$18 Million to Force Passage of Amnesty

2009-04-05T19:20:00.001-08:00

$18 Million to Force Passage of Amnesty

Rich Immigrants Are Behind $18 Million to Force Passage of Amnesty for Illegal Aliens This Year

By Roy Beck, Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 12:34 AM

Born in 1930 and 1934 (in Hungary and Iran) and moving to the United States in 1956 and 1958, two immigrants are at the heart of a massive flow of money into groups intent on forcing a vote this autumn to grant amnesty to 12 million or more illegal aliens.

Is there something just a little unseemly about immigrants using their good fortune to try to radically change the country that adopted them?

The Soros Foundations Network and Carnegie Corporation are two of the key money sources backing all the groups that are insisting on a giant amnesty for illegal aliens this year.

Both are led by immigrants who apparently like America so much that they will spare no expense in changing it as rapidly as possible through immigration.

I get a call from at least one news reporter a day asking what we are going to do to stop what looks to the journalists to be an invevitable vote this autumn on a giant amnesty.

To each one, I say that it makes no political sense at all to vote to give 7 million illegal-alien foreign workers permanent access to U.S. jobs while 12 million Americans are trying to find a job and can't find one (and 8 million more have had to settle for part-time jobs).

But the reporters respond back that the pro-amnesty groups have so much money that they believe they can force the vote.

How much money?

Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times interviewed a large number of the pro-amnesty leaders and wrote this:

To bolster their cause, advocates are planning an $18-million media and grass-roots campaign for the fall. The funding is coming primarily from liberal foundations, including one founded by billionaire activist George Soros.
Soros was born in Hungary in 1930. He moved to New York City in 1956.

Amassing billions as an international financier, he spends profusely on projects to open the United States to residency for the rest of the world.

Another foundation committing millions to the pro-amnesty effort is the Carnegie Corporation which has made rewards for illegal immigration one of its top projects. Carnegie openly touts its decision to be a central organizing leader to pull foundations together in a consortium to ensure amnesty and increased future immigration.

The open-borders leadership was begun at Carnegie under its new president, Vartan Gregorian.

Gregorian was born in Iran of Armenian parents in 1934 and received his secondary education in Lebanon.

He moved to the United States in 1958 (two years after Soros) to study at Stanford and apparently never left.

Now, they exercise control over incredible fortunes, and they are using that control to promote their agendas of massive U.S. population growth and a globalized U.S. labor market.

Not all immigrants treat their adopting country like Gregorian and Soros do.

NumbersUSA is proud of all of our members who are themselves immigrants (or children, spouses and parents of immigrants) and who join us in insisting that immigration policies be run in the national interest in ways that do not harm the people already living in the United States.

The question is whether enough of the people of America (native-born and foreign-born) love their country enough to stand up and fight for it as hard as Gregorian and Soros intend to fight to overwhelm it with out-of-control immigration.

ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA

WHY THIS FAX??

2009-04-05T19:10:00.000-08:00

WHY THIS FAX??

During a recent trip to Costa Rica, Vice President Joe Biden said, "It's difficult to tell a constituency while unemployment is rising, they're losing their jobs and their homes, that what we should do is in fact legalize (illegal immigrants) and stop all deportation." It's good to see that someone in the Obama administration realizes that a recession is the wrong time to amnesty 12-18 million illegal aliens (including 7.7 million illegal workers).

Please send your Democratic Member(s) of Congress a fax and urge him/her to follow VP Biden's advice below,

633,000 U.S. Jobs Lost in March -- 138,000 More Foreign Workers Given Work Permits -- White House & Media Noticing?

By Roy Beck, Friday, April 3, 2009
The March unemployment news is shocking -- just like it has been every month for the last year. The official unemployment rate jumped from 8.1% to 8.5%! There are now 13.2 million Americans looking for a job who can't find even a part-time job. Yet, many of the nation's richest foundations, most prestigious newspapers and top elected officials continue to call for an increase in foreign workers.

Claim that H-1B Workers Create American Jobs is Statistically Flawed
By Norm Matloff, Thursday, April 2, 2009
There was a column in the Wall Street Journal today by "Numbers Guy," Carl Bialik, concerning the claim by NFAP/Stuart Anderson that each H-1B worker creates five new jobs, oft-repeated by the industry lobbyists. It's amazing that an assertion as obviously flawed as this one, with textbook statistical errors, has gotten so much attention. But then that's why the lobbyists are paid the big bucks.

Amnesty for Illegal Aliens This Year

2009-04-05T19:05:00.000-08:00

Rich Immigrants Are Behind $18 Million to Force Passage of Amnesty for Illegal Aliens This Year

By Roy Beck, Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 12:34 AM

Born in 1930 and 1934 (in Hungary and Iran) and moving to the United States in 1956 and 1958, two immigrants are at the heart of a massive flow of money into groups intent on forcing a vote this autumn to grant amnesty to 12 million or more illegal aliens.

Is there something just a little unseemly about immigrants using their good fortune to try to radically change the country that adopted them?

The Soros Foundations Network and Carnegie Corporation are two of the key money sources backing all the groups that are insisting on a giant amnesty for illegal aliens this year.

Both are led by immigrants who apparently like America so much that they will spare no expense in changing it as rapidly as possible through immigration.

I get a call from at least one news reporter a day asking what we are going to do to stop what looks to the journalists to be an invevitable vote this autumn on a giant amnesty.

To each one, I say that it makes no political sense at all to vote to give 7 million illegal-alien foreign workers permanent access to U.S. jobs while 12 million Americans are trying to find a job and can't find one (and 8 million more have had to settle for part-time jobs).

But the reporters respond back that the pro-amnesty groups have so much money that they believe they can force the vote.

How much money?

Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times interviewed a large number of the pro-amnesty leaders and wrote this:

To bolster their cause, advocates are planning an $18-million media and grass-roots campaign for the fall. The funding is coming primarily from liberal foundations, including one founded by billionaire activist George Soros.
Soros was born in Hungary in 1930. He moved to New York City in 1956.

Amassing billions as an international financier, he spends profusely on projects to open the United States to residency for the rest of the world.

Another foundation committing millions to the pro-amnesty effort is the Carnegie Corporation which has made rewards for illegal immigration one of its top projects. Carnegie openly touts its decision to be a central organizing leader to pull foundations together in a consortium to ensure amnesty and increased future immigration.

The open-borders leadership was begun at Carnegie under its new president, Vartan Gregorian.

Gregorian was born in Iran of Armenian parents in 1934 and received his secondary education in Lebanon.

He moved to the United States in 1958 (two years after Soros) to study at Stanford and apparently never left.

Now, they exercise control over incredible fortunes, and they are using that control to promote their agendas of massive U.S. population growth and a globalized U.S. labor market.

Not all immigrants treat their adopting country like Gregorian and Soros do.

NumbersUSA is proud of all of our members who are themselves immigrants (or children, spouses and parents of immigrants) and who join us in insisting that immigration policies be run in the national interest in ways that do not harm the people already living in the United States.

The question is whether enough of the people of America (native-born and foreign-born) love their country enough to stand up and fight for it as hard as Gregorian and Soros intend to fight to overwhelm it with out-of-control immigration.

ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA

Views and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official policies of NumbersUSA. Subscribe to our Blog Feed

> > YES, I'M A BAD AMERICAN

2009-04-05T19:00:00.000-08:00

> > YES, I'M A BAD AMERICAN

Subject: Fw: This Guy Had The Guts To Put This On The Internet
> >
>
> >
> >
> > Gotta love this guy!
> >
> >
> >
> > ?
> > YES, I'M A BAD AMERICAN
> > I Am the Liberal-Progressives Worst Nightmare.

> > I am an American.

> > I am a Master Mason and believe in God.
> > I ride Harley Davidson Motorcycles and believe in American products.

> > I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some Liberal
> > governmental functionary be it Democratic or Republican!
> > I'm in touch with my feelings and I like it that way!

> > I think owning a gun doesn't make you a killer, it makes you a smart American.
> > I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not
> > entitle you to anything. Get over it!

> > I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac, do it in English.

> > I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and
> > where they want to. Amen.?
> > My heroes are John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy Rogers, and Willie G. Davidson
> > that makes the awesome Harley Davidson Motorcycles.
> > I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor.
> > I know wrestling is fake and I don't waste my time watching or arguing about it.

> > I've never owned a slave, or was a slave, I haven't burned any witches
> > or been persecuted by the Turks and neither hav you!
> > So, shut up already.

> > I believe if you don't like the way things are here, go back to where
> > you came from and change your own country!
> > This is AMERICA .We like it the way it is!

> > If you were born here and don't like it you
> > are free to move to any Socialist country that will have you.

> > I want to know which church is it exactly where the Reverend
> > Jesse Jackson preaches, where he gets his money, and why
> > he is always part of the problem and not the solution.
> > Can I get an AMEN on that one?

> > I also think the cops have the right to pull you over if you're
> > breaking the law, regardless of what color you are.
> > And, no, I don't mind having my face shown on my drivers license.
> > I think it's good.... And I'm proud that 'God' is written on my money.

> > I think if you are too stupid to know how a
> > ballot works, I don't want you deciding who should be running the most
> > powerful nation in the world for the next four years.

> > I dislike those people standing in the intersections trying to sell
> > me stuff or trying to guilt me into making 'donations' to their cause.
> > Get a Job and do your part!
> > I believe that it doesn't take a village tO raise a child, it takes two parents.
> > I believe 'illegal' is illegal no matter what the lawyers think.
> > I believe the American flag should be the only one allowed in AMERICA !

> > If this makes me a BAD American, then yes,
> > I'm a BAD American.

> > We want our country back!

> > We NEED GOD BACK IN OUR COUNTRY!

> > WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE, ONLY
> > BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE!
> >
> >
> >

Congress Approves Budget

2009-04-05T18:17:00.003-08:00

THE DEMOCRATS WERE SUCCESSSFUL IN KEEPING THE REPUBLIICANS FROM OFFERING ANY
AMENDMENT IN OPPOSITION TO THE LAID OUT PLAN OF THE COMMUNIST IN CHIEF BARAK
H, OBAMA. WE ARE ABOUT TO FACE ANARCHY AMONG OTHER THINGS. DAVE ANDERSON

Congress Approves Budget
$3.5 Trillion Spending Plan Paves Way for Obama Goals

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 3, 2009; Page A01

Congressional Democrats overwhelmingly
embraced President Obama's ambitious and expensive agenda for the nation yesterday, endorsing a $3.5 trillion spending plan that sets the stage for the president to pursue his most far-reaching priorities.

Voting along party lines, the House and Senate approved budget blueprints that would trim Obama's spending proposals for the fiscal year that begins in October and curtail his plans to cut taxes. The blueprints, however, would permit work to begin on the central goals of Obama's presidency: an expansion of health-care coverage for the uninsured, more money for college loans and a cap-and-trade system to reduce gases that contribute to global warming.

The measures now move to a conference committee where negotiators must resolve differences between the two chambers, a prelude to the more difficult choices that will be required to implement Obama's initiatives. While Democrats back the president's vision for transforming huge sectors of the economy, they remain fiercely divided over the details.

There is no agreement, for example, on how to pay for an overhaul of the health-care system expected to add more than $1 trillion to the budget over the next decade, nor is there consensus on how to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars the government stands to collect by setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions and forcing industry to buy permits to pollute. Those issues will be decided in committees where lawmakers have begun the torturous work on the specifics of Obama's broad plans.

"Democrats in the House and, I think, the Senate are shoulder to shoulder with the president in trying to make the big decisions we need to make in this country," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). But, he said, "Hammering out the details will require everyone to roll up their sleeves."

Republicans blasted the Democratic budget as a reckless manifesto that would greatly expand the size of government and double the national debt within five years. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he feared the consequences of a budget that "calls for a dramatic and potentially irreversible shift of our nation to the left in the areas of health care, education and private enterprise."

Democrats rallied behind the president, however, arguing that their budget would rebuild an economy ruined by eight years of Republican leadership. In the House, fiscal conservatives generally fell in line behind the plan, even though it would generate a deficit of more than $1.2 trillion next year and produce large annual deficits well into the future. The progressive caucus offered an alternative budget plan primarily to voice opposition to the war in Iraq, though many of its members also voted for the revised Obama budget plan.

The House voted 233 to 196 to support the Democratic budget proposal, with just 20 Democrats voting with Republicans in opposition. The Senate approved its blueprint 55 to 43, with all but two Democrats voting yes.

The biggest dispute between the two chambers is whether to use a powerful procedural shortcut that could allow Obama's health, education and energy initiatives to pass the Senate with 51 votes rather than the usual 60, eliminating the need to win over any Republicans.

The House yesterday voted to include the procedure, known as reconciliation, in its budget plan to speed health care and education legislation. But Senate Republicans -- and some Senate Democrats -- argue that the maneuver would make bipartisan cooperation all but impossible on some of the most significant measures to come before the Senate in years.

The Senate, meanwhile, has roundly rejected reconciliation for Obama's cap-and-trade proposal, adopting an amendment to ban the maneuver by a vote of 67 to 31. The House budget does not include cap-and-trade in its reconciliation provisions. But neither fact has deterred cap-and-trade advocates, and administration officials support leaving the door open in the budget blueprint when it emerges from conference committee for a final vote this month.

Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) called cap-and-trade "the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time," and said it would be difficult to pass without reconciliation because Democrats would be forced to accommodate a handful of Republicans as they did in the debate over the president's stimulus package. Although winning use of the maneuver is unlikely, Cardin said, "a lot of us don't want to give up without a fight."

Other differences between the two chambers are comparatively minor. Both the House and Senate budget plans would authorize about $3.5 trillion in spending next year, about $100 billion less than Obama requested. Much of that reduction would come from lawmakers' decision not to budget another $250 billion for the Treasury's $700 billion bailout of the nation's financial system. That move would not prevent Obama from requesting the funds, however.

Both chambers also trimmed Obama's request for government agencies with the Senate cutting $15 billion and the House cutting about $7 billion. But both budget plans would fully fund Obama's request for defense spending and authorize the administration to spend $130 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan next year.

Both chambers have adopted Obama's plans to extend tax cuts for the middle class beyond their 2010 expiration date and to allow cuts for families making more than $250,000 a year to expire. But both chambers scaled back Obama's plan to protect millions of families from the alternative minimum tax and dropped his proposal to make permanent his signature $800 tax credit for working families.

Congressman Reprimands Father of Teen Killed

2009-04-05T18:00:00.000-08:00

Sunday, April 5, 2009

Congressman Reprimands Father of Teen Killed

AS LONG AS YOU HAVE DUAL THINKING CITIZENS YOU WILL HAVE THIS KIND OF DIVIDE. WHEN CONGRESSMAN LUIS GUTIERREZ (D-Ill) COMES TO REALIZE THAT CALLING A MEXICAN
ILLEGAL A "BANDIDO" IS THE SAME AS CALLING A SPADE A SPADE OR A CLUB A CLUB,
WHILE HE OBJECTS TO THE JOINING OF BANDIDO TO ILLEGAL IT SHOWS TO ME AT LEAST THAT HIS LOYALTY BELONGS ELSEWHERE, HE SHOULD EITHER BE A REAL LIVE "AMERICAN" 0R GO WHERE HIS FEELINGS LAY,

Congressman Reprimands Father of Teen Killed
by Drunk-Driving Illegal Alien for
Calling Criminal Aliens 'Banditos'

Friday, April 03, 2009
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

Ray Tranchant, a professor who lives in Virginia Beach, Va., testified on Capitol Hill on Thursday about his daughter's death after the car she was riding in was hit by an illegal alien who was driving drunk. (Photo by Penny Starr/CNSNews.com)(CNSNews.com) – In emotional testimony before a House joint panel this week, a Virginia man recalled the death of his teenage daughter in 2007 – a death caused by an illegal immigrant who was driving drunk and who had been arrested twice before the crime, but was not deported.

“Two years ago this week, my 16-year-old daughter, Tessa, and her best friend Allison were killed as they were sitting at in intersection waiting for a red light to change,” Ray Tranchant said, as friends placed a photograph of Tessa Tranchant on an easel behind him.

Since his daughter’s death, Tranchant, a professor from VIrginia Beach, has become an advocate for the enforcement of immigration law.

On Thursday, as Tranchant applauded local law enforcement in Virginia for its increased efforts to work with federal immigration authorities since his daughter’s death, he referred to individuals listed on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s database of illegal aliens with criminal backgrounds as “banditos.”

That comment drew a rebuff from Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.).
"Mr. Tranchant, can I share with you as the father of two daughters, I thank you for bringing your testimony here, but I suggest to you that if we refer to people as banditos, as you referred to them in your testimony, it does not help to solve the problem,” Gutierrez said.

Witnesses on the first panel were called to testify about ICE’s ACCESS program, the 287(g) law passed by Congress in 1996 that allows state and local law enforcement agencies to voluntarily sign up for training to enforce federal immigration law in their jurisdictions.

Some on the subcommittee charged that the law has led to widespread racial profiling and other abuses.

Antonio Ramirez is a community acitivist in Maryland who held up a copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that he says he carries with him. He became a U.S. citizen and said he and many others are discriminated against because of the enforcement of immigration laws. (Photo by Penny Starr/CNSNews.com) In other testimony before a joint hearing of subcommittees on immigration, border security, the Constitution, and civil rights, Julio Cesar Mora, a 19-year-old American citizen who lives in Maricopa County, Arizona, told the committee that he and his father, who is a legal resident, were detained and harassed by sheriff officers while driving to his father’s workplace.

Antonia Ramirez, a community activist from Frederick, Maryland, said that even though he and many of his fellow Hispanics are citizens, they are often the victims of discrimination. He said illegal aliens often refuse to report crimes and even suffer abuse because they fear their families will be separated by deportation.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said he was surprised by the contrast of the witnesses’ testimony.

“I think I’m seeing the embodiment of a great big problem we have in this country and the result of it is the loss of lives, the loss of innocent human lives,” King said. “And I listen to professor Tranchant’s testimony. You have to know that he’s here to tell you today that if we had enforced local immigration law, his daughter would still be alive. Tessa and Ali would still be alive. And that’s true for hundreds, perhaps thousands of Americans who go about their lives every day, seeking to make the world a better place.”

Rep. King said the testimony by Ramirez and Mora seemed designed to persuade lawmakers that enforcing immigration laws is not a good policy.

“The message I get from you is that we shouldn’t enforce local immigration law because there are some examples of discrimination,” King said. “I don’t argue that it never happens. But I ask you, can you look at this on balance? Can you see the difference between the plea that you have made to this committee and the plea that Mr. Tranchant has made to this committee? Can you look him in the eye and say we should pass everybody over?”

“The comparison to what looks like an inconvenience to either one of you compared to the very sacred life of this man’s daughter,” King said.

Tranchant, whose mother immigrated to the United States from Ireland, told the committee he was shocked to learn the facts about the man who killed his daughter when the man was tried for vehicular manslaughter.

“I heard at the trial that Alfredo Ramos should have been and could have been deported long before he killed my daughter,” Tranchant said. “In fact, this wasn’t the first time he’d been involved in this kind of an incident. It wasn’t even the second time. Ramos had been arrested twice before.”

“Instead of being deported to his home country, he stayed on the streets of Virginia Beach to drink, drive, and kill these two beautiful girls in a way that showed wanton disrespect for the laws of our land,” he said.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said he believed that if federal immigration laws were enforced Tranchant's daughter's life would have been spared. (Photo by Penny Starr/CNSNews.com) Ramos, whose blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit, was sentenced to 40 years in prison.

But Rep. Gutierrez said he thought the committee was “missing the point.”

“I think we’re missing the point of the testimony here this morning and just so we have it very clear, no one ever has debated, promoted law that does not deport drunks, that does not deport rapists and murderers,” Gutierrez said. “Part of the problem is, it’s been said here by some of my colleagues on the other side -- enforce the law.”

“This Congress and the government of the United States has not shown the political will nor committed the requisite resources to enforce the immigration law,” he said. “The only way to really do that is to have comprehensive immigration reform. You either sweep millions and millions of people off the streets of the United States of America, which no one is going to propose. So it’s always a little disingenuous to me when people say only enforce the law.”

“What I have seen, unfortunately, is the will to target and to victimize and to scapegoat a community of people,” Gutierrez said. “I have seen that readily here. It makes for great political points but it doesn’t solve the problem and would not have saved your daughter’s life."

Gutierrez said anti-immigrant sentiment is not new in this country.

“The Irish [were] the dirty, filthy element that was coming here to undermine America. Well, it gave us a President Kennedy,” he said.

Rep. Gutierrez recently embarked on a five-week tour, visiting 16 American cities, to “document the harm” caused by the lack of “comprehensive immigration reform.” As part of his Family Unity Immigration Outreach Tour, Gutierrez held community meetings for U.S. citizens whose families are at risk of “being torn apart by a broken immigration system.”

Gutierrez’ critics, including the Federation for American Immigration Reform, say he is “promoting amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and the dismantling of immigration law enforcement programs.”

Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.

Showing 1-10 of 74 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Loading...

moriarity at 04:06 AM - April 04, 2009
Let's not forget Gutierrez' political cabal......Chicago, Illinois, does that strike a familiar political ideology? B.O. is part of this criminal cabal and he's proud of it! The nerve of this gutless jerk chastising the father who lost his daughter to a repeat offender who's an illegal alien. If I were that father I could not have controlled myself being chastised by these congressional Marxists! It's always the same with these twisted morons, embrace the perpetrator and demonize the victim.

rainfrog at 02:52 AM - April 04, 2009
We need to ammend the congressional oath of office to read as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the CITIZENS, LANDS and Constitution of the United States against all enemies OR PERILS, foreign or domestic..." As is, the oath allows too much wiggle room for disloyal ethnists to pursue agendas for various ethnic groups. Push for this simple change, and we can start to hold some of these disloyal representatives accountable. Congress should loyally represent all ordinary citizens, not a diversity of non-citizens. Unless we push for moderate reforms such as these, a second civil w_a_r may be soon to follow.... --Frogface, bleeding Kansas

pg at 01:39 AM - April 04, 2009
Once again the people of America and the Law are under attack by a pandering congressman. Mr. Gutierrez should be ashamed of the way he spoke to the grief stricken Mr. Tranchant. I am sure Mr. Gutierrez would have been controlled and measured if it happened to a daughter of his. Mr Gutierrez is lucky Mr Tranchant didn't come across the desk and beat him to an inch of his life. As for the legal immigrant and the naturalized citizen who testified, at least they did it the right way. For that I commend them and welcome them to the US. However, their premise that because we enforce immigration laws we make their lives unpleasant. This is so upside down. Instead, their lives would be less complicated if the illegals were not here and the Latino communities would not continue hiding them and making excuses as to why they are here. Mr. Tranchant's description of bandito is perfectly correct. Illegals are felons for breaking into the US. It is no different than breaking and entering

honor at 01:26 AM - April 04, 2009
gutierrez representive of the people of illegal behavior in congress of united states! back ground check type person! naturalized citizen representative in congress of united states? naturalized how many are in our united states goverment? GUTIERREZ said, comperhensive immigration reform answer? either you sweep millions and millions off the streets of united states of america WHICH NO ONE IS GOING TO PROPOSE? oh really!!!! illegal mexican general gutierrez also said ANTI- IMMIGRATION sentiment is not new in this country? yes but the difference today it's a invasion of unkown ILLEGAL invaders we are concern about here gutierrez??? millions and millions and million cross our borders each and every year! cost suffering victims are U.S. gutierrez? our mothers! daughters! fathers! our childrens lives are being lost. QUESTION is for what propose? CHEAP LABOR ARGUMENT!! thats nice to the families of the victims! enforce! deport! millions and save billions!! sounds good to U.S. PERIOD. AMEN.

Linda Mae at 01:20 AM - April 04, 2009
My American citizenship class had definite ideas about ILLEGALS coming to America. They would not even use the word immigrant because they didn't consider illegals as immigrants. They were lawbreakers as far as they were concerned. There are rules and regulations for becoming a naturalized citizen - available on line - and it is not complicated. Come here with the right visa, live and work for 5 years, fill out the application and then pass the oral exam. It has become PC to conjoin the words illegals and immigrants to be one group. Not right. My class also thought the 14th Amendment should be changed so that anyone born here would have the citizenship of his/her parents. One student used the analogy that a cat is a cat - whether it is born in the house or in the barn. You can't become a citizen of many, many countries. My class kept reminding me that America is still a great place to be - that many in the world want to come her for its freedoms - and laws.

oldtimer76 at 01:08 AM - April 04, 2009
nodak at 02:47 PM - April 03, 2009 There is no way to deport the millions of illegals **************************************************** If you check our history you will find that millions of illegals have been rounded up and deported before. So it is not an impossibility as some would have you believe.

Chantal at 12:28 AM - April 04, 2009
Gutierrez is an embarrassment to every person with an IQ above 10. He should be reminded he took a sworn oath to protect and defend our Constitution and the people of this country and not just those who share his heritage, and certainly not those here illegally who kill U.S. citizens. This man is paid by our tax dollars yet he spends the majority of his time traveling around the country inciting civil unrest and defending those who violate the very laws he has sworn to uphold. Gutierrez should be brought up on charges of treason and dereliction of duty. It is a travesty to allow this man to sit in judgment of any law-abiding citizen. He is: a disgrace to his office; an embarrassment to law-abiding Latinos; and a lead agitator for groups, such as LaRaza, that are relentless in their attempts to turn this country into a mirror image of the third world countries the illegal aliens left behind.

cyndiobannon at 12:10 AM - April 04, 2009
I live in the Dallas area, and recently it seems like there has been an increase in deaths from drunk driving, and in virtually every case it turned out that the culprit was a Hispanic man in the country illegally. In several cases, the drunk entered the exit ramp of a freeway and hit the victim's car headon. It is outrageous!

nvcat at 12:04 AM - April 04, 2009
This is one congressman that should leave office. If you aren't smart enough to get the point of " a death " and an "illegal alien" you don't belong in office. Not all illegals are mexicans, and yes he could have been more tactful. The point is still ILLEGAL, DRUNK and a horrible death. I lost my best friend to a drunk driver 40 years ago. It never goes away the lady was also my mother.

silversword63 at 10:44 PM - April 03, 2009
Most of us here in the USA came from people who immigrated legally here from other countries. The key word here is LEGALLY. Our ancestors came to make a better world, a better place for their families. ILLEGAL immigrants are those who choose to break the laws of the country they are immigrating to. These people have no regard for our laws, our customs, our country. Many of them are gang members, drug runners, Islamic terrorists and Mexican mafia. As such they are here to destroy our country, to pillage and rape and kill. Deport them when they are found. It doesn't matter what they are doing, they are illegally. Which means by their very presence they break our laws. What part of ILLEGAL do our politicians not understand

2009-04-03T10:02:00.003-08:00

LET'S IMPEACH HER NOW BEFORE SHE DOES FURTHER DAMAGE!! WHAT AN IDIOT!!

IF YOU DON'T AGREE JUST DELETE--IF YOU DO--PASS IT ON!! WHERE DO WE GET THESE MORONS'

Windfall Tax on Retirement Income

Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, you're so darn stupid that we're going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you. That's what the Speaker of the House is saying. Read below...............

Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income. In other words tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement. This woman is a nut case! You aren't going to believe this.

Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401K and Mutual Funds! Alas, it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities!

This woman is frightening.
She quotes...' We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income, (didn't Marx say something like this?), in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest.' (I am not rich, are you?)

When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied:
'We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'.'

(Read that quote again and again and let it sink in.) 'Lower your retirement, give it to others who have not worked as you have for it'.

Send it on to your friends. I just did!! This lady is out of her mind and she is the speaker of the House.

Obama Needs Congressional Approval

2009-04-03T09:40:00.002-08:00

Obama Needs Congressional Approval
to Guarantee Auto Warranties, Says Democrat Budget Chair

Wednesday, April 01, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

Rep. John Spratt (D.-S.C.)Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) – Members of Congress from both parties, including the chairman of the House Budget Committee, told CNSNews.com on Wednesday that President Obama’s plan to guarantee the warranties on all General Motors and Chrysler automobiles while the companies undergo government-supervised restructuring—a program that could cost taxpayers $10 billion per year—needs legislative authorization.

“I would think that for a government officer to extend a warranty that will create a liability for the government, an act of law would be required,” House Budget Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.) told CNSNews.com. “If I were the beneficiary of the warranty, I would certainly want to know the entity that extended it to me had legal authority to grant it.”

Securing congressional approval for the plan might not be easy. When Congress tried to approve the initial auto industry bailout at the end of last year, it passed in the House, but stalled in the Senate, where 60 votes were needed to end debate on the issue, and it only received 52.

President Obama announced Monday that starting on that day the federal government would guarantee the warranties on all new Chrysler and General Motors cars.

“If you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired, just like always. Your warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it’s ever been because starting today, the United States government will stand behind your warranty,” Obama said at the White House Monday when he announced his plan for dealing with the two auto makers.

The Warranty Commitment Program outlined by the administration would establish reserve funds that include 125 percent of the projected costs for servicing all Chrysler and all GM warranties for cars sold during the course of the restructuring program. Under the plan, the auto manufacturers will put up 15 percent of the projected costs, and the federal government will put up 110 percent.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told CNSNews.com Tuesday that he did not know where President Obama got the authority to undertake the entire auto bailout plan, a plan which requires a restructuring by GM, the merger of Chrysler with Fiat and a commitment by the auto makers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles in order to get additional federal money from the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). The two car makers have already received $17.4 billion in loans from TARP.

The administration may be acting under the broad authority of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, Spratt told CNSNews.com Wednesday. But, he stressed if it is not backed by some legislation, it should be.

“You asked me something on which I am absolutely cold. I don't know a damn thing about it other than what I learned years ago doing procurement work in the Pentagon,” Spratt said. “I would think as a matter of principle, this ought to be backed by legislative action. But I also think there will be some legislation to implement whatever the plan is.”

Treasury Department spokesman Isaac Baker could not be reached for comment after several phone calls Wednesday.

The administration has never offered a cost projection of the warranty guarantee. But the trade publication Warranty Week on March 19 said that in 2007 GM paid $4.46 billion in warranties and Chrysler paid $6.1 billion in warranties.

“You can see quickly that 110 percent of $10 billion is a significant amount of taxpayer money,” said Ernest Istook, a former House member from Oklahoma and distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation who wrote a report on the cost of the warranty program to be released Thursday.

“Guaranteeing warranties is a very expensive proposition,” Istook told CNSNews.com. “You’ve noticed the administration has not put a dollar figure on it.”

Such a potentially large amount of government funds should be debated in Congress before it is added to government liability, said Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.).

“That is the concern about having government ownership in private enterprise,” McHenry told CNSNews.com. “It raises so many concerns, many we have never seen as a government. This policy should be debated fully and the funds should be authorized only under full congressional procedure.”

Istook said the legal authority of the administration to embark on the auto plan is a question that needs to be asked of the entire bailout system.

“It’s on a par with other things,” Istook said. “The money they are using comes from the $700 billion bailout passed by Congress. The administration claims a blank check.”

The actual TARP language approved by Congress only authorized the secretary of the treasury to spend the money purchasing “troubled assets” from financial institutions.

The TARP law specifically says, “The Secretary is authorized to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program (or ‘TARP’) to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary.”

The law does not include auto companies under the category of “financial institution.” The law says the following: “The term ‘financial institution’ means any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company, established and regulated under the laws of the United States or any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the United States Virgin Islands, and having significant operations in the United States, but excluding any central bank of, or institution owned by, a foreign government.”

House Education an Labor Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.) did not know whether the administration needs congressional authorization to guarantee warranties.

“They’re using the Treasury or the TARP funds for this, so I assume they are making that a condition of going forward with the TARP funds,” Miller told CNSNews.com. “I don’t know that there is any explicit legislative authority, but I don’t know that it’s beyond their existing authority in terms of how they are allocating and conditioning the funds.”

Rep. Heath Schuler (D-N.C.) supports guaranteeing the warranties, and does not know if congressional action is necessary. But he said he would like for Congress to be involved.

“As always, as a member of Congress, we’d like to have our say so, without a doubt we’d like to have our say so,” Schuler told CNSNews.com.

Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.

Showing 1-8 of 8 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...

moriarity at 04:18 AM - April 03, 2009
Orator.....I certainly agree in principle with you. However I disagree that the ignorant masses will not knowingly accept Socialism. They will, they have, and they are. They're simply too damn stupid to understand the consequences.

bigbro1a at 03:47 PM - April 02, 2009
Just what kind of idiot is Obama? How can the government take control of a private company? What is next, is he going to take control of Wal-Mart, or maybe Home Depot? Maybe Jack-In-The-Box or that mom & pop store down the street. Next thing you know we will need "the mark" to buy anything or go any where. First of all he needs to stop pointing the finger at Bush and admit that he does not know what he is doing. I for one do not care who's at fault here. I just want it fixed. We are becoming a socialist country because too many people let their emotions get in the way when they went to the polls to vote. If you asked most people that voted for Obama I would say that the majority of them did not even know what he stood for or what his platform was.

NoParty at 03:08 PM - April 02, 2009
My guess is that won't even slow him down....the other day a Democratic Senator said if Obama needs approval for something, they would give it to him. Not that they would look into the economic viability of it, nor judge if it were legal, or Constitutional, ...just if he wants Congress to give him the OK, they will. I do not want to be responsible for warranties of any Company, let alone one that produces linferior vehicles, and has a Union that bleeds them dry. It takes a lot of nerve to even suggest the rest of us should go further into debt and continue a foolish bail out. Giving Government warranties on GM Cars is simply giving carte blanche OK's to corruption and fraud regarding repairs, etc. Where do they come up with these wasteful ideas?

JOHNNY MAC at 03:05 PM - April 02, 2009
OBAMA JUST DIGS OUR GRAVE DEEPER AND DEEPER. AND THERE IS NO ONE IN THE CONGRESS TO REALLY PUT A CHECK ON OBAMA. JUST DUTIFUL DUPES.

peggy41 at 02:47 PM - April 02, 2009
With the Democratic majority Obama has in the House and Senate, he knows he can promise whatever he wants and they will back it. So if car warranty gaurantees require Congressional approval I'm afraid he will get it. Was it a Constitutional violation for him to fire Waggoner? I don't know but if it was no one is speaking out. I know he didn't say, "You're fired." But the alternative (no more gov money if you stay) is the same thing. I want my country back!!

ontime at 01:12 PM - April 02, 2009
This guy Schuler must be smoking whacky weed with the MSM folks, so far this gang in the politburo will break any Constitutional or state law necessary to make that dream of socialism come true. The idea that the Black Knight in shinning armor needs the say so of anyone is now a ludicris point, he has all your money, so why would he need a gun?

obamanation at 01:04 PM - April 02, 2009
ANYONE who buys a vehicle from GM or Chrysler is an idiot. Do you really trust the government with the warranty for your new car? What stupidity. They mismanage everything they get involved with. They can't even deliver the mail in a timely manner. Can you imagine taking your car for warranty service only for it to take several weeks to repair it and get it back still not working? That is the future of any new car warranty coming from DC.

orator at 01:30 AM - April 02, 2009
No, he does not need Congressional approval to go ahead with his plan. Buddy, somebody way higher than "the Messiah" is pulling the strings. It might behoove you to get out of Congress NOW. The sledgehammer is coming and I pity all who will be in the way. Neither you nor any other Democrat has the cojones to call "the Messiah" and get him so stop. It's beyond your control. Back in 1936 a man named Norman Thomas made the following comment after his defeat for the Presidency: "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." After that he goes on to say that the Democratic Party is "our" (meaning the Socialists) greatest hope for running this country. That scares the piss out of me.

“Stop Iran – Or I Will”

2009-04-02T12:56:00.002-08:00

“Stop Iran – Or I Will”

ACTION ALERT –
CONTACT THE U.S. SENATE TODAY

Dear Dave,

Our email yesterday addressed the issue of Iran launching a nuclear weapon over the United States in order to ignite an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that could short-out electrical equipment, power grids, and sensitive electronic equipment. Those of us who have lived without electricity for a few days after a storm understand how this cripples our way of life. Imagine electrical power and communications wiped out for months or longer. The devastation to our economy and our very way of life is almost incalculable. Severe food shortages and lack of fresh water, leading to panic and chaos, would be just the beginning.

In the article below Jeffrey Goldberg reports on the recent interview he conducted with new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu’s message to President Obama was clear and unequivocal: Stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or Israel will.

We have highlighted in yellow segments of the story that we find especially relevant to the ACT! for America message regarding how we must view and deal with Islamists – which is the theme of Brigitte Gabriel’s bestseller They Must Be Stopped. (If you haven’t yet read it you need to get a copy right away). As we noted yesterday, the Obama administration’s various actions and overtures do not inspire confidence that President Obama will exert the kind of pressure on Iran that is necessary to convince the mullahs to abandon their nuclear weapons program. Perhaps this is why Prime Minister Netanyahu delivered this unmistakable – and necessary – message to President Obama.

The good news is we can take action on Iran TODAY! We have just learned that Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) have sponsored an amendment to President Obama’s budget that will hit Iran where it hurts – by making sure your U.S. tax dollars DO NOT support companies that do business with Iran’s energy sector.

The Senate will vote on this amendment TODAY. It is crucial that five Senators, listed below, are contacted as soon as possible and urged to vote “yes” on this amendment. If you live in Indiana, North Dakota, New Jersey, Washington, or New York, it’s especially important that you call your Senator listed below.

So please take less than 5 minutes to call the Senators listed! Tell them to stop Iran’s nuclear bomb by voting in favor of Amendment 932!
Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) – 202-224-5623

Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) – 202-224-2043

Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) – 202-224-3224

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) – 202-224-2621

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) – 202-224-6542

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran—Or I Will
Article Tools
sponsored by:

E-mail Article
Printer Format
This story has been updated on Jeffrey Goldberg’s blog in response to some controversy that it generated.

In an interview conducted shortly before he was sworn in today as prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and quickly—or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities itself.

“The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told me. He said the Iranian nuclear challenge represents a “hinge of history” and added that “Western civilization” will have failed if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

In unusually blunt language, Netanyahu said of the Iranian leadership, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.”

History teaches Jews that threats against their collective existence should be taken seriously, and, if possible, preempted, he suggested. In recent years, the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has regularly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” and the supreme Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, this month called Israel a “cancerous tumor.”

But Netanyahu also said that Iran threatens many other countries apart from Israel, and so his mission over the next several months is to convince the world of the broad danger posed by Iran. One of his chief security advisers, Moshe Ya’alon, told me that a nuclear Iran could mean the end of American influence in the Middle East. “This is an existential threat for Israel, but it will be a blow for American interests, especially on the energy front. Who will dominate the oil in the region—Washington or Tehran?”

Netanyahu said he would support President Obama’s decision to engage Iran, so long as negotiations brought about a quick end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “How you achieve this goal is less important than achieving it,” he said, but he added that he was skeptical that Iran would respond positively to Obama’s appeals. In an hour-long conversation, held in the Knesset, Netanyahu tempered his aggressive rhetoric with an acknowledgement that nonmilitary pressure could yet work. “I think the Iranian economy is very weak, which makes Iran susceptible to sanctions that can be ratcheted up by a variety of means.” When I suggested that this statement contradicted his assertion that Iran, by its fanatic nature, is immune to pressure, Netanyahu smiled thinly and said, “Iran is a composite leadership, but in that composite leadership there are elements of wide-eyed fanaticism that do not exist right now in any other would-be nuclear power in the world. That’s what makes them so dangerous.”

He went on, “Since the dawn of the nuclear age, we have not had a fanatic regime that might put its zealotry above its self-interest. People say that they’ll behave like any other nuclear power. Can you take the risk? Can you assume that?”

Netanyahu offered Iran’s behavior during its eight-year war with Iraq as proof of Tehran’s penchant for irrational behavior. Iran “wasted over a million lives without batting an eyelash … It didn’t sear a terrible wound into the Iranian consciousness. It wasn’t Britain after World War I, lapsing into pacifism because of the great tragedy of a loss of a generation. You see nothing of the kind.”

He continued: “You see a country that glorifies blood and death, including its own self-immolation.” I asked Netanyahu if he believed Iran would risk its own nuclear annihilation at the hands of Israel or America. “I’m not going to get into that,” he said.

Neither Netanyahu nor his principal military advisers would suggest a deadline for American progress on the Iran nuclear program, though one aide said pointedly that Israeli time lines are now drawn in months, “not years.” These same military advisers told me that they believe Iran’s defenses remain penetrable, and that Israel would not necessarily need American approval to launch an attack. “The problem is not military capability, the problem is whether you have the stomach, the political will, to take action,” one of his advisers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told me.

Both Israeli and American intelligence officials agree that Iran is moving forward in developing a nuclear-weapons capability. The chief of Israeli military intelligence, Major General Amos Yadlin, said earlier this month that Iran has already “crossed the technological threshold,” and that nuclear military capability could soon be a fact: “Iran is continuing to amass hundreds of kilograms of low-enriched uranium, and it hopes to exploit the dialogue with the West and Washington to advance toward the production of an atomic bomb.”

American officials argue that Iran has not crossed the “technological threshold”; the director of national intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, said recently that Israel and the U.S. are working with the same set of facts, but are interpreting it differently. “The Israelis are far more concerned about it, and they take more of a worst-case approach to these things from their point of view,” he said. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, recently warned that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would undermine stability in the Middle East and endanger the lives of Americans in the Persian Gulf.

The Obama administration agrees with Israel that Iran’s nuclear program is a threat to Middle East stability, but it also wants Israel to focus on the Palestinian question. Netanyahu, for his part, promises to move forward on negotiations with the Palestinians, but he made it clear in our conversation that he believes a comprehensive peace will be difficult to achieve if Iran continues to threaten Israel, and he cited Iran’s sponsorship of such Islamist groups as Hezbollah and Hamas as a stumbling block.

Navy Corpsman Shines Among Marines

2009-04-02T09:58:00.001-08:00

Navy Corpsman Shines Among Marines

March 27, 2009
Marine Corps News

CAMP HANSEN, OKINAWA, Japan — Not every battle can be won. Not every Marine comes out of the fight unscathed. When a Marine finds one of his brethren down on the battlefield, he lets loose a call that has been sounded for decades. "Corpsmen up!"

It was no different for two Navy corpsmen with 3rd Medical Battalion, Combat Logistics Regiment 35, 3rd Marine Logistics Group, who were awarded medals Monday for their actions while deployed with Marines in Afghanistan.

Seaman Russel Crabb, a corpsman with Headquarters and Service Company, 3rd Medical Bn., received a Navy Achievement Medal with a combat distinguishing device for his quick reaction following an improvised explosive device attack.

Seaman Michael Bergeron, a corpsman with Company C, 3rd Medical Bn., was awarded a Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal for his efforts to provide medical services to Coalition and Afghan forces while attached to an embedded training team during combat operations.

Joe Rosenthal's famous photograph, which depicts five Marines and a corpsman working together to raise a flag on Iwo Jima, captures the spirit and bond that forms between the corpsmen and Marines in combat.

Bergeron and Crabb see their awards as a result of that bond, one that begins long before the battlefield.

After completion of recruit training, corpsman move on to their military occupational school, known as the Naval Hospital Corps School. There, they receive their basic medical training. Unlike most other Naval occupational fields, corpsmen must go to one more school, the Field Medical Service School at Marine Corps Camp Pendleton, Calif. There, they learn advanced field techniques they can expect to use when embedded with Marines. Skills include communications, land navigation, fighting positions, fire-team movements, patrolling, weapons familiarization and other tactics used in combat.

"This is where we get our first taste of the Marine Corps and what we'll actually be doing out in the field," said Crabb.

The mind set of the Marine Corps begins to take control of the corpsmen in the field service school and continues to grow as they spend day-after-day with the Marines. The relationship growth is mutual among the Marines as well, prodded along by friendly teasing and close-quarters-living.

The bonds remain as the corpsmen move on to their units. However, Crabb says being accepted into a new unit is not always easy.

"Some Marines are hesitant at first, but once you do missions with them, eat with them, break down weapons with them, sleep next to them and hike with them, you just kind of become one of them," Crabb said. "We do what they do as well as the medical stuff so they respect that."

Cpl. Ruben Vasquez, a motor transport operator for the 4th Marine Regiment who was deployed with Bergeron and Crabb said it didn't take long for them to become a part of the Marine brotherhood in Afghanistan.

Working side-by-side produces a transformation in the sailors where Navy blue mixes with Marine Corps green, forging a corpsman of Marines.

"We kind of get corrupted by the Marine Corps, and I like it," Crabb said. "The Marines are so geared towards getting out there and fighting the fight, it gives us a little more ruggedness."

Vasquez said the corpsmen pick up on their new life quickly and sometimes take the lead on the tactical side.

"When they're able to correct us on Marine Corps stuff, like radios and weapons, and at the same time take care of us on the corpsman side, it's impressive," Vasquez said. "We grow with them, because we share experiences and emotions with them."

While in the field, corpsmen are essentially Marines as they patrol, engage in fire fights, clean weapons and do all the things the Marines do on an everyday basis. The difference is the additional care the corpsmen provide for the Marines they fight with.

"While in Afghanistan, we provided medical aid to Marines, Afghan Army, coalition forces and Afghan locals and detainees," Crabb said. "We were doing what Marines do until someone was in medical need."

In combat situations, corpsmen are life-savers, and at the same time can be life-takers. They take and return fire. But most importantly, they listen for the words, "corpsman up."

"My mind set is on the patrol and if a situation occurs and medical assistance is needed you just switch modes," Crabb said.

"We had an IED go off, and Bergeron just grabbed his bag and took off," said Vasquez. "It's things like that, which show the closeness we have out there,"

During combat, a corpsman becomes not just a "doc," but a brother as well.

"If someone is shooting at my Marines I'm going to shoot right back at them," Crabb said. "That's like shooting my family members."

Being a corpsman is arguably the most dangerous job in the Navy, and is by far the most decorated occupation specialty. More than 20 Medals of Honor were awarded to Navy corpsman for actions during battles such as Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

Whether it's in the jungles of Vietnam or Okinawa, the deserts of Iraq or the mountains of Afghanistan, at least one thing has remained the same. Marines know who to call on when they need help in garrison or on the battlefield.

"Having a corpsman is a relief," said Vasquez. "I don't have one doubt in my mind that any of them would've taken care of me no matter what was going on."

© Copyright 2009 Marine Corps News. All rights reserved.

QUESTION HOMELESS???

2009-04-02T09:48:00.003-08:00

THIS EXCELLENT QUESTION SENT TO US BY FAITHFUL READER JIM. THANKS

Michelle Obama serves food to D.C. poor and homeless, but...

Two bothersome questions about these news photos:

If this unidentified meal recipient is too poor to buy his own food, how does he afford a cell phone?

And if he is homeless, where do they send the cell phone bills?

Will The Real Tim Geithner Please Stand?

2009-04-02T09:47:00.000-08:00

Will The Real Tim Geithner Please Stand?

By PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY | Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Does Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner favor replacing the U.S. dollar with a global currency or doesn't he? Or, as Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., pointedly asked on Sean Hannity's program, "Which Tim Geithner do we believe?"

Let's review last week's sound bites.

On Monday, China and Russia urged the world to replace the U.S. dollar as the world's standard with a new currency. This anti-American notion was floated by Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of communist China's central bank, along with urging an increased role for the International Monetary Fund in order to protect world financial markets from the Federal Reserve printing more dollars.

On Tuesday, during a House Financial Services Committee hearing, Rep. Michele Bachmann asked Geithner if he would "categorically renounce the United States moving away from the dollar and going to a global currency," as suggested by China and Russia. He replied, "I would, yes."

Bachmann then asked for confirmation of that reply, and included Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who was also sitting at the witness table, in her question: "You 'categorically,' and the Federal Reserve chair?" Geithner indicated assent, and Bernanke responded, "I would, also."

On Wednesday, during an appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, banker Doug Smith asked Geithner about China's proposal to replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Geithner responded that "we're actually quite open to that suggestion," adding that we should think of it as "evolutionary" and as "building on the current architecture" of the world's currency rather than moving to global monetary union.

Geithner spent the rest of the day trying (as bureaucrats would say) to clarify his remarks while the dollar fell sharply in currency trading. On the Hannity program, Bachmann recited the colloquy and said, "Secretary Geithner has left the option on the table. I want to know which it is. The American people deserve to know."

On Thursday, a United Nations panel of expert economists pressed for a new global currency reserve system made up of dollars, euros, sterling, yen and others. You can bet that any plan concocted by the U.N. that mentions "global equity" will involve more transfers of U.S. wealth to other countries.

By the end of the week, Bachmann had introduced H.J. Res. 41, proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prohibit the president from entering into a treaty or other international agreement that would provide for the United States to adopt as legal tender a currency issued by any entity other than the United States. She had no trouble attracting co-sponsors.

On the eve of the opening of the G-20 Summit in London on April 2, Geithner expanded on his views for "new rules of the game." He said, "Our hope is that we can work with Europe on a global framework, a global infrastructure which has appropriate global oversight, so we don't have a Balkanized system at the global level, like we had at the national level."

It's no wonder that commentators are starting to refer to a possible world currency as the "globo."

Were Geithner's contradictory remarks a gaffe or a political trial balloon? Surely the Obama administration must know that loose talk about a global currency is not acceptable to the American people.

Ever since President George W. Bush went to Waco in 2005 to meet with Vicente Fox and announced the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the Internet and the blogs have been buzzing with speculation about a plan to put the United States into a North American Union along with a common currency already labeled the amero. Government officials and various elites have been issuing impassioned denials that any such plan exists.

But now we have it from our highest financial authority, Geithner, that a world currency is on the table of international discussions. And he implies that we shouldn't be surprised because it is "evolutionary" in our existing financial "architecture."

That is how Europeans were tricked into the European Union by their governments, mostly without any vote by the people. The EU started out as just a trade agreement, but it evolved into a political union that ultimately replaced national currencies with a common currency called the euro.

Wasn't one of Obama's strong selling points in winning the presidency that he would restore foreign friendship for the United States in the post-George W. Bush era? Now, as Obama sets out on his first presidential trip overseas, he faces world antagonism not only to America and our foreign policy, but especially to our economic system and to Obama's grand design to use trillion-dollar government spending to promote U.S. recovery.

Theft In Name Of Stimulus Is Still Theft

2009-04-02T09:39:00.000-08:00

Theft In Name Of Stimulus Is Still Theft

By WALTER E. WILLIAMS | Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Most of our nation's great problems, including our economic problems, have as their root decaying moral values. Whether we have the stomach to own up to it or not, we have become an immoral people left with little more than the pretense of morality.

You say, "That's a pretty heavy charge, Williams. You'd better be prepared to back it up with evidence!" I'll try with a few questions for you to answer.

Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him?

Neither question is complex and can be answered by either a yes or no. For me, the answer is no to both questions, but I bet that your average college professor, politician or minister would not give a simple yes or no response. They would be evasive and probably say that it all depends.

In thinking about questions of morality, my initial premise is that I am my private property, and you are your private property. That's simple. What's complex is what percentage of me belongs to someone else.

If we accept the idea of self-ownership, then certain acts are readily revealed as moral or immoral. Acts such as rape and murder are immoral because they violate one's private property rights. Theft of the physical things that we own, such as cars, jewelry and money, also violates our ownership rights.

The reason why your college professor, politician or minister cannot give a simple yes or no answer to the question of whether one person should be used to serve the purposes of another is because they are sly enough to know that either answer would be troublesome for their agenda.

A yes answer would put them firmly in the position of supporting some of mankind's most horrible injustices such as slavery. After all, what is slavery but the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another?

A no answer would put them on the spot as well because that would mean they would have to come out against taking the earnings of one American to give to another in the forms of farm and business handouts, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and thousands of similar programs that account for more than two-thirds of the federal budget.

There is neither moral justification nor constitutional authority for what amounts to legalized theft. This is not an argument against paying taxes. We all have a moral obligation to pay our share of the constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions of the federal government.

Unfortunately, there is no way out of our immoral quagmire. The reason is that now that the U.S. Congress has established the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American, it no longer pays to be moral.

People who choose to be moral and refuse congressional handouts will find themselves losers. They'll be paying higher and higher taxes to support increasing numbers of those paying lower and lower taxes.

As it stands now, close to 50% of income earners have no federal income tax liability and as such, what do they care about rising income taxes? In other words, once legalized theft begins, it becomes too costly to remain moral and self-sufficient. You might as well join in the looting, including the current looting in the name of stimulating the economy.

I am all too afraid that a historian, a hundred years from now, will footnote America as a historical curiosity where people once enjoyed private property rights and limited government, but it all returned to mankind's normal state of affairs — arbitrary abuse and control by the powerful elite.

Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

Who Is Harold Koh?

2009-04-02T09:28:00.002-08:00

WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE IS A SHAME. THIS SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT COMES FROM FABRICATED BACKGROUNDS (OBAMA A SAVIOUR, A LEGAL MIND AND ONE TO SAVE US ALL) ONE IN SHEEPS CLOTHING (BASIC COMMUNIST). iT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THIS PERSON IS OUR PRESIDENT AND IS , IT APPERARS, ABLE TO DESTROY THE INDUSTRIAL MIGHT OF THE NATION (GM, BANKS, CHRYSLER, INSURANCE COS,) BY NOTHING MORE THAN PERSONAL EDICT, NO CONGRESSIONAL CONSULTATION OR AUTHORITY. PRAY GOD WHAT NEXT? DAVE ANDERSON

Who Is Harold Koh?

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Law: President Obama's nominee for State Department legal adviser could be a future Supreme Court pick. He believes U.S. law should be based on foreign precedent, and even Shariah law could find a home here.

We have commented many times on the opinion of a number of U.S. Supreme Court justices that American jurists should include foreign law and precedent in their decisions. In several prominent cases, this has already happened.

In a speech in South Africa, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the March 2005 Roper v. Simmons decision, in which a 5-4 majority ruled against executing murderers who were 17 or younger, "perhaps the fullest expressions to date on the propriety and utility of looking to the 'opinions of (human)kind.' "

Koh: Man of the world.
More recently, Justice Stephen Breyer said: "We see all the time . . . how the world really . . . is growing together. The challenge (will be) whether our Constitution . . . fits into the governing documents of other nations." Whether our Constitution fits?

Agreeing with Ginsburg and Breyer is one Harold Koh, a former dean of Yale Law School who's been nominated by President Obama to be the State Department's legal adviser. He's an advocate of what he calls "transnational legal process" and argues that the distinction between U.S. and international law should vanish.

Koh believes laws of places like Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka should carry equal weight with the laws of Virginia and South Dakota, and that it's "appropriate for the Supreme Court to construe our Constitution in the light of foreign and international law" in its decisions.

He also believes foreign law trumps U.S. law on issues such as the death penalty. Echoing Ginsburg, he has said: "The evidence strongly suggests that we do not currently pay decent respect to the opinions of humankind in our administration of the death penalty. For that reason (italics added), the death penalty should, in time, be declared in violation of the Eighth Amendment."

In Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down that state's anti-sodomy laws, Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion cited a 1967 British parliamentary vote repealing laws against homosexual acts and a 1981 European Court of Human Rights decision that such laws were in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Agreeing with Kennedy, Koh himself filed an amicus brief in the case that argued that international and foreign court decisions compelled the Supreme Court to strike down the Texas law. Koh has also submitted an amicus brief to the Connecticut Supreme Court arguing that foreign precedents require recognition of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

He also values the opinions of the world's imams. A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says Koh in 2007 told the Yale Club of Greenwich that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why Shariah law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."

Koh thinks America is the bad guy on the world stage. He blasted Operation Desert Storm as a violation of international law despite the U.N.'s blessing. He supported the Sandinista move to get the International Criminal Court to force Congress to cut off funding of the Contras in Nicaragua.

In 2004, after Operation Iraqi Freedom had begun, Koh lumped the U.S. in with North Korea as part of an "axis of disobedience" regarding international law.

Koh says the Supreme Court is now divided between "nationalist" judges who believe our Constitution is the only one that counts and "transnationalists" who believe "we the people" should be changed to "we are the world."

The next appointment will tip the balance one way or the other, Koh says. He just might be Obama's first pick to fill the next vacancy. Neil Lewis of the New York Times last year said Koh was widely regarded as a leading contender.

This is the man who'll be giving Secretary of State Hillary Clinton legal advice. This is the man who could quite possibly be the next Supreme Court justice. This is Harold Koh.

Labor Union to Obama: Fire Bank of America CEO

2009-04-01T21:56:00.004-08:00

THINK BANK IN HISTORY FOLKS. HITLER IN HIS ASCENT TO BE EVERYTHING TO ALL OF GERMANY AND EYE ON THE WORDLD STRIPPED FIRST SMALL BUSINESS, AND FINALLY HEAVY INDUSTRY IN HIS QUEST TO RULE THE WORLD AND WITH THE AUTHORITY OF WHOM...HIMSELF
SAME AS THIS HITLERISTIC SOB OBAMA.

CNSNews.com
Labor Union to Obama: Fire Bank of America CEO
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama forced the ouster of the General Motors chairman, and now he must fire the Bank of America CEO, a labor union insists.

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is circulating an online petition, telling Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to get rid of Ken Lewis.

“Bank of America's Ken Lewis accepted bailout funds while continuing to fleece consumers and taxpayers,” the SEIU petition says.

It continues: “Firing GM's CEO is a positive step towards restructuring a critical American industry. But the Obama Administration needs to apply the same lesson to the financial sector: replace failed leadership and shepherd the industry into a new era. It’s time for the Obama Administration to show the door to CEO Ken Lewis in order for real reform to take hold at Bank of America.”

A blog on the SEIU Web site lists the reasons why Lewis should be fired:

-- He has not changed the bank’s core business practices;

-- He “turned a blind eye” when one of his new acquisitions – Merrill Lynch -- gave out an estimated $5 billion in bonuses right before the company got a $10 billion bailout;

-- He earns too much: Lewis took home more than $120 million dollars in the last several years, more than 4,000 times what his average employee makes, the SEIU noted. “The era of excess is over,” the blog says.

-- He opposes a union-backed bill: “Ken Lewis' Bank of America is actively fighting the Employee Free Choice Act,” a bill that would make it easier for unions to organize workplaces.

SEIU says Lewis “needs to be replaced by someone ready to reform Bank of America from top to bottom.”

On Monday, the Associated Press noted that President Obama was dealing ‘more sternly” with the auto industry than he was with bailed-out banks.

Under the financial bailout package (Troubled Asset Relief Program) passed during the Bush administration, the U.S. government bought itself an ownership stake in the nation’s big banks, allowing the government to have a say in management decisions.

That worries Bank of America, which has expressed a desire to return the TARP money so the government will have no say in how it conducts its business.

The Obama administration met with the heads of 13 banks, including Ken Lewis, last Friday. The administration is still working on a plan to remove toxic assets from the banks’ books and ease the credit crunch that is contributing to the nation’s economic problems.

Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.

Showing 1-7 of 7 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...

pascasha at 04:38 PM - April 01, 2009
Of course the Unions can tell Obama what to do. Nevermind the fact that a government official should not be allowed to dictate what a private company does...Obama is all for socialism, communism...

realetybytes at 04:03 PM - April 01, 2009
Now we see who is really running America. Socialist, corrupt, 5cumbag unions like Gettlefinger of the UAW and this a55clown. They should move to France, union thugs run everything there, see how well that works for them. He just wants the "Employees Free FROM Choice Act" to pass so the thugs can come to your house with bats to convince you how badly you need Union Health Care. The UAW has turned GM into a retirement home with a minor car making compay on the side. It is the Social Security System on steroids - very few workers with millions of retirees to support. Let them go bankrupt and reorganize, and if the UAW won't work for less, there are millions of Americans who will take an honest days pay for an honest days work,

djsteil at 03:59 PM - April 01, 2009
Talk about the fox (unions) guarding the chicken koop (BOA)!!!!!! Unions are nothing but legal backmail in disguise!!!!

eyeswideopen at 03:44 PM - April 01, 2009
Well, well! The SEIU is ignorant. If Obama were to sheepily obey the union, then he will have committed political suicide.

Oregondave at 12:59 PM - April 01, 2009
Is this America or the Soviet Union? I guess there isn't much difference now.

NoParty at 12:57 PM - April 01, 2009
Is this insane enough for everyone yet? Let me see....aside from the entire Congress and Senate, who do I want fired....hmmm? Also, the head of the UAW who aided and abetted GM in making inferior cars, the head of the Teachers Union, Matthews, Olberman and Maddow....the mayor of San Francisco, Barney, oops, that is redundant, gee, my list could go on, and on. It seems the most toxic assets this Country has are those who are governing it.

jim240 at 09:31 AM - April 01, 2009
if we go back to the headwaters of this financial catastrophe, we find Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters& Frank Raines. They all insisted we circumvent the banking rules and laws in place to NOT let this failure happen. Lets fire them 1st. And lets have Senate hearings to find the others who are guilty

Post New Comment
You must be logged in to leave comments! Click here to log in.

CNSNews.com Toolbox

Subscribe to E-Brief
CNSNews.com News Ticker
Related Articles
Stocks Slide Despite Merck/Schering Plough Merger News
If You Play Ball With the Government, Expect to Strike Out
Bailed-Out Bank of America Sells Company Airplanes
Former Merrill Chief, Under Fire for Bonus Handouts, Departs Bank of America
Worse Than Expected News on the Job Front
Workers Win A Round in Chicago Factory Sit-In
Bank Agrees to Give Credit to Chicago Plant Where Workers Staged Sit-In
Citigroup Offers Moratorium on Foreclosures
Related Videos
'Joe The Plumber': Obama Vision Leading U.S. To Socialism
Wonder Woman Says 'Right Wing' is 'Spreading Hate'
Lea Thompson: Obama Plan Will Deter Charitable Giving to a 'Certain Extent'

‘I Don’t Know’ Where Obama Got Legal Authority

2009-04-01T21:46:00.002-08:00

IT A[[EARS TO ME AS THE TIME GOES ON THAT THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE THING THAT THIS SOCILIST/COMMUNIST UNAMERICAN (BORN WHO KNOWS WHERE) BASTARD DOES THAT IS EVEN CLOSE TO LEGAL. READ ON.

CNSNews.com

CNSNews.com
Hoyer: ‘I Don’t Know’ Where Obama Got Legal Authority for Auto Plan
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.)(CNSNews.com) - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told CNSNews.com on Tuesday that he does not know where President Barack Obama gained legal authority to oversee a restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler. But if authority is a question, he said, then Congress will grant it to the administration.

However, when Congress tried to enact an auto industry bailout plan in December, the legislation was approved by the House but failed in the Senate where, under the rules, it needed 60 votes.

Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.), meanwhile, toldCNSNews.com he was somewhat surprised that the administration did not consult with him at all about its auto industry plan despite his key committee chairmanship and that he had “been reading about it in the papers basically.”

Hoyer was similarly candid about his inability to cite the administration’s legal authority for the plan.

“The administration clearly believes it does have the authority to use some of the remaining TARP funds for the automobile industry,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com Tuesday.

“I don't know, technically. I would be kidding you to mouth some words on that, because I don't know technically where that authority would be,” Hoyer said. “But my own view is that if it is perceived they don't have that authority and it is perceived by the Congress they need to have that authority, the Congress would probably be willing to give that authority. But I don't know technically the answer to that question.”

The White House is implementing its plan under the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) that Congress enacted last year specifically to bail out financial institutions—and not other businesses such as auto manufacturers. When President Bush asked Congress last fall to approve legislation authorizing him to use TARP money to bailout the auto industry, Congress rejected the legislation.

Even though the legislation was defeated, President Bush’s Treasury Department went ahead and loaned $17.4 billion in TARP funds to General Motors and Chrysler.

Critics ranging from Clinton Administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich to the conservative Heritage Foundation criticized Bush for acting unlawfully in doing so.

The TARP law specifically says, “The Secretary is authorized to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program (or ‘TARP’) to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary.”

The law does not include auto companies under the category of “financial institution.” The law says the following: “The term ‘financial institution’ means any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company, established and regulated under the laws of the United States or any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the United States Virgin Islands, and having significant operations in the United States, but excluding any central bank of, or institution owned by, a foreign government.”

Dodd, like Hoyer, expressed uncertainty when asked where the president got the authority to further fund the auto industry and oversee its restructuring given that TARP only authorizing federal aid to financial institutions.

“I don’t know whether there is legislative action needed regarding all this,” Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) told CNSNews.com Tuesday. “There may be. I just don’t know enough details of this and obviously we’re going to be talking about it.”

On Monday, President Obama announced certain conditions that General Motors and Chrysler would have to meet to get additional government funds. These included requiring both automakers to produce more “fuel efficient” vehicles, and requiring Chrysler to merge with the Italian auto maker Fiat.

Additionally, the administration “asked” General Motors President Rick Wagoner to resign.

“I wasn’t consulted at all on the process, not that I expected to be necessarily, but as the committee of some jurisdiction on this matter, I kind of expected I might hear something. I’ve been reading about it in the papers basically,” Dodd said.

Dodd also said he had questions about the president’s proposal regarding Chrysler.

“One piece that has me somewhat perplexed is whether or not we are providing funds to Chrysler in order to make their position attractive to Fiat,” Dodd said. “That’s going to raise questions in people’s minds.”

Using TARP money to finance a government-driven restructuring of GM and Chrysler as announced by Obama would not be legal without a congressional authorization, said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.).

“No, it’s not legal without congressional approval,” Franks told CNSNews.com. “The language is clear. The money is directed toward financial institutions. But that may be the least of our challenge. The president finally seems to realize that bankruptcy may be the best option. The notion that government could specify what vehicles to make is ridiculous.”

Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) said he found the treatment of GM President Rick Wagoner troubling.

“It’s my understanding that the CEOs voluntarily agreed to really be the scapegoat here and I think it’s very difficult to say that the president did anything wrong there,” Hatch told CNSNews.com. “But I do not want the federal government dictating who runs corporations in this country. Now there is no question there is a lot of leverage with the federal funds. But it’s a very troubling thing that people think politicians can fire a leader of a company.”

Hatch added he was skeptical about the government’s ability to guarantee warrantees on vehicles.

“It’s tough to guarantee a warrantee if a company is out of business,” Hatch continued. “You can guarantee maybe parts, but ultimately, it is very difficult to do that without getting the government in a difficult position. It’s easy to say things like that. It’s another to do them.”

Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.

Showing 1-10 of 13 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer 1 2 Next Loading...

Jack Kinch(1uncle) at 06:06 PM - April 01, 2009
He doesn't have authority. It's ego. If nobody questions it,so? He can fire anyone. That's really something from a man who never had a real job or ran anything. He has always lived off your taxes-never paid any. He's still living off your taxes and unless people want to pay a lot of money to hear him speak like 'Sick Willie', he'll never pay taxes.

orator at 05:22 PM - April 01, 2009
Franks's only problem is that Nobama didn't give him a few hundred thousand to make his day. What surprises me is Hatch's reaction. I would have thought he would find Nobama's actions more than "troubling". If it had been me I would have been furious and doing all I could to call Mr Nobama to task. Nobama needs someone to knock him off his perch. Right now it seems he thinks he can do no wrong. I suppose that fits when the "Messiah" is acting. What a loon. What a jerk. Come one, somebody with the cojones, grab that jerk by the throat and bring him down to earth.

pascasha at 04:25 PM - April 01, 2009
Obama has no authorization to do this. But King Obama can do whatever he wants. There is no more check-and-balance system in Washington. They are all liberal up there and they would make some retro-active law to cover his butt!

mewp at 02:07 PM - April 01, 2009
Perhaps the sheep are starting to leave the fold as the shepherd is out of line.

shorn1954 at 01:44 PM - April 01, 2009
Man, when are these guys going to get it? They are like sheep being led to the slaughter. Obama has powerful people behind the scenes in very high places. He is somehow able to do anything he wants and is quickly moving toward total control of every aspect of our lives with not so much as a hiccup. Scary times folks!

NoParty at 01:00 PM - April 01, 2009
Don't these Democtats realize yet that they. along with the Republican members of the Congress and Senate, plus the entire population of the US are redundant. Do they seriously think Obama gives a hoot about consulting them or anyone. Silly people.

islanddiva at 12:49 PM - April 01, 2009
Obama's takeover of GM is outrageous and ridiculous! Since when does he have the authority to dictate who a company can hire and fire, reagrdless of how they worded the TARP legislation! The bureaucrats wouldn't take the time to even read their very flawed TARP plan, so it's no coincidence that this deal had to be shoved through as fast as possible and in the dead of night. They authorized AIG bonuses, as those too were "overlooked" & endorsed by the libs, until public outrage shamed them into reversing course. Why not focus on the union bosses and shut them down? They are the biggest drain on resources. Aside from politics, what other industry pays HS dropouts $80/hr, + benefits for life? Until Detroit can cut labor costs, they'll never make it, regardless of what BO & co. dictate or legislate. Thanks to more bureacracy, gov't subsidies, fess and taxes, expect to see US cars selling for 50% more than they are now.

jsamans at 12:33 PM - April 01, 2009
The TARP language also doesn't say anything about recapitalizing banks, with Secretaries Paulson and Geithner have both done. I think that TARP is really just a big pot of money that anyone uses however he or she wants.

jimmr at 12:27 PM - April 01, 2009
What Constitutional authority does Congressman Hoyer cite the gives Congress the right to extend to the President (who has obviously greatly exceeded his constitutional authority)?

Searcher at 12:23 PM - April 01, 2009
The light hasn't come on yet in Congress, but maybe it is starting to flicker a little.

Single Nuke Could Destroy America

2009-04-01T21:34:00.002-08:00

Newt Gingrich: A Single Nuke Could Destroy America

Sunday, March 29, 2009 4:23 PM

By: Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen Article Font Size

A sword of Damocles hangs over our heads. It is a real threat that has been all but ignored.

On Feb. 3, Iran launched a “communications satellite” into orbit. At this very moment, North Korea is threatening to do the same. The ability to launch an alleged communications satellite belies a far more frightening truth. A rocket that can carry a satellite into orbit also can drop a nuclear warhead over any location on the planet in less than 45 minutes.

Far too many timid or uninformed sources maintain that a single launch of a missile poses no true threat to the United States, given our retaliatory power.

A reality check is in order and must be discussed in response to such an absurd claim: In fact, one small nuclear weapon, delivered by an ICBM can destroy the United States by maximizing the effect of the resultant electromagnetic pulse upon detonation.

An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a byproduct of detonating an atomic bomb above the Earth’s atmosphere. When a nuclear weapon is detonated in space, the gamma rays emitted trigger a massive electrical disturbance in the upper atmosphere. Moving at the speed of light, this overload will short out all electrical equipment, power grids and delicate electronics on the Earth’s surface. In fact, it would take only one to three weapons exploding above the continental United States to wipe out our entire grid and transportation network. It might take years to recover from, if ever.

This is not science fiction. If you doubt this, spend a short amount of time skimming the Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack from April 2008. You will come away sobered.

Even as the new administration plans to spend trillions on economic bailouts, it has announced plans to reduce funding and downgrade efforts for missile defense. Furthermore, the United States’ reluctance to invest in a modern and credible traditional nuclear deterrent is a serious concern. What good will a bailout be if there is no longer a nation to bail out?

Fifty years ago, it was not Sputnik itself that sent a dire chill of warning around the world; it was the capability of the rocket that launched Sputnik. The rocket that lofted Sputnik into orbit also could have served as an ICBM.

Yet for all its rhetoric, the Soviet Union was essentially a rational power that recognized the threat of mutual destruction and thus never stepped to the edge.

The world is different today. Intercontinental range missiles tipped with nuclear weapons in the hands of leaders driven by fanaticism, leaders that support global terrorism, leaders that have made repeated threats that they will seek our annihilation . . . can now at last achieve that dream in a matter of minutes.

Those who claim that there is little to fear from Iran or North Korea because “at best” they will have only one or two nuclear weapons ignore the catastrophic level of threat we now face from just “a couple” of nuclear weapons.

Again: One to three missiles tipped with nuclear weapons and armed to detonate at a high altitude — to achieve the strongest EMP over the greatest area of the United States — would create an EMP “overlay” that triggers a continent-wide collapse of our entire electrical, transportation, and communications infrastructure.

Within weeks after such an attack, tens of millions of Americans would perish. The impact has been likened to a nationwide Hurricane Katrina. Some studies estimate that 90 percent of all Americans might very well die in the year after such an attack as our transportation, food distribution, communications, public safety, law enforcement, and medical infrastructures collapse.

We most likely would never recover from the blow.

Two things need to be done now and without delay:

1. Make clear in the strongest of terms that, if either Iran or North Korea launches a rocket on a trajectory headed toward the territory of the United States, we will shoot it down. The risk of not doing so is beyond acceptable. And if they construe this as an act of war, so be it, for they fired the first shot. The risk of sitting back for 30 minutes and praying it is not an EMP strike is beyond acceptable, beyond rational on our part.

2. Funding for EMP defense must be a top national priority. To downgrade or halt our missile defense program, which at last is becoming viable after 25 years of research, would be an action of criminal negligence.

Surely, with such a threat confronting us, a fair and open debate, with full public access and the setting aside of partisan politics, is in order. In the meantime, a policy must be stated today that we will indeed shoot down any missile aimed towards the United States that is fired by Iran or North Korea. America’s survival, your survival, and your family’s survival might very well depend on it.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. William Forstchen is the author of "One Second After," an account of a town struggling to survive after an EMP weapon is used against the United States.

[Editor’s Note: Get William Forstchen’s book depicting a nuclear EMP attack, “One Second After” —

©

'Dream Act' Amnesty for Illegal Alien Teens Is Back!

2009-03-31T16:02:00.001-08:00

'Dream Act' Amnesty for Illegal Alien Teens Is Back!

Sens. Reid, Durbin, et al, Reveal Their Plans, and We'd Better Move Fast to Stop Them

(Plus, several new actions, and one more giving challenge this month)

DEAR DAVID ANDERSON,

Hi! It's Jim again, speaking for Roy and the rest of our NumbersUSA team.

This is your Action Alert on the new Dream Act crisis, so please read it all. There are several actions at the end of the letter. Please do each of them today.

Late last week we learned several pieces of our opponents' strategy for this year:

The Los Angeles Times reported that foundations controlled by billionaire George Soros and others have put together an $18 million war chest to push through a GENERAL AMNESTY this year.

The "Dream Act" amnesty for illegal alien high school grads has been reintroduced. The open borders crowd expects this least offensive (to some people) amnesty to break NumbersUSA's eight-year perfect record on defeating amnesties.

An aide to Harry Reid told the Los Angeles Times that the fix is in: "comprehensive immigration reform," which we know to contain a GENERAL AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS will be brought to the floor of the Senate this Fall. So you see, they are hoping to amnesty the kids with "Dream Act," then follow up by amnestying their parents, aunts, and acquaintances, a few months later.
DAVID, it's obvious that if we don't "up our game," we're going to "get rolled."

Many first-time donors to NumbersUSA stepped have stepped forward this month to help us even the odds against the open borders lobby. But take a glance at the thermometer graphic and you'll see we still have a ways to go just to maintain our usual level of leadership and activism.

So if you have never yet made a gift to NumbersUSA, please donate now! We really need your financial help to defeat these amnesties.

Let me remind you about the "Dream Act." It's an amnesty for illegal aliens who graduate from high school in the U.S. The immigration grievance lobbies argue that it wasn't the fault of these kids that their parents brought them illegally into this country. Therefore, they say, these young people should be given an automatic path to citizenship, in-state tuition at universities, and the whole galaxy of other social benefits that only citizens are entitled to.

We object strongly! Every time someone is rewarded for breaking the law, bad things result. First, millions more persons will be tempted to illegally cross our borders, and bring their children with them. Secondly, government resources are scarce. Every subsidized slot at a state university given to an illegal alien is one less we ultimately will be able to give to a current American citizen.

The open borders lobby believed two years ago that the "Dream Act" garnered too much sympathy to fail. Well, it did fail—we defeated it soundly several times. But, last Friday, Sens. Dick Durbin and Richard Lugar introduced it afresh into the Senate.

We expect a huge, expensive struggle on this. The other side only lost by eight votes last time. Since then, the election has added several new open borders votes to the Senate. Frankly, the only way we can defeat this amnesty this year will be if every one of our activists sends all their faxes, makes all their phone calls, and contributes financially to our struggle.

I said I'd give several To-Do Action items at the end of this message. Here they are:

1) Go to your Action Buffet and send all the Faxes to Congress and the President you see there. This is hugely important. Don't wait a minute.

2) Read all the details about the "Dream Act" threat on the NumbersUSA website. Some of our activists only read emails from us and don't go to our Home Page. Only on the NumbersUSA web site will you see the in depth news and extended analysis by Roy Beck and others.

3) If you haven't made a financial contribution lately, please donate now. You've already read that the other side has raised an $18 million war chest to defeat us on total amnesty. Needless to say, we don't have that kind of big money funding us. We're totally dependent on the activism and financial donations of our members to send your faxes and bang down the doors of Congress.

4) Have you signed our brand-new Petition to President Obama? This is new, different from the one several months ago. It's important you sign it and submit the name of friends, so we can send the petition to them as well. As many of you have commented to us, we need to double our band of committed citizens.

5) Did you know you can affix your handwritten signature to every fax NumbersUSA sends for you? If you send us your handwritten signature using this special form, we will electronically add it to every fax you send, making them much more powerful when they arrive at Congress. (No other organization anywhere provides this service—please take advantage of it! If you are one of the several thousand who have already sent in your signature, you're set already!)

DAVID, the thing that makes NumbersUSA powerful is that we aren't a "made-up" group. We have hundreds of thousands of members who care enough about America to take some time and give some money to protect her. Thanks for being one of them!

Remember, if you are ill, unemployed, or living on a small fixed income, please do not contribute. We only ask for help from those able to help.

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE,

JIM ROBB
Vice President, Operations
NumbersUSA

P.S. I'm happy to report that our thermometer is inching up for March. I know these are hard times for so many. However, the other side is exceptionally well-armed. If you haven't given lately, please hit that red button and do so today. Your children and grandchildren will be grateful.

P.S.S. Some readers do not know how to give their feedback to these emails. Now you can, using the blog feature on our website. Just press here to give your feedback. (You will need to log in to use this feature.)

Numbers USA
1601 N. Kent Street
Suite 1100
Arlington, VA 22209

Little Dictators

2009-03-31T07:15:00.000-08:00

IN THIS ARTICLE YOU WILL READ OF ONE BARNEY FRANK WHO FEELS THAT IT IS HIS RIGHT TO BECOME THE ARBITER OF FINANCIAL PAY FOR VIRTUALLY EVERY BUSINESS. THUS THE GOVERNMENT WOULD DETERMINE WHAT AN EXECUTIVE PAY COULD BE THAT IS WAGE/SALARY AND BONUS, THIS HOMO-SEXUAL PIECE OF ... NEEDS TO GO AWAY.

Little Dictators

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2009 4:20 AM PT

Congress: The spectacle of the very same people responsible for one of the nation's great financial calamities angling to be given even more control to fix the problem would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Rep. Barney Frank, the Democrat who sits atop Congress' efforts to deal with the financial crisis, has enough chutzpah for 100 politicians — which is saying a lot.

In comments before testimony from both Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Fed chief Ben Bernanke Tuesday, Frank said he wants to regulate pay on Wall Street — even for companies that aren't getting bailouts.

And he called retention bonuses — a time-honored practice on Wall Street and elsewhere in America in which key employees are compensated for their enormous value — "extortion" and "bribes."

Frank, one of the chief architects of the housing mess that's brought us so low, isn't satisfied merely with pretending he and his Democratic pals aren't to blame for all this. No, exploiting voter anger over the now-infamous AIG bonuses, he also wants to dictate to American capitalism what it can earn and what it can't.

This is the kind of thing that normally happens in Third World countries ruled by tinhorn dictators, or in fascist states, where the democratic rule of law has collapsed. Not the U.S.

Yet, that's where we find ourselves today, isn't it? Democrats in Congress, who steadfastly rejected virtually all efforts to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as they went on the wildest, most irresponsible lending binge in the history of finance, now pose themselves as the saviors of fallen capitalism.

The hypocrisy is nothing short of stunning.

Take Frank. As we've written before, he spearheaded congressional Democrats' efforts in 1992, 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2005 to block reform of Fannie and Freddie.

Those two "government-sponsored enterprises" were the nexus of this crisis, holding $5.4 trillion of the $12 trillion in U.S. mortgages, while originating or funding 90% of the subprime market.

Their failures presaged the subsequent financial meltdown from which we're still trying to regain our economic footing.

Then there's Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, another posturing moralist in the flap over AIG bonuses. He turns out to have inserted the bonuses into the bailout legislation in the first place.

An innocent move? Please note Dodd was No. 1 on the list of recipients of AIG's political contributions. Also that his wife was a former director of IPC Holdings, a company controlled by AIG.

We wish all this tinkering with the private sector was limited to Congress. But it isn't. The Treasury wants what the Washington Post called Tuesday "unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy."

Citing the AIG precedent, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs defended this radical move, saying on CNN, "We need resolution authority to go in and be able to change contracts, be able to change the business model, unwind what doesn't work."

Breathtaking. Coupled with the vast expansion of government spending over the next 10 years, this is socialism, pure and simple.

Yes, we know it's unfashionable to use the "S" word. But we're willing to be unhip in the service of the truth.

It's a frightening thing to see a once mighty, and free, capitalist economy placed under the heel of an incompetent government. But that's precisely what's happening now.

Executive pay, the focus of much public fury right now, is only the start. Your pay will be next, rest assured. So hold on to your wallets, sure, but also hold on even tighter to something even more precious that now seems at risk: your freedom.

Email To Friend

Meet The New Boss

2009-03-30T17:41:00.001-08:00

Meet The New Boss

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Industrial Policy: The U.S. government dictating a major corporation's merger partner and who its CEO should be was unimaginable a year ago. Has industry sold America's free-market soul for bailout money?

A president of the United States orders the chief executive officer of General Motors to resign. The same president is further ordering Chrysler to merge with Fiat, the Italian firm specializing in flimsy cardboard boxes on wheels.

This new reality should send a chill down the spines of all Americans. The federal government has begun to run U.S. companies.

President Obama said Monday, "my team will be working closely with GM to produce a better business plan."

To that confident assertion he added these stern sentiments:

"They must ask themselves: Have they consolidated enough unprofitable brands? Have they cleaned up their balance sheets, or are they still saddled with so much debt that they can't make future investments? Above all, have they created a credible model for how not only to survive, but to succeed in this competitive global market?"

Who is in a better position to know the answers to these questions? Rick Wagoner, the GM CEO for nine years and former GM chief financial officer who has been with the automaker since the late 1970s, even running one of its foreign affiliates in Brazil, and who holds a Harvard Business School MBA?

Or President Obama, a former community activist from the south side of Chicago with a great rhetorical gift?

The president answered that question this week by ordering Wagoner's firing.

Imagine if it were not GM, but your own small business employing a handful of people.

How would you like the country's highest-ranking elected officeholder telling you that he and "my team" know better than you about cleaning up your balance sheets and competing against your rivals? How would you like being ordered by the government to fire the person you hired as manager of your company?

Does an entity that is itself $11 trillion (and climbing) in debt have any right to criticize a private business for owing tens of billions, let alone to claim it can do better running that business?

The same arrogance was heard regarding Chrysler. The president announced that, "we've determined, after careful review, that Chrysler needs a partner to remain viable." Why was Fiat picked? Because the Italian firm "after working closely with my team, has committed to building new fuel-efficient cars and engines right here in the United States."

In other words, its politics are right.

The merger will operate under a deadline with Washington holding a gun to Chrysler's head: "We'll give Chrysler and Fiat 30 days to . . . reach a final agreement," the president said. "But if they and their stakeholders are unable to reach such an agreement, and in the absence of any other viable partnership, we will not be able to justify investing additional tax dollars to keep Chrysler in business."

It should now be clear: Federal bailout funds are a corporate narcotic. Once a company starts taking them, a chemicallike dependence develops. The addict does whatever will bring in more of the drug. Ultimately, like heroin, the short-term euphoria gives way to decreased function for the recipient, even destruction.

More importantly for the American people, letting Uncle Sam become a corporate drug dealer — with taxpayer money the addictive poison being peddled — also places Washington in a position of dictatorial control over the private sector.

Email To Friend |

What do you think about these apples boys and girls?

2009-03-30T12:23:00.002-08:00

What do you think about these apples boys and girls?

Just another one of the differences between a Republican and a Democrat.? Just remember folks ....that yours and my tax dollars being wasted.? Getting fed up yet?????????

Newt Gingrich, a Republican,?served in the House from Georgia from 1978 and as House Minority Whip in 1989. He was Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999. During that time he never made use of military aircraft.

?Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California , current Speaker of the House.?The Pentagon provides the House speaker with an Air Force plane large enough to accommodate her staff, family, supporters, and members of the California delegation when she travels around the country. But, Pelosi wants routine access to a larger plane. It includes 42 business class seats, a fully-enclosed state room, an entertainment center, a private bed, state-of-the-art communications system, and a crew of 16. Pelosi wanted "carte blanche for an aircraft any time," including weekend trips home to San Francisco . Pretty nice but very expensive perk! Her Air Force C-32 costs approximately $15,000 an hour or approximately $300,000 per trip home.

And she has the?guts to confront the Big Three CEOs for flying their corporate jets to Washington !
YOU WOULD THINK, SHE ALONG WITH A HUSBAND WORTH AN ESTIMATED BILLION DOLLARS, WOULD LEASE OR BUY AND FLY?THEIR OWN ?PLANE.

?> NANCY PELOSI
>
> FACTS:
>
> Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's home
> district includes San Francisco .
>
> Star-Kist Tuna's headquarters are in San
> Francisco , Pelosi's home district.
>
> Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a
> major contributor to Pelosi.
>
> Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa
> employing 75% of the Samoan workforce.
>
> Paul Pelosi, Nancy 's husband, owns $17 million
> dollars of Star-Kist stock.
>
> In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was
> increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa
> exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to
> pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products
> less expensive than their competition's.
>
> Last week when the huge bailout bill was passed,
> Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33
> million dollars for an 'economic development credit in
> American Samoa '.
>
> Pelosi has called the Bush Administration
> "CORRUPT" ? ?
>
> How do you spell "HYPOCRISY" ? ?
>
> EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD GET THIS E-MAIL. IT IS
> ENOUGH TO MAKE A HOLY PERSON ANGRY ENOUGH TO GO THROW THEM
> ALL OUT ON THEIR BEHINDS.
>

A Single Nuke Could Destroy America

2009-03-30T11:27:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich: A Single Nuke Could Destroy America

Sunday, March 29, 2009 4:23 PM

By: Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen Article Font Size

There is a sword of Damocles over our heads. It is a threat that is real but has been all but ignored.

On February 3rd, Iran launched a “communications satellite” into orbit. At this very moment, North Korea is threatening to do the same. The ability to launch an alleged communications satellite belies a far more frightening truth. A rocket that can carry a satellite into orbit can also drop a nuclear warhead over any location on the planet in less than forty-five minutes.

Far too many timid or uninformed sources maintain that a single launch of a missile poses no true threat to the United States given our retaliatory power. A reality check is in order and must be discussed in response to such an absurd claim:

One small nuclear weapon, delivered by an ICBM can, in fact, destroy the United States by maximizing the effect of the resultant electromagnetic pulse upon detonation.

An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a by-product of detonating an atomic bomb above the Earth’s atmosphere. When a nuclear weapon is detonated in space, the gamma rays emitted trigger a massive electrical disturbance in the upper atmosphere. Moving at the speed of light, this overload will short out all electrical equipment, power grids and delicate electronics on the earth’s surface. In fact, it would take only one to three weapons exploding above the continental United States to wipe out our entire grid and transportation network. It might take years to recover from, if ever.

This is not science fiction. If you doubt this, spend a short amount of time skimming the Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack from April 2008. You will come away sobered.

Even as the new Administration plans to spend trillions on economic bail outs, it has announced plans to reduce funding and downgrade efforts for missile defense. Furthermore, the reluctance by the United States to invest in a modern and credible traditional nuclear deterrent is a serious concern. What good will a bailout be if there is no longer a nation to bail out?

Fifty years ago it was not Sputnik itself that sent a dire chill of warning around the world; it was the capability of the rocket that launched Sputnik. The rocket that lofted Sputnik into orbit could also serve as an ICBM.

Yet for all its rhetoric, the Soviet Union was essentially a rational power that recognized the threat of mutual destruction and thus never stepped to the edge.

The world is different today. Intercontinental range missiles tipped with nuclear weapons in the hands of leaders driven by fanaticism, leaders that support global terrorism, leaders that have made repeated threats that they will seek our annihilation. . .can now at last achieve their dream of our annihilation in a matter of minutes.

Those who claim that there is little to fear from Iran or North Korea because “at best” they will only have one or two nuclear weapons, ignore the catastrophic level of threat we now face from just “a couple” of nuclear weapons.

Again: One to three missiles tipped with nuclear weapons and armed to detonate at a high altitude—to achieve the strongest EMP over the greatest area of the United States—would create an EMP “overlay” that triggers a continental-wide collapse of our entire electrical, transportation and communications infrastructure.

Within weeks after such an attack, tens of millions of Americans would perish. The impact has been likened to a nationwide Hurricane Katrina. Some studies estimate that 90% of all Americans might very well die in the year after such an attack as our transportation, food distribution, communications, public safety, law enforcement and medical infrastructures collapse.

It is a blow we most likely would never recover from.

Two things need to be done now and without delay.

1. Make clear in the strongest of terms that if a rocket is launched by either Iran or North Korea on a trajectory headed towards the territory of the United States, we will shoot it down. The risk of not doing so is beyond acceptable. And if they construe this as an act of war, so be it, for they fired the first shot. The risk of sitting back for thirty minutes and praying it is not an EMP strike is beyond acceptable, beyond rational on our part.

2. Funding for EMP defense must be a top national priority. To downgrade or halt our missile defense program, which after twenty five years of research is at last becoming viable, would be an action of criminal negligence.

Surely, with such a threat confronting us, a fair and open debate, with full public access and the setting aside of partisan politics, is in order. In the meantime, a policy must be stated today that we will indeed shoot down any missile aimed towards the United States that is fired by Iran or North Korea. America’s survival, your survival, and your family’s survival might very well depend on it.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. William Forstchen is the author of "One Second After," an account of a town struggling to survive after an EMP weapon is used against the United States.

Insider Report from Newsmax.com

2009-03-30T11:21:00.002-08:00

Insider Report from Newsmax.com

Headlines (Scroll down for complete stories):
1. Hezbollah Smuggling Across U.S.-Mexican Border
2. Archbishop: Catholics for Obama ‘Cooperated’ With Evil
3. Specter Trails Badly in GOP Senate Race
4. CNBC’s Larry Kudlow Won’t Run for Senate
5. Obama, Israel Differ Sharply on Iran
6. Political Fundraising Hits Hard Times
7. We Heard: Chris Matthews, Tom Tancredo, Harry Reid

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Hezbollah Smuggling Across U.S.-Mexican Border

America’s porous southern border is an entry point for more than Mexican cartels and their illegal drugs — the Iranian-backed Lebanese group Hezbollah has been smuggling drugs and people into the U.S. as well.

Hezbollah has long been involved in narcotics and human trafficking in South America, and is now using the same routes into the U.S. that the Mexican cartels use for smuggling, according to an exclusive report in The Washington Times.

The group relies on “the same criminal weapons smugglers, document traffickers, and transportation experts as the drug cartels,” said Michael Braun, who recently retired as assistant administrator and chief of operations at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

“They work together. They rely on the same shadow facilitators. One way or another, they are all connected,” he said.

Hezbollah, which fought a 34-day war with Israel in 2006, funds its operations in part from a large Lebanese Muslim diaspora, and some of that funding comes from criminal enterprises.

Salim Boughader Mucharrafille, a Mexican of Lebanese descent, was arrested in 2002 for smuggling 200 people, including Hezbollah supporters, into the U.S. He was sentenced last year to 60 years in a Mexican prison.

But the cross-border flow of drugs and people has intensified since the U.S. reduced access to the country by air and water following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And the drug wars between the cartels have claimed the lives of more than 8,000 people since January 2008, destabilizing Mexico along the border and prompting President Barack Obama to send additional agents there.

Adm. James Stavridis, commander of U.S. Southern Command, recently told a House committee that the connection between drug traffickers and “Islamic radical terrorism” is a growing threat to the U.S.

Braun said members of the Quds force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have been operating in South America and “could be commanding and controlling Hezbollah’s criminal enterprises from there.”

And a senior U.S. defense official said that in addition to Hezbollah,
al-Qaida could also use the Mexican cartels’ trafficking routes to smuggle operatives into the U.S.

“The Mexican cartels have no loyalty to anyone,” another official told the Times. “They will willingly or unknowingly aid other nefarious groups’ [entry] into the U.S. through the routes they control. It has
already happened. That’s why the border is such a serious national security issue.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Archbishop: Catholics for Obama ‘Cooperated’ with Evil

A prominent archbishop said that Catholics who voted for Barack Obama in the presidential election engaged in “a form of cooperation” with evil because of Obama’s pro-choice stand.

And politicians who support abortion should not receive Holy Communion, according to American-born Archbishop Raymond Burke, who as prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura is the head of the paper courts at the Vatican.

During an interview in Rome with Burke, Catholic activist Randall Terry — founder of the pro-life group Operation Rescue — asked the archbishop if a vote for Obama was a “type of cooperation with moral evil.”

The archbishop responded: “Well, the fact of the matter is, it is a form of cooperation because by voting we put a person in office. And people say, ‘What does my vote matter?’ Well, your vote is either a vote to put someone in office who will do what is right and just, or someone who won’t.

“And so if you, knowing that abortion is a grave crime against human life — is killing an innocent, defenseless human life — and you vote for the candidate who says that he intends to make that more available, you bear a responsibility. That is, you have cooperated in the election of this person into office, there’s no question about it.”

Regarding pro-abortion Catholics who receive Communion, Archbishop Burke told Terry that it falls under Canon 915, the Cybercast News Service’s CNSNews Web site reported. Canon Law governs the administration of the Catholic Church.

“The Canon is completely clear. It is not subject in my judgment to any other interpretations,” he said.

“When someone is publicly and obstinately in grave sin, we may not administer Holy Communion to the person . . . for two reasons: Number one, to prevent the person himself or herself from committing a sacrilege, and secondly, to protect the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist.”

Terry, who now heads the Society for Truth and Justice, asked if that applies to politicians who support abortion rights.

“Yes, for someone who in any way contributes in an active way to the murder of innocent defenseless infants in the womb — children in the womb — from the very inception of human life, this is the greatest of sins,” said Burke.

“And such a person, until he or she has reformed his or her life, should not approach to receive Holy Communion.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Specter Trails Badly in GOP Senate Race

Longtime Sen. Arlen Specter is facing a difficult challenge in his bid to win the Republican primary in 2010 — he trails former Congressman Pat Toomey by a significant margin, a new poll reveals.

A Quinnipiac University survey released on Wednesday shows Toomey with 41 percent of the vote and Specter with 27 percent, with the remainder undecided between the two.

Specter, who first took office in 1991 and is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, beat Toomey by less than 2 percentage points in the 2004 GOP primary. But 73 percent of Republicans in the poll say they still don’t know enough about Toomey to form a favorable or unfavorable opinion of him.

They do, however, have strong opinions about Specter.

“Pennsylvania Republicans are so unhappy with Sen. Specter’s vote for President Barack Obama’s stimulus package and so-called pork barrel spending that they are voting for a former congressman they hardly know,” said Clay Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Only 25 percent of Republican respondents said they approve of Specter’s vote for the stimulus package, and 70 percent disapprove.

But voters by a 50 percent to 37 percent margin say that the $161 million included in the stimulus package for Pennsylvania projects is “critically needed” rather than pork barrel spending that could be eliminated.

Specter was joined by Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins in backing the stimulus bill, and their votes provided Democrats with sufficient support to pass the measure.

“The role I had was providing a critical vote, and I understand that,” Specter told The Hill newspaper.

“But is that the reason why the Quinnipiac poll is a big problem for me? I think so.”

Some observers believe the recent announcement by Specter, the only Republican to back the Democrat’s “card check” labor bill two years ago, that he would not support the bill in the new Congress is an attempt to mend fences with conservative Republicans.

If the 2010 election were held today, 31 percent of voters would cast their ballot for Specter while 33 percent would vote for a Democratic challenger, with 35 percent undecided, according to the poll, which was conducted shortly before Specter’s announcement about the card check bill.

Overall, 45 percent of Pennsylvania voters do have a favorable opinion of Specter, with 31 percent saying they have an unfavorable opinion. But 47 percent of Republicans have an unfavorable opinion.

“Toomey came close last time and has strong conservative backing, but his challenge could be fractured if more Republicans crowd into the primary and split the anti-Specter vote,” Richards added.

“If Specter can get past the primary, the controversial veteran has a lot going for him in his bid for re-election, especially without a strong Democratic candidate on the horizon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. CNBC’S Larry Kudlow Won’t Run for Senate

CNBC commentator Larry Kudlow has ended speculation that he would seek Sen. Christopher Dodd’s Senate seat in 2010 and announced that he will not run.

The host of “Kudlow & Company” told viewers on Tuesday: “Several weeks ago I was approached by the Republican Party to consider a run for the U.S. Senate in the great state of Connecticut. It was a flattering conversation and one that I thought about, but to me it was never really a serious proposition.

“This evening, I'm letting the world know that I am not running for the U.S. Senate, and here's why: In my heart I know that I belong right here at CNBC. This is my love."

Kudlow said he made his decision after reporters called CNBC and raised questions about conflicts that might arise if he was considering a campaign and remained on the air, according to The New York Times.

The liberal Web site Media Matters for America wrote to CNBC president Mark Hoffman questioning why he was permitted to comment on his show about Sen. Dodd.

Newsmax reported in early March that Kudlow had confirmed his interest in running as a Republican during an interview with Politico. He also met with U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, according to National Review.

“I’m thinking about it, that’s all I can say,” Kudlow declared at the time.

“It’s the kind of thing where I’m talking to friends, talking to strategists, talking to my wife, and praying on it.”

Sen. Dodd trailed former Republican Rep. Rob Simmons by a margin of 43 percent to 42 percent in a recent Quinnipiac University poll.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Obama, Israel Differ Sharply on Iran

President Barack Obama’s recent overture to Iran constitutes a “sharp departure” from Israel’s position, the Jewish publication Forward observes.

On March 20, Obama issued a video greeting to the Iranian people and leadership stressing America’s commitment to resolve its differences with Iran through diplomacy.

“This process will not be advanced by threats,” he said. “We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.”

The overture “appeared to all but dismiss the possibility of military action,” and is contrary to the Israeli view that the threat of force should remain on the table when dealing with Iran’s nuclear program, according to Forward.

“This is a sharp departure from the Israeli position,” said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council.

“The president’s approach is that diplomacy cannot work if there is a constant military threat.”

The publication cites Israeli sources and media reports who say that Jerusalem insists any American diplomatic engagement with Iran be limited in time and coupled with tougher sanctions, lest Iran use a prolonged series of negotiations to further advance its nuclear program.

Israel delivered that message to the Obama administration during recent discussions, including a March 16 meeting in Washington between Israel Defense Forces chief-of-staff Gabi Ashkenazi and Dennis Ross, the State Department special adviser expected to coordinate diplomatic efforts.

In any case, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, for the most part dismissed Obama’s overture. Addressing a mass gathering, he responded to Obama: “Have you stopped your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? What has changed?”

He did add, however, “We shall see and judge. You change, and we shall change as well.”

His speech was punctuated by the crowd’s usual chants of “Death to America.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Political Fundraising Hits Hard Times

Contributions to both the Democrats and Republicans have fallen sharply so far this year compared to previous post-election periods.

Democrats have suffered a decline in relatively small donations from the online donors who funded Barack Obama’s record-breaking $650 million fundraising effort, while Republicans are seeing a drop-off in contributions from big-ticket donors who backed Republicans during the George Bush presidency, The Washington Post reports.

Contributions from individuals to the six major party campaign committees — the Democratic and Republican national committees and the four congressional campaign committees — have fallen to $30.7 million in the first two months of this year. That’s a decline of nearly 40 percent from the almost $49 million in contributions in January and February of 2005, the most recent post-presidential-election period.

And campaign contributions have fallen by more than 26 percent from a similar period two years ago, Federal Election Commission filings show.

“Strategists cautioned that the drop-off may be only a temporary fundraising hiccup caused by ‘donor fatigue,’ but they worry that if the economy does not recover by early next year, their budgets for the 2010 campaign may have to be slashed,” The Post reported.

Republicans have been hit particularly hard following their defeat in November. The Republican National Committee has suffered a decline of about 50 percent in individual donations compared to early 2007, as has the National Republican Congressional Committee.

But Democrats have fared poorly as well. At the Democratic National Committee, contributions from individuals are down by a third this year compared to early 2007, and the party’s congressional committees have a combined debt of more than $26 million.

As the recession continues, “people who would traditionally write a larger check this early in the cycle aren’t feeling as flush as they were a year ago,” Democratic fundraiser Jay Dunn told The Post.

“People are helping, but not at the levels they have a year ago or two or four years ago.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. We Heard . . .

THAT “Hardball” host Chris Matthews has signed a new long-term contract with the MSNBC cable network.

The deal is for at least four years, according to The New York Times. Financial terms were not divulged, but previous reports put his salary at around $5 million a year.

MSNBC President Phil Griffin told the Times the deal would ensure that Matthews would “be around to cover the next presidential election.”

Newsmax reported in November that Matthews was making preliminary inquiries about running in 2010 for the seat held by Republican Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. And a Rasmussen poll in December showed Matthews in a virtual dead heat against the incumbent.

But on Jan. 7, the Times reported that Matthews told his staffers he would not run for the Senate.

THAT former Congressman Tom Tancredo has invited House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to a speaking engagement so she can explain why she called immigration enforcement raids “un-American.”

Tancredo, a Colorado Republican and outspoken critic of illegal immigration who did not run for re-election last year, said: “If she believes that enforcing our immigration laws is ‘un-American,’ that tells us that a new round of immigration reform is pointless. Why pass new laws if Speaker Pelosi can decide which ones are to be enforced and which ones ignored?”

Pelosi recently said: “Who in this country would not want to change a policy of kicking in doors in the middle of the night and sending a parent away from their families? . . . I think it’s un-American.”

Tancredo invited Pelosi to speak in May at an event in Greeley, Colo., the site of a December 2006 raid on a meatpacking plant that resulted in more than 100 illegal immigrants being deported, the Denver Daily News reported.

Tancredo said, “What better place than Greeley and what better time than an economic recession for Pelosi to tell American workers that their jobs really belong to illegal aliens.”

THAT Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is using talk radio host Rush Limbaugh in his efforts to raise campaign cash.

In an e-mail sent to supporters on Wednesday, the Nevada Democrat — who faces re-election in 2010 — said the “Limbaugh-led Republican Party” is trying to “take me out,” the San Jose Mercury News reported.

Reid also said he’s facing off against a party that “takes its cues from right-wing radio.”

Copenhagen: Environmental Munich

2009-03-30T11:13:00.001-08:00

Copenhagen: Environmental Munich

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, March 27, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Climate: Czech President Vaclav Klaus once called global warming a new religion, a Trojan horse for imposing a global tyranny worse than communism. Details about the Copenhagen Conference prove how right he was.

The first of three marathon negotiating sessions designed to hammer out the details of the Copenhagen Accord on climate change to be signed in December began on Sunday, March 29, in Bonn, Germany. From what we know, it will be a surrender to tyranny as significant as another negotiated 71 years ago.

A 16-page informational note obtained by Fox News outlines the goals and agenda of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a body paving the way to Copenhagen with good intentions. Behind this alphabet soup is a list of ideas and talking points for what the U.N. calls an "ambitious and effective international response to climate change."

We're not sure how effective it will be, but it's certainly ambitious as it seeks to reorder the world economy in a de facto repeal of the Industrial Revolution. Under the supervision of the U.N., free trade would die, industries that survived could be relocated across borders, and we would have mandatory carbon offsets and cap-and-trade imposed on a global scale.

Part of the "framework" of this new and more draconian Kyoto pact is a new kind of tariff known as a "border carbon adjustment" that the note describes as "a levy on imported goods equal to that which would have been imposed had they been produced domestically." In other words, if the exporting country does not impose a carbon tax, the importing country will.

Another form of "adjustment" is to require exporters to "buy (carbon) offsets at the border equal to that which the producer would have been forced to purchase had the goods been produced domestically." Imagine the U.N. forcing American exporters to buy carbon offsets.

Under this global climate regime, tariffs would be allowed "as protective barriers to shelter producers of climate-friendly goods." The note endorses subsidies for producers of goods that are deemed "environmentally sound." Protection goes green. Who knew Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley were environmentalists?

The document speaks of a "climate change levy" on maritime shipping and aviation that is certain to devastate foreign trade and tourism. The American aviation industry had revenues of $208 billion in 2008. Unless we can come up with a hybrid 747 real quick, there's trouble ahead.

There is talk of signatories implementing cap-and-trade policies that the note admits "would involve negative consequences for the implementing country." Such policies "may induce some industrial relocation . . . to less-regulated host countries." Gee, ya think?

The Obama administration supports a domestic cap-and-trade policy and included it in its deficit-creating budget proposal. As we've noted, cap and trade, through its limit on total carbon emissions, is really a cap on economic growth. An analysis by the George C. Marshall Institute estimates GDP losses of as much as 3% in 2015 and as much as 10% in 2050 as a result of this measure

The effect of this accord if we participate is incalculable. According to the Department of Energy, roughly 72% of U.S. electrical power generation in 2007 was derived from burning fossil fuels. Some 6% came from hydropower and less than 3% came from solar, wind and "other" sources.

Writing in the Financial Times recently, Czech President Vaclav Klaus said: "As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not communism."

Klaus told the Cato Institute recently that "environmentalism is a religion" that accepts global warming on faith and seeks to exploit it to reshape the world and economic social order.

Its commandments are now being written. The U.N. will be its temple and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon its high priest.

Email To Friend |

The GOP Alternative

2009-03-30T11:11:00.001-08:00

The GOP Alternative

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Fiscal Policy: President Obama claims that Republicans "don't offer an alternative budget." In fact, they do, and it costs far less and does more.

When 8-year-old Virginia O'Hanlon wrote her famous letter to the editor of the New York Sun in 1897 inquiring about the existence of Old St. Nick, the Sun responded that "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus."

Today, it isn't that those in Washington intent on spending over three-and-a-half trillion dollars don't accept Santa Claus; it's that they think Uncle Sam should be Santa on the 364 days of the year the real Santa takes off.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the president all view approaches not in sync with their big-spending ideology as . . . well, not really there. But the House Republicans' "Road to Recovery" budget is not fantasy; it applies the clear lessons of economic history to our current economic woes.

After the economically debilitating 9/11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush cut income and investment tax rates across the board. The result was well over 8 million new jobs generated and about 4.5% unemployment for a long time.

Similarly, Ronald Reagan's response to the deep recession early in his presidency was to cut income tax rates by 25% and lower the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 25%. A massive expansion ensued, extending well beyond his two terms. Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner, GOP Conference chairman Mike Pence and their colleagues want to prescribe the same medicine for what ails us.

With Democrats trying to sneak a sweeping overhaul of the country's medical system into law, including a government-run health plan that would unfairly compete against private insurers, the GOP is offering "tax incentives for millions more working families and small-business owners to obtain access to coverage." The GOP plan would also let people "shop across state lines to purchase affordable policies that best meet their needs."

Most important, however, the Republican alternative replaces the biggest spending spree in history with deep tax cuts — a proven economic jump-starter. It would establish "a simple and fair tax code with a marginal tax rate for income up to $100,000 of 10%, and 25% for any income thereafter, with a generous standard deduction and personal exemption."

Prefer the current system? The GOP plan lets you stay in it. The capital gains tax would be cut and the Alternative Minimum Tax would be fixed to prevent huge surprise tax hikes each year.

Also, businesses with fewer than 500 employees would get a deduction of 20% of their income, so "these engines of growth will continue to fuel our economic recovery and companies can compete with their foreign counterparts, while keeping jobs here at home."

On energy policy, the plan would open the Outer Continental Shelf to oil and gas drilling and use part of the federal share of revenues for alternative fuel programs. The Arctic Coastal Plain would be opened for exploration and development. Obstacles to new nuclear power plants would be removed.

As to restoring financial stability, the GOP program would incrementally privatize government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — similar to the Sallie Mae privatization of a decade ago. Laws like the Community Reinvestment Act, a major cause of the financial meltdown, would be reformed — finally.

Last, the GOP would require the Federal Reserve to set a definition of price stability and stick to it over the long term.

The House Republicans admit President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders aren't about to undergo a Damascus-like conversion on economic policy. But they refuse to let the president suggest that spending trillions at the expense of future generations is the only way out of the jam the economy is in.

Control Freaks

2009-03-30T11:07:00.001-08:00

Control Freaks

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Reform: Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's proposed sweeping reform of our nation's financial system puts the nation's banks, insurers and hedge funds under direct government control — where they least need to be.

Geithner said Thursday that President Obama's administration needs to impose "not modest repairs at the margin, but new rules of the game" for America's banks, finance companies, insurers and hedge funds.

The only problem is, the old rules of the game were set by the very people in Congress who will set the new ones. This means the new rules likely won't be much of an improvement — if any.

The irony of this, of course, was pointed out by political scientist Michael Barone, who notes the bank bailout plan unveiled by Geithner earlier this week actually relies heavily on mostly unregulated companies to bail out regulated ones.

Now, Geithner wants control of even those unregulated companies, though they're guilty of nothing other than being successful.

Recall how the first President Bush was ridiculed for seeking a "new world order"? Well, what the Treasury now proposes constitutes nothing less than a "new economic order," one that will take away much of the autonomy of our extraordinarily successful free-market economy and smother it with new rules.

Nor is this the only power grab by government of late. President Obama, for example, wants to force what he calls a "major restructuring" on troubled U.S. carmakers GM and Chrysler, pushing them ultimately to make green-friendly cars central to their businesses — no matter what consumers might want.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve wants sweeping new powers to regulate, punish and oversee the financial industry, and to intervene if it thinks it needs to. And of course, in the middle of all this sits Congress itself, which will write the new laws and regulations.

Yet, with all these plans to exert ever more control over the economy, few people are asking the appropriate question: Do those in government have the knowledge and ability to run our economy?

The answer, put bluntly, is no. This could be seen in Postmaster General John Potter's trip to Congress Wednesday, begging for more money for the ailing postal service. "We are facing losses of historic proportion," he said. "Our situation is critical."

This from the head of a government-run company that has a virtual monopoly in its business — the delivery of first-class mail — and still can't make a profit. Losses last year totaled $2.8 billion.

Two other major government enterprises — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — were largely responsible for the mess we're in now. Managed mostly by former Democratic politicians, they too had a virtual monopoly, holding $5.4 trillion of the total $12 trillion in U.S. mortgages, and still went bust.

Such managerial acumen hardly inspires confidence. Who's going to make the decisions, anyway? Some Treasury functionary? President Obama, whose private-sector experience is virtually nil? How about his top aide, Rahm Emanuel, who served a stint on Freddie's board during its period of greatest excess?

Economist Friedrich Hayek noted in his 1945 classic "The Use of Knowledge in Society" how ill-equipped governments are to collect, organize and act upon the millions and millions of market signals sent each day by private markets.

The result, inevitably, is economic chaos, confusion, misallocation of resources and enormous waste — as in the old USSR.

Hayek's insights, which eventually won him a Nobel Prize, are as relevant today as then. Letting bureaucrats and politicians direct our economy isn't the end to our troubles. It's only the beginning.

Email To Friend |

Obama Socialism Will Wreck the Nation

2009-03-27T21:56:00.000-08:00

Obama Socialism Will Wreck the Nation

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:26 PM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size

Does President Obama truly believe that he can castigate and condemn Wall Street on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays and then secure its cooperation on the other days of the week?

Does he not understand that when he ignites a public furor over AIG bonuses and then incites Congress to pass a punitive tax, he sends shivers down the spines of every other corporate executive who makes a lot of money?

Does he seriously believe that Wall Street investors will not worry that their winnings, should they join the Treasury as partners in risky investments, would be subject to public abuse, publicity, and confiscatory taxation?

Of course he realizes that his rhetoric makes it unlikely that his program will succeed. He obviously gets it that the entire concept of a public-private partnership is impossible amid a climate of waging class warfare, taxing the rich, and heaping contempt on anyone who makes money.

The president is quite bright and certainly understands that you cannot shake hands with your right while you launch a roundhouse with your left.

So why does Obama persist in his aggressive rhetoric? Why does he continue to treat Wall Street as something out of Dante's Inferno?

Because he's just not that into you! He doesn't really care if the public-private partnerships work out.

He sends Geithner out to announce the program because he doesn't want to make it his own. When he announces a stimulus plan or a new spending bill, it's Obama's moment before the teleprompter. But the public-private partnerships he leaves to his Treasury secretary to announce.

The most rational explanation for Obama's puzzling conduct — sabotaging his own program by way of his own rhetoric — is that he truly wants to be forced to nationalize the banks in pursuit of his ultimate goal of a socialist economy.

Obama has to oppose nationalization today in order to achieve it tomorrow.

He has to show the country and the world that he is doing all he can to help the private sector to sort things out with government help. He must ostentatiously invite the hated demons of Wall Street to join him in rescuing the banks in order, later, to say that he did his best to avoid having to take over the banks. Only then will nationalization be an acceptable alternative — when he has run out of other options.

Meanwhile, he makes sure the private sector won't play ball by going after their bonuses, sending an implicit message to the other executives on Wall Street that reads, “stay away.”

Even when he takes over the banks, as he almost inevitably will, he is going to have to dress up the nationalization as a temporary measure forced on him by the economy and the previously unrealized depth of the problem. He will cite the example of Sweden, where the government nationalized the banks only temporarily and returned them to private hands quickly.

You can't be for nationalization. But Obama hopes to accomplish it nonetheless.

Already, in the TARP and TALF programs, we can see how eager he is to use government power to manipulate the once-private sector. Consider the mandates piling up on any financial institution that takes government funds: limits on executive pay, corporate travel and conferences; a strong “buy American” recommendation; and aggressive action to get them to make consumer loans.

Can affirmative action, low-income lending, and diversity outreach be far behind?

If Obama can bring banks and the healthcare industry under government control, we will have de facto socialism. Is this Obama's goal? It is obviously where he is headed.

© 2009 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Print Page

Ruse: Expansion Of U.S. Oversight of Financial

2009-03-27T19:43:00.003-08:00

THIS ARTICLE WILL GIVE YOU INSIGHT TO WHAT/WHY/WHERE/WHEN OF THE FINANCIAL BAILOUT AS REGARDS NON-BANK ENTITIES.

WHAT: A plan where the government would have the authority to seize a non-bank financial institution in the same manner that the government attaches to BANKS.
These banks for the most part are FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.) INSURED.
These banks each pay a fee to FDIC to cover the cost of insuring deposits to the maximum of $250,000 per named account. The latest information is that the FDIC is
itself in financial trouble.

WHY: The why is to for stall the recurrence of the failure of the Non-Bank entity
such as AIG, International group of business or associations, comprised of US and foreign banks, brokerage houses (US and international) and insurance companies.
The idea is that by regulation the Treasury Department (with Tim Giethner as its head) would oversee the Non-Bank entities and at a sign of trouble could close or
take over that entity, and having broad powers could in theory renegotiate a way out of trouble , thus saving money (shareholder).

WHERE: The where to this puzzle is that it doesn't matter, Ames Iowa, Socorro New Mexico, what difference does is make, only that the hurt is immediate at the point of rupture. For as soon as it happens in one place it will continue until the rag heads (by now in power) conceed to their communist friends.

WHEN: This is the scary part, who is to say that the entity is in fact in need of a takeover? If the oversight was done by a agency like the real banking auditors
(either the Federal or State Banking Commission and the like body for Credit Unions)
I would not have much concern, however with Giethner (tax cheat) or any crony or pal of the current administration I have no doubts that it could happen at any time. It would be the first road to Socialism ala Obama. Most likely when it is apropos for Obama.

Let me add this question to the mix. Whom do you think is making all of the decisions on what goes into the bailouts, Omama, Pelosi, Reid, or the Congress,
I would guess you are wrong It is Pelosi, Congress, and then that communist Obama.

My Name is Dave Anderson and you may reach me at oad@alaska.net and I would appreciat hearing from you.

This Story
Geithner to Propose Vast Expansion Of U.S. Oversight of Financial System
Proposals to Rein in Financial Firms
The Obama administration's plan, described by several sources, would extend federal regulation for the first time to all trading in financial derivatives and to companies including large hedge funds and major insurers such as American International Group. The administration also will seek to impose uniform standards on all large financial firms, including banks, an unprecedented step that would place significant limits on the scope and risk of their activities.

Most of these initiatives would require legislation.

Geithner plans to make the case for the regulatory reform agenda in testimony before Congress this morning, and he is expected to introduce proposals to regulate the largest financial firms. In coming months, the administration plans to detail its strategy in three other areas: protecting consumers, eliminating flaws in existing regulations and enhancing international coordination.

The testimony will not call for any existing federal agencies to be eliminated or combined, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The plan focuses on setting standards first, leaving for later any reshaping of the government's administrative structure.

The nation's financial regulations are largely an accumulation of responses to financial crises. Federal bank regulation was a product of the Civil War. The Federal Reserve was created early in the 20th century to mitigate a long series of monetary crises. The Great Depression delivered deposit insurance and a federally sponsored mortgage market. In the midst of a modern economic upheaval, the Obama administration is pitching the most significant regulatory expansion since that time.

An administration official said the goal is to set new rules of the road to restore faith in the financial system. In essence, the plan is a rebuke of raw capitalism and a reassertion that regulation is critical to the healthy function of financial markets and the steady flow of money to borrowers.

The government also plans to push companies to pay employees based on their long-term performance, curtailing big paydays for short-term victories. Long-simmering anger about Wall Street pay practices erupted last week when the Obama administration disclosed that AIG had paid $165 million in bonuses to employees of its most troubled division, despite losing so much money that the government stepped in with more than $170 billion in emergency aid.

The administration's signature proposal is to vest a single federal agency with the power to police risk across the entire financial system. The agency would regulate the largest financial firms, including hedge funds and insurers not currently subject to federal regulation. It also would monitor financial markets for emergent dangers.

Geithner plans to call for legislation that would define which financial firms are sufficiently large and important to be subjected to this increased regulation. Those firms would be required to hold relatively more capital in their reserves against losses than smaller firms, to demonstrate that they have access to adequate funding to support their operations, and to maintain constantly updated assessments of their exposure to financial risk.

The designated agency would not replace existing regulators but would be granted the power to compel firms to comply with its directives. Geithner's testimony will not identify which agency should hold those powers, but sources familiar with the matter said that the Federal Reserve, widely viewed as the most obvious choice, is the administration's favored candidate.

Geithner and other officials have said in recent weeks that such powers could have kept in check the excesses of AIG and other large financial companies.

Under current law, the government can seize only banks.

The administration yesterday detailed its proposed process, under which the Federal Reserve Board, along with any agency overseeing the troubled company, would recommend the need for a takeover. The Treasury secretary, in consultation with the president, then would authorize the action. The firm would be placed under the control of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. The government also would have the power to take intermediate steps to stabilize a firm, such as taking an ownership stake or providing loans.

"Destabilizing dangers can come from financial institutions besides banks, but our current regulatory system provides few ways to deal with these risks," Geithner said yesterday. "Our plan will give the government the tools to limit the risk-taking at firms that could set off cascading damage."

The administration compared the proposed process with the existing system under which banking regulators can take over failed banks and place them under FDIC control.

One important difference is that the decision to seize a bank is made by agencies that have considerable autonomy and are intentionally shielded from the political process. Some legislators have raised concerns about providing such powers to the Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet.

The cost of bank failures is carried by the industry, which pays assessments to the FDIC. The Treasury said it has not yet determined how to pay for takeovers under the proposed system. Possibilities include dunning taxpayers or collecting fees from all institutions the government considers possible candidates for seizure.

FDIC chairman Sheila C. Bair issued a statement that expressed support for an expansion of her agency's responsibilities.

"Due to the FDIC's extensive experience with resolving failed institutions and the cyclical nature of resolution work, it would make sense on many levels for the FDIC to be given this authority working in close cooperation with the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors," Bair said.

The administration also wants to expand oversight of a broad category of unregulated investment firms including hedge funds, private-equity funds and venture capital funds, by requiring larger companies to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Firms also would have to provide financial information to help determine whether they are large enough to warrant additional regulation.

Hedge funds were designed to offer high-risk investment strategies to wealthy investors, but their role quickly grew from one on the fringe of the system to a place near the center. Some government officials have sought increased regulation of the industry since the 1998 collapse of Long-Term Capital Management threatened the stability of the financial system.

Geithner also plans to call for the SEC to impose tougher standards on money-market mutual funds, investment accounts that appeal to investors by aping the features of checking accounts while offering higher interest rates. He will not make specific suggestions.

This Story
Geithner to Propose Vast Expansion Of U.S. Oversight of Financial System
Proposals to Rein in Financial Firms
SEC chairman Mary Schapiro plans to testify today that the SEC supports both proposals.

The administration's broad determination to regulate the totality of the financial markets also includes a plan to regulate the vast trade in derivatives, complex financial instruments that take their value from the performance of some other asset. Derivatives have become a basic tool of the financial markets, but trading in many variants is not regulated. Credit-default swaps, a major category of unregulated derivatives, played a major role in the collapse of AIG.

Geithner plans to call for the entire industry to be placed under strict regulation, including supervision of dealers in derivatives, mandatory use of central clearinghouses to process trades and uniform trading rules to ensure an orderly marketplace.

The Fed already is moving to improve the plumbing of the financial system, including of the derivatives trade. The administration wants to expand and formalize these efforts.

Senior government officials view these highly technical arrangements as critical to the restoration of a healthy financial system.

Staff writer Zachary A. Goldfarb contributed to this report.

OPEN LETTER TO OBAMA

2009-03-26T14:34:00.001-08:00

THIS IS FROM ONE OF OUR READERS. I AM WITH GEORGIA.

> > Dear President Obama and Congress,
> >
> > Thank you for helping my neighbors with
> > their mortgage payments. You know the one's down the
> > street who in the good times refinanced their house several
> > times and bought SUVs, ATVs, RVs, a pool, a
> > big screen, two Wave Runners and a Harley. But I
> > was
> > wondering, since I am paying my mortgage and theirs, could
> > you arrange for me to borrow the Harley now and then?
> >
> > Richard Ford
> > Queen Creek AZ
> >
> > P.S.
> > They also need help with their credit
> > cards, when do you want me to start making those payments?
> >
> > P.P.S.
> > I almost forgot - they didn't
> > file their income tax return this year. Should I go ahead
> > and file for them or will you be appointing them to cabinet
> > posts?

CAIR and Cultural Jihad

2009-03-26T10:30:00.002-08:00

THIS ARTICLE IS FILLED WITH THE MOST CURRENT INSIGHT TO CAIR, IT WILL INFORM YOU OF
HOW AND WHY THE COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS OPERATES WITHIN EYE BALL SIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT. READ ABOUT ITS GOALS.

CAIR and Cultural Jihad

Andrew McCarthy’s excellent commentary below on CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) echoes a point we have been making since the founding of ACT! for America: That as horrific as terrorism is, to focus on that Islamist threat to the exclusion of “cultural” or “stealth” jihad is a monumental mistake.

Too many in our government have not connected, or do not want to connect, the dots between the supremacist ideology of political Islam and the jihadist actions perpetrated against the West in the arenas of government, academia, law, and the media.

This is why the “War on Terror” essentially misstates the “war,” because terror is a means, not an end, in the bigger arsenal of the Islamists. The “end” is the overthrow of Western civilization and the imposition of Islamic shariah law worldwide. And the arsenal to achieve that end includes many other “means,” such as efforts to criminalize public critique of Islam.

One of the topic sessions in our “Citizens in Action” conference is titled “Why the ‘Typical’ Western Approach for Dealing with Radical Islam Will Not Work – and What Does.” We in the West must understand the mindset and worldview of those who wish to destroy our way of life, if we are to devise effective strategies and tactics to combat them.

If you haven’t yet done so, please log on to www.actforamerica.org today and register to attend one of our “Citizens in Action” conferences.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Review Online
Andrew C. McCarthy
NR Contributing Editor
March 24, 2009, 4:00 a.m.

CAIR’s Well-Deserved Expulsion
Terrorism is only one expression of jihad — there are others as dangerous.

A week ago, the FBI officially announced that it has cut ties with the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The self-styled civil rights organization is characteristically squawking, but the FBI’s move was patently overdue — so much so that we ought to be asking: Why on earth did the FBI have ties with CAIR in the first place?

While we should applaud the government for finally doing the right thing, we also must seize this moment to consider why this action was necessary, and what it says about the threat we are up against.

That threat is not, essentially, about terrorism. Given the life-and-death stakes involved, it is understandable that government is preoccupied by terrorism (or what Obama’s homeland security secretary, Janet Napolitano, absurdly calls “man-caused disasters”). But jihadist terror is merely the means to a specific end: the installation of sharia, the Islamic legal code, which Muslim fundamentalists regard as the necessary precondition for the achievement of Islam’s universalist ambitions.

Sharia should be of grave concern to us because it is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution and to our way of life. It rejects several core American propositions: that liberty cannot co-exist with an established state religion, that free people have a right to govern themselves irrespective of any religious code’s dictates, that there should be freedom of conscience (sharia holds that apostasy from Islam is not merely a crime but a capital offense), sexual liberty (homosexuality is also a death-penalty offense), and equal protection under the law (sharia privileges Muslims over non-Muslims and men over women). Sharia, furthermore, is the rationale commonly trotted out by militants to justify the use of force (whether we call it “terrorism” or employ such sophistries as “resistance” or “man-caused disasters”) for resolving policy disputes — under the rationale that policies that do not privilege Islam constitute an attack on Islam and therefore justify jihadist violence.

Incrementally establishing sharia is the central imperative of CAIR and several other organizations to which our government has recklessly been reaching out for years, since long before the 9/11 attacks. In sum, administrations of both parties, and executive branch agencies including the FBI, have taken the position that government’s only legitimate concern is the comparatively tiny cohort of terrorists who construe Islamic scriptures to command mass-murder attacks.

Not only have we averted our eyes from the ideology that motivates jihadism. We have affirmatively anointed as Muslim “moderates” the purveyors of this ideology, who are anything but moderate. Worse, the effect has been to empower anti-American elements at the expense of authentic Muslim moderates and reformers who crave liberty.

CAIR is an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Egyptian organization founded in 1928 that today boasts divisions throughout the world. The Brotherhood has been operating in the United States since the 1960s in a manner fully consistent with its motto: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” Its website makes no bones about the fact that it seeks “the introduction of the Islamic Shariah as the basis for controlling the affairs of state and society.”

Last year, the government won convictions in a terrorism-financing trial that targeted an ostensible Islamic charity, the Holy Land Foundation, along with several of its top operatives. CAIR has complained long and loud because prosecutors identified it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case. Its argument that this was a smear is specious. The issue is not whether the government named CAIR on a list disseminated pretrial; what’s germane is the basis for that listing. The government richly supported its assertion with evidence, and no citizen or organization has a right to expunge that which is proved in the public’s courts.

At trial, the jury was treated to a 1991 Brotherhood memorandum that described the organization’s “work in America” as “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers, so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” CAIR has been the linchpin of that strategy.

Some history is in order. In 1987, the Brotherhood had established Hamas (or “the Islamic Resistance Movement,” as it describes itself). As its charter professes, Hamas
is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterized by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgment, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.
In a memorandum filed in a Texas federal court, prosecutors further elaborated that, through the early 1990s, “the Muslim Brotherhood was controlled by Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood members, and the leader of the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood was Mousa Abu Marzook, who in 1989 was selected to be the leader of HAMAS, a position that he held while residing in the United States and controlling the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood.” To support Hamas, the Brotherhood established a “Palestine Committee” in the United States.

Marzook (deported in 1995, he is currently wanted on a U.S. terrorism indictment in Chicago) led the Palestine Committee. One of its most important members was Omar Ahmad, who became president of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which Marzook had formed years earlier. In 1993, the Palestine Committee convened a meeting in Philadelphia to plot a strategy for destroying the Oslo Accords’ vision of a two-state solution — Palestine peacefully co-existing with Israel, which Hamas is pledged to destroy. The meeting was secretly surveilled by the FBI, which caught Ahmad conversing with Nihad Awad, the IAP’s public-relations director, about strategies for deceiving Americans about their true intentions.

Less than a year later, Ahmad and Awad formed CAIR. The Holy Land Foundation, which was ultimately shuttered by the government and finally convicted for providing millions of dollars to Hamas, contributed part of the seed money. To serve as CAIR’s communications director, Ahmad and Awad tapped Ibrahim Hooper, another IAP veteran who has publicly acknowledged that his purpose is to establish sharia as the law of the United States.

Since its founding, several CAIR officials have been convicted or deported for terrorism-related activities and for other criminal offenses. CAIR, meanwhile, has sought to undermine national security — and the FBI specifically — at every turn: frequently mounting public-relations campaigns for indicted terror suspects, vigorously opposing the Patriot Act and the surveillance of suspected al-Qaeda communications, and even distributing a “Muslim community safety kit” that discourages cooperation with the FBI.

Despite that sordid record, government officials regarded CAIR as a representative and leader of American Muslims. Our law-enforcement and national-security agencies consulted with it closely and even permitted it to indoctrinate our agents during compulsory “sensitivity training” lectures. Doing so, they raised its profile, facilitated its radical, anti-American agenda, and dispirited our allies in the Muslim community, many of whom are in the United States precisely because they don’t want to live in the totalitarian misery the Muslim Brotherhood and its satellites would impose.

The major threat we face today is not what al-Qaeda may do to the grand structures that house our government and our institutions. It is what radical Islam is accomplishing inside those structures. Thankfully, the FBI has shown CAIR the door. But that only begins to address the problem.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org

Borderline Security For The Border

2009-03-26T10:14:00.002-08:00

Borderline Security For The Border

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Homeland Safety: Terrorists and other criminals crossing into America are at least as threatening as our economic woes. If we can spend a trillion on stimulus, we shouldn't skimp on fixing the border.

In an age of terrorism, America's borders should be (in effect, if not in physical appearance) impenetrable walls. Not a single person should be able to enter U.S. territory without the government knowing exactly who he or she is, and having given express permission for such entry.

Establishing that kind of foolproof system over an area spanning nearly 2,000 miles should have been one of our chief national priorities in the years since 9/11. Instead, both Republican and Democratic politicians wasted opportunities in fear of offending ethnic voting blocs — as they kept those very same voters, and all Americans, less safe than they should expect to be from a terrorist sleeper cell or visiting Latin American drug trafficker.

Earlier this month, the president declared in a meeting with several reporters:
"We've got a very big border with Mexico. And so I'm not interested in militarizing the border."

That shrug of the shoulders will be of little solace to future victims of the violent crimes of thugs and fanatics who shouldn't be here.

Making the border into a border is not "militarizing" it. Govs. Rick Perry of Texas and Jan Brewer of Arizona are more than justified in their demands for as many as 1,000 more National Guard troops.

Phoenix, 180 miles into the U.S., now outrageously ranks second in the world for kidnappings, with more than 560 of them in 2007 and the first half of 2008 as drug lords from south of the border use ransoms to help finance their operations.

With much fanfare, the Obama administration this week announced details of its program to fight this crisis and secure the border. At a cost of $700 million, Homeland Security Secretary and former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano laid out a plan for the U.S. and Mexican governments to destroy Mexico's drug cartels.

It includes giving Mexico five new helicopters to patrol the border and, as described by Attorney General Eric Holder, possibly reviving the assault weapons ban that ended in 2004. (There are disputed claims that the cartels get much of their firepower from the U.S.)

The president would also triple the intelligence operatives working the border, double the border enforcement security task force personnel, increase the 1,000 Drug Enforcement Administration positions in the southwest region by 16, transfer 100 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives employees to the area, and establish a new FBI intelligence operation focused on Mexico.

He will also reportedly quadruple the number of U.S. border liaison officers working with Mexican law enforcement.

But is this just a wall of bureaucracy that America is building to keep the killers out?

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas expressed support for the increased resources and personnel but worried that "the administration appears to be using border violence as an excuse to reduce interior enforcement of our immigration laws and enact gun restrictions."

Relocating hundreds of federal law enforcement officers to the border might "undercut our national security and immigration enforcement responsibilities," Smith fretted.

What's more, the president is at the same time planning a White House immigration summit before the end of May aimed at finding a way to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently appeared at a Congressional Hispanic Caucus forum on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's workplace raids to track down illegals, raids she has called "un-American." Under Obama, the Department of

Homeland Security recently imposed a "partial moratorium" on immigration enforcement workplace raids.

All the paper pushers in the world sent down to the Rio Grande and Nogales will mean little if we don't have the stomach to let authorities catch those already here in violation of our laws — some of whom most certainly are violent criminals, even terrorists-in-waiting.

A single illegal border crossing can mean the presence of a professional killer walking the streets of an American city, seeking prey. Yet we continue to wait for the Department of Homeland Security to finish the 700-mile fence along our southern border commissioned by law in 2006. In January, Congress' nonpartisan Government Accountability Office reported only 32 miles of new double-layered barrier had been completed.

"Fortress America" may be a much-maligned concept, but walls and barbed-wire fences keep killers inside penitentiaries. They'll keep killers outside America too.
Email To Friend

Trojan (Tax) Horse

2009-03-25T20:20:00.003-08:00

Trojan (Tax) Horse

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Taxes: President Obama creates a special commission to look at tax reform, while Congress looks desperately for new revenues to pay for a vast expansion of government. Get ready for the mother of all tax hikes.

Former Fed chief Paul Volcker will head Obama's six-member tax commission which will be charged with, as Bloomberg.com put it, "closing loopholes, streamlining the law and generating revenue."

The way things look, the government will need the money.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says Obama's proposed budget comes up short on its estimates for spending, revenues and deficits — virtually everything.

Over 10 years, the CBO says, the cumulative deficit will reach $9.3 trillion, $2.3 trillion more than expected in the White House budget. Spending would jump permanently to 23% of GDP — and possibly higher — from 20% last year, a $1.7 trillion gain over that time.

Meanwhile, tax revenues will be reduced by $2.1 trillion over the next decade, in large part because the CBO expects the economy to perform far worse than the White House does.

To put it mildly, Congress is alarmed. So is the president.

They're alarmed because their plans call for a historic increase in the size of government, and they've suddenly realized the money won't be there. Washington's broke. The Democrats want nationalized health care, trillion-dollar bailouts and stimulus plans, thousands of pork-barrel projects, an expansion of the welfare state, carbon taxes and more cash for Social Security and Medicare.

The math is clear. In the next five years alone, Obama's budget adds $5.7 trillion to the U.S. debt. That's $48,000 per household. Put in perspective, servicing that debt each year will cost as much as the annual defense budget by the end of the decade.

Today, the federal government spends about $24,172 per household. That will grow to $32,463 by 2019, after adjusting for inflation — for a real spending gain of 34%. Paying for all this will take money — vast, unprecedented amounts of it. Yet, on the stump last year, Obama promised that 95% of Americans would get a tax cut under him, and that only the very wealthiest would pay more.

So the Volcker-led tax commission starts with its hands tied. It has to find ways to take more taxes from corporations and the rich, without hiking taxes on anyone with less than $250,000 in income.

Which makes us wonder: Is it just a Trojan horse for a massive tax hike on the rich, or for huge tax hikes on all Americans?

Apparently, the White House doesn't realize that taxes on the rich and corporations are ultimately paid by the poor and the middle-class through higher prices, lower incomes and fewer jobs.

Wealthy Americans won't sit still and let their wealth and incomes be stripped from them. They'll find ways to avoid the greedy hand of government picking their pockets.

There's a better way, and we hope the Volcker panel is listening.

From 1953 to 1982, tax rates were at their highest. As Heritage Foundation analyst Brian Riedl recently noted, during that time, the economy was in recession 21% of the time and the stock market rose 5.4% on average. This culminated in the 1970s, when inflation hit 13% and interest rates 19% under Jimmy Carter.

Since the broad-based Reagan cuts in 1982, the economy has been in recession just 10% of the time, inflation has never gone above 5%, interest rates have never been over 12%, and the stock market — even after two record drops — has averaged gains of 7% a year.

Reagan slashed taxes and simplified the code, and revenues and growth soared. That's what works, as dozens of studies prove.

So if they're sincere, Obama's tax reformers have a choice: follow the tax policies of Reagan and thrive, or those of Carter and fail. To us, it's a no-brainer.

Email To Friend

Seize Failing Non-Bank Financial Firms

2009-03-25T18:53:00.002-08:00

THIS IS THE OUTLINE OF ONE OF THE CRUCIAL STEPS NECESSARY TO TURN A CAPITALIST NATION INTO A SOCIALIST STATE IS THE CONTROL OF THE FINANCIAL SECTOR. WE HAVE JUST SEEN THE BEGINNING BY THE FORCED INFUSION INTO BANKS AND THEN THE TAKEOVER OF THE SAME. NOW THAT SOCIALIST COMMUNIST (NON AMERICAN CITIZEN - NO PROOF OF BIRTH- ) PRESIDENTIAL PRETENDER IS WANTING ADDITION POWER TO SEIZE OTHER FINANCIAL FIRMS

Treasury and Fed Chiefs Want Authority to Seize Failing Non-Bank Financial Firms -- and Impose Rules on Risk
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
By Matt Cover

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, left, accompanied by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, center, and William Dudley president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, testifying on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 24, 2009, before a House Financial Services Committee hearing on AIG. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)Washington (CNSNews.com) – Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke issued a unified call Tuesday for wide-ranging new federal regulations that would empower the government to seize large non-bank financial institutions in trouble.

The government’s financial czars also want authority to impose market-wide controls on how much risk financial companies assume and how much they pay their executives.

In testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, Geithner said the government lacks the authority to unwind financial giants like American International Group (AIG), which it acquired last year to keep it from going under.

Both said that such authority is necessary to prevent future financial collapses.

“The U.S. government does not have the legal means today to manage an orderly restructuring of a large, complex, non-bank financial institution,” Geithner said.

“To achieve that goal, the administration and Congress have to work together to enact comprehensive regulatory reform and eliminate gaps in supervision. All institutions and markets that could pose systemic risk will be subject to strong oversight, including appropriate constraints on risk-taking.

“Finally, we must create a new resolution authority so that the federal government has the tools it needs to unwind an institution of the size and complexity of AIG.”

Bernanke also cited AIG as the driving force behind the government’s new regulatory zeal, saying that had greater authority existed, the current AIG debacle could have been avoided.

“AIG highlights the urgent need for new resolution procedures,” Bernanke explained. “If a federal agency had had such tools on Sept. 16 (when AIG first received government assistance), they could have been used to put AIG into conservatorship or receivership.

Bernanke also said the AIG situation highlights the need for “strong, effective consolidated supervision” of all “systemically important financial firms” – firms so important to the financial system that they cannot be allowed to fail.

The authority Geithner and Bernanke are seeking is similar to that held by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) when it comes to bank failures. Currently, the FDIC insures deposits of $100,000 or less in banks that are in receivership.

The administration is calling for the authority to be expanded to include non-bank financial institutions that the government doesn’t insure.

When the government takes a bank into receivership or conservatorship it has the power to restructure all of its contracts and debt agreements, including loans and other lines of credit. Once it has restructured the bank, the government then sells off the bank’s portfolio to various competitors, who take over the deposits and loans.

The FDIC might -- or might not -- be called on to exercise authority over non-bank institutions.

Geithner, meanwhile, called for market-wide regulations on how companies pay their top employees, saying the issue went beyond the recent flap over bonuses at AIG.

“The issue of executive compensation extends beyond AIG and requires reform of the system of incentives and compensation in the financial sector,” he said.

He added: “(AIG’s) compensation practices encouraged risk-taking and rewarded short-term profits over long-term financial stability.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) told Geithner and Bernanke that the administration’s new regulations amounted to Soviet-style central economic planning.

“The government is making an historic shift, jettisoning free-market capitalism in favor of centralized government economic planning,” Bachmann charged.

The embattled Treasury secretary defended his proposals, claiming he was simply acting within the intentions of Congress.

“I do not believe that concern is justified,” Geithner responded. “What we are doing is using authority that Congress gave us.”

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), meanwhile, said the whole exercise ultimately accomplished nothing.

“It appears to me that we are doing a kabuki theater in three acts,” Sherman said. “The first act: Washington tells the American people, ‘We understand your anger at Wall Street.’ In the second act, we knit-pick to death any proposal that actually adversely effects Wall Street. In the third act we bestow $1 trillion on Wall Street under very preferable terms.”

‘Invest’ or ‘Investment’ 18 Times

2009-03-25T18:46:00.000-08:00

Obama Used ‘Invest’ or ‘Investment’ 18 Times in Press Conference to Describe

Government Deficit Spending
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

President Barack Obama at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on Tuesday, March 17, 2009. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)(CNSNews.com) - In Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary the first meaning listed for the word “investment” is “the outlay of money usually for income or profit,” and the meaning of the word “invest” is “to commit (money) in order to earn a financial return.”

The idea is that investing money is something private individuals and businesses do on the calculation that they will get back more money than they put into a particular enterprise.

In his prime-time Tuesday press conference, however, President Barack Obama used the words “invest” or “investment” 18 different times to describe the deficit spending he wants the federal government to undertake in pursuit of his budget plan.

When the government engages in deficit spending it has to borrow money—part of it from foreign sources—and then charge future taxpayers to pay the interest on the borrowed money. As long as the government’s loans are not paid off, the taxpayers must continue paying interest on the debt year after year—just as an individual citizen would need to pay interest year after year on a credit card whose principal is never paid down.

The money that goes each year to pay the growing interest on the federal government’s credit card cannot be “invested” by private citizens and businesses to create jobs and grow the economy.

At different points in the press conference, Obama used forms of the words “invest” or “investment” to describe government spending on education, “renewable sources of energy,” health care reform, “health information technologies,” “American’s capacity for ingenuity and innovation,” science, technology and infrastructure. He referred to some of these items repeatedly as targets of the sort of government “investment” he wants to make.

Last Friday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released an analysis of Obama’s budget proposal, concluding that it would result in an increase in the national debt that is unprecedented in the post-World War II era.

“CBO has also analyzed the policy proposals outlined in the President’s preliminary budget request,” said CBO’s report. “Under those policies, the deficit would total $1.8 trillion (13.1 percent of GDP) in 2009 and $1.4 trillion (9.6 percent of GDP) in 2010. The cumulative deficit over the 2010–2019 projection period would equal $9.3 trillion and would average 5.3 percent of GDP. Debt held by the public would rise from 57 percent of GDP in 2009 to 82 percent of GDP in 2019.”

The CBO analysis of Obama’s budget does not foresee any year in the next decade in which the government would run an actual surplus and thus be able to pay off a penny of the new debt Obama plans to incur. Each year, the national debt will grow as will the presumably permanent annual interest charges to the taxpayers.

Yet, at one point in his press conference—the fourth instance in which he used a form of the term "invest" to describe his borrow-and-spend budget plan—Obama said: “It’s the budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we can save and invest.”

At another point, he argued that if the government did not borrow and spend money on the “investments” he planned to make, then the U.S. economy would not grow and we would still have massive deficits.

“And so what we've said is, let's make the investments that ensure that we meet our growth targets that put us on a pathway to growth as opposed to a situation in which we're not making those investments and we still have trillion-dollar deficits,” he said.

Obama also suggested that if the government did as he planned, it would somehow simultaneously borrow and spend trillions and actually reduce the deficit by “a couple of trillion dollars.”

“And so what we're trying to emphasize is, let's make sure that we're making the investments that we need to grow to meet those growth targets, at the same time we're still reducing the deficit by a couple of trillion dollars,” he said.

This year, according to CBO, Obama will run a $1.845-trillion annual deficit. A decade from now in fiscal 2019, under the Obama plan, according to CBO, the federal government will run a $1.189-trillion annual deficit. At no time in the intervening years, according to CBO, will the annual federal budget deficit ever drop below $658 billion, which is the projected deficit for fiscal 2013.

The largest deficit President Bush ever ran before this year, according to the CBO, was $459 billion in fiscal 2008.

Here are the 18 times Obama used the words “invest” or “investment” to refer to government spending during his March 24 press conference. (The quotes are from the transcript of the press conference that CNN posted on Tuesday night.)

1. We invest in the renewable sources of energy that will lead to new jobs, new businesses and less dependence on foreign oil.

2. We invest in our schools and our teachers, so that our children have the skills they need to compete with any workers in the world.

3. We invest in reform that will bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses and our government.

4. It's with a budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest.

5. We’ve got to make some tough budgetary choices. What we can't do, though, is sacrifice long-term growth, investments that are critical to the future, and that's why my budget focuses on health care, energy, education, the kinds of things that can build a foundation for long-term economic growth, as opposed to the fleeting prosperity that we've seen over the last several years.

6. And what we have to do is invest in those things that will allow the American's capacity for ingenuity and innovation, their ability to take risks, but make sure that those risks are grounded in good products and good services that they believe they can market to the rest of the country, that those models of economic growth are what we're promoting, and that's what I think our budget does.

7. We've got to invest in education, K through 12 and beyond, to upgrade the skills of the American worker so we can compete in--in the international economy.

8. Here's what I do know: If we don't tackle energy, if we don't improve our education system, if we don't drive down the costs of health care, if we're not making serious investments in science and technology and our infrastructure, then we won't grow 2.6 percent, we won't grow 2.2 percent. We won't grow.

9 & 10. And so what we've said is, let's make the investments that ensure that we meet our growth targets that put us on a pathway to growth as opposed to a situation in which we're not making those investments and we still have trillion-dollar deficits.

11. And so what we're trying to emphasize is, let's make sure that we're making the investments that we need to grow to meet those growth targets, at the same time we're still reducing the deficit by a couple of trillion dollars, we are cutting out wasteful spending in areas like Medicare, we're changing procurement practices when it comes to the Pentagon budget, we are looking at social service programs and education programs that don't work and eliminate them.

12. But it is going to be an impossible task for us to balance our budget if we're not taking on rising health care costs, and it's going to be an impossible task to balance our budget or even approximate it if we are not boosting our growth rates. And that's why our budget focuses on the investments we need to make that happen.

13. Look, I'm not going to lie to you. It is tough. As I said, that's why the critics tend to criticize, but they don't offer an alternative budget. Because even if we were not doing health care, we were not doing energy, we were not doing education, they'd still have a whole bunch of problems in those out-years, according to CBO projections. The only difference is that we will not have invested in what's necessary to make this economy grow.

14. And so what we've said is, look, let's invest in health information technologies.

15. Let's invest in preventive care.

16. Let's invest in mechanisms that look at who's doing a better job controlling costs while producing good quality outcomes in various states and let's reimburse on the basis of improved quality, as opposed to simply how many procedures you're doing. Let's do a whole host of things, some of which cost money on the front end, but offer the prospect of reducing costs on the back end.

17. Now, the alternative is to stand pat and to simply say, "We are just going to not invest in health care."

18. And that's why the recovery package said, as a first priority, how are we going to save or create 3.5 million jobs? How can we prevent layoffs for teachers and police officers? How can we make sure that we are investing in the infrastructure for the future that can put people back to work right away?

Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.

Showing 1-7 of 7 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...

DissentFromDayOneDOTcom at 06:04 PM - March 25, 2009
We learned in Sales 101 to ALWAYS refer to the expense of the sale as an "investment" to the suck...er...customer. Let's roll.

richb at 05:02 PM - March 25, 2009
Sorry Obama, government spending isn't an investment. It shows how little you know about economics. This is money that will not be invested or spent by the persons that earned it to begin with. This pork will make this recession live longer then it would have.

ontime at 04:34 PM - March 25, 2009
The word investment in the financial world implies return on your money, this imbecile who is challenged in many ways is not quite clear on the concept, he thinks that using taxpayers money is a way of growing the government who produces nothing more than a higher tax rate, that is called a loss and according to the IRS, your investment cannot operate on a continual loss....You know for once I agree with the IRS that it is impractical to keep pouring your money down a rat hole.

traditionusa at 03:28 PM - March 25, 2009
Lies, and not that clever, that are misleading a large swath of the populace that lack common sense. We already pay taxes to provide government services. They are too high as it is. The solution is to stop squandering taxpayer's money on inefficiency and waste, not spend ever more. Then use the taxes you ALREADY GET to do your job. This is a disguised government power grab and successful ploy to RUIN our country. You do not "invest" with debt; rather, debt leads to BANKRUPTCY. Why is it, taxpayers, that you carefully manage (in most cases) your money and look for value in products and services, but happily fling tons of cash at a bloated bureaucracy?

CTC123 at 03:06 PM - March 25, 2009
Consider the Connection to: Wise-use It's not how much we spend, It's how much we save by making wise 'investments'. Please Google Search: CTC123GREEN

NoParty at 03:05 PM - March 25, 2009
Obama knows the value of words, he crafts the thrust of his agenda in more acceptable verbiage. He thinks we are less likely to complain if he says "Invest" rather than "spend". Manipulation isn't a word he will use, but it is what he is doing.

Yeeeech at 02:15 PM - March 25, 2009
The black hole of USA negative equity, just made light years larger ....Obama talked about Bush's 1.3 Trillion dollar deficit, but he will make it TEN times (10X) larger. He is a propogandist and a prevaricator, and he is hell bent on creating the Great Socialist Society. The market reacted to his "Press Conference" and Geithner's comments on global security at 2:07PM 3-25-09 by tanking, again. The world (EU Conference) has rejected his financial programs. China is doing exactly the opposite of the USA...they cut taxes! Business hates his proposals. But this man is so self-involved and so set on pursuing his vision of himself and his "greatness" that he walks rough-shod and suprememly arrogant, practicing bad financial policies,stomping all over the American masses. We are screwed.

Poverty in Our Cities.

2009-03-25T16:46:00.002-08:00

THANK JIM HANKINS FOR THIS ENLIGHTING ITEM. SEND US YOUR OPINION OR ARTICLES OF INTEREST. oad@alaska.net

Interesting....... Poverty in Our Cities.
City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit , MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo , NY 29.9%
3. Cincinnati , OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland , OH 27.0%
5. Miami , FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis , MO 26.8%
7. El Paso , TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1%
10. Newark , NJ 24.2%

U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007
What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati , OH (3rd)...since 1984;

Cleveland , OH (4th)...since 1989;

Miami , FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;

St. Louis , MO (6th)....since 1949;

El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;

Milwaukee , WI (8th)...since 1908;

Philadelphia , PA (9th)...since 1952;

Newark , NJ (10th)...since 1907.

Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'

It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats---yet they are still ...................

POOR

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

Obama Drops Vet Insurance Plan

2009-03-24T10:22:00.000-08:00

Obama Drops Vet Insurance Plan
Tom Philpott | March 19, 2009
Obama Drops Vet Insurance Plan; More Showdowns Loom

President Obama won style points from veterans' service organizations this week even as he was forced, under heavy fire, to withdraw his plan to have the Department of Veterans Affairs bill veterans' health insurance for the cost to VA of treating service-connected medical conditions.

"The issue should never have come up [and] he got a black eye out of it," said David W. Gorman, executive director of Disabled American Veterans Wednesday. "But we came out…very, very pleased that he had recognized the issue, he has listened to us, and he has taken heed of our advice."

More disputes are likely between a White House struggling to impose new restraints on federal spending, and advocates for military members and veterans who have borne the brunt of two long and difficult wars.

When the president's full budget request for 2010 is released in late April, the battleground shifts to Capitol Hill and fights are expected over several personnel issues including future military pay raises. Obama also might follow the lead of his predecessor, and listen to his top military adviser, by seeking higher TRICARE fees for working-age military retirees.

This week, however, the cost-savings target was veterans' insurance. Obama's plan drew stiff bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill and gave Republicans a wedge to try to separate Obama from veterans despite his surprising budget plan to raise overall VA spending next year by 15 percent.

Even comedian Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, poked fun at Obama's insurance idea, suggesting the administration next might want to sell to corporate naming rights for different military medals.

Watch the clip on Military.com.

On Monday, feeling the heat, Obama took the unprecedented step of hosting a White House meeting with leaders of 11 veterans groups who had sent the president a letter Feb. 27, calling his third-party insurance collection plan for service-related conditions "wholly unacceptable."

"I cannot remember -- and I've been doing [veterans' advocacy work] for 35 years -- any sitting president ever inviting us over and sitting down with us to talk about a policy-related issue," Gorman said. "So we were very grateful for that. It showed us a lot."

Obama explained that insurance companies collect premiums for veterans' coverage but get a break when veterans use VA for service-related conditions. He then asked VSO leaders for their views, and got an earful.

"Everybody was opposed to the idea for a lot of reasons," said Gorman. "The fundamental one was that the foreign policy of the United States sent us war. These are the disabilities we've incurred. It's the federal government's moral and legal obligation to take care of them, not Blue Cross and Blue Shield."

Obama indicated he wouldn't go forward without VSO support. But when he and VA Secretary Eric Shinseki left to visit with employees at VA headquarters, Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, asked the VSOs to go back and consider ways to reduce VA costs enough to fill a $540 million hole that would be left in the budget if the president pulled his proposal.

The VSO met two days later with Emanuel and told him that they all agreed it was not their job to find savings for the VA.

"He was disappointed," said Gorman, who served as spokesman for the group at that meeting. "But I told him we would be more than happy, in fact, would relish the idea of coming back and talking about issues and ideas before they become a policy, a practice or a recommendation in the budget."

That afternoon, when VSO leaders met with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Democratic colleagues, she told them Obama was withdrawing his proposal. The leaders gave the news a standing ovation.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama had wanted to "maximize the resources available for veterans" but deferred to concerns raised by the VSOs that his plan could affect families' access to health care.

Glen Gardner, national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said the episode showed Obama got bum advice but that he "is willing to sit down and talk about issues. That has to be good for the veteran."

At the Pelosi meeting, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, noted that Obama's budget proposes ending the ban on concurrent receipt for more disabled retirees -- those with fewer than 20 years service. He warned that the cost will make it very difficult to find money for other new programs, or to block TRICARE fee increases if they are proposed in the president's budget.

The administration will seek a 2.9 military pay raise for next January, enough to match wage growth in the private sector. If Congress agrees to the raise, it will end at 10 a string of annual raises set at least a half percent above private sector wage growth. Personnel chiefs for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps told a House hearing that 2.9 percent is big enough.

Check out the proposed 2010 pay charts.

Retired Navy Vice Adm. Norb Ryan, Jr., president of the Military Officers Association of America, disagrees. He said Monday that the string of bigger raises for the military should continue for five or six more years until a pay gap with the private sector, estimated at 2.9 percent, is fully closed.

"With the 6th anniversary of the Iraq invasion, with uniformed leaders saying we've got another decade of persistent conflict ahead of us, why would you abandon such a successful, responsible, measured way of going after a goal [of pay comparability] and stop on the 20-yard line," Ryan said.

He also warned against TRICARE fee increases, which Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, endorsed in our interview in January.

MOAA and other service associations support legislation that would block the Secretary of Defense from raising TRICARE fees in any year by more than the percentage increase in the January pay raise.

To comment, e-mail milupdate@aol.com, write to Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA, 20120-1111 or visit: militaryupdate.com.

EDITORIAL Just a thought or two.

2009-03-23T11:31:00.007-08:00

EDITORIAL, Just a thought or two.

I have no idea why the DAILY NEWS would be on my mind, it is strictly a Democrat paper, any way I bought one along with my morning coffee. Now understand I did not to choose a place to start reading, the paper seemed to open to the obituary page.

No notice caught my eye but my inner mind brought a reflection of the similarities of the page of deaths and their causes and to the current condition of my once prosperous and caring country, it is in near death condition and the choice of remedies available and offered as a possible cure are worse than the disease.

There were those whose demise was listed as heart failure or heart attack. Sort of like what the nation is struggling with. The heart of the country, financial entities like Federal Banks, Credit Unions, Brokerage Firms, and Real Estate, falling failing to keep it’s trust with the folks who had invested in them. Failed and that is to say in truth, bankrupt!

This first mess seems to have come by way of the failure of the HEART of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to continue the practice of lending based on credit worthiness and not on the urging of LOW LIFE UNKNOWING SENATOR AND CONGRESSMEN, namely (POS) Sen. DODD and (POS # 2) Congressman FRANK. By throwing away credibility facts many borrowers purchased homes they could not sustain in close times and therefore the two FM’s were stuck with the balance of the loan and often time with the mortgaged property not worth the value of the loan. Remember though, this came because political powers (among them DODDS and FRANK) pressured the lending agencies to relax credit and issue the substandard loans, THEY did it but WE will have to pay.

Another cause of listed death in the obits was stroke. Sort of like what has happened to the Automobile Industry. The stroke of having to pay as much per hour in health benefits as it pays in labor, plus the employee often gets paid often for not working. Now, That’s a deal you can't believe anybody could make!

They never have the part in the obit about "the operation was a success however the patient died" so when this failure came about with the brokerage houses and other real estate entities it was notice that the trauma of fixes was taking over and the patient was subject to last rites.

One brokerage firm buying one failing most often results in the death of both. If not, then WE get to participate by throwing OUR FUTURE into it and THEN fail, IT is a disaster waiting to happen and no one is watching the morgue.

This administration at best is a crying shame that should be done away with and replaced with those that are honest and trustworthy. The DODDS, FRANKS, OBAMAS, DINGLE(DANGLE AND STINK),RANGLE,PELOSI, KERRYS, ETAL, should go away and NEVER EVER be allowed to govern anything but the garage door remote. This bunch is far worse than Carter and the Clintons combined. Exile is too good for them.

Think of it this way, get rid of all these currently in office and put them out on the street and then they will truly be what they are, strabenhure.

Obama, Insensitive wag.

2009-03-22T23:58:00.000-08:00

Obama, Insensitive wag.

Appearing on "The Tonight Show," the president told host Jay Leno he'd been practicing at the White House's bowling alley but wasn't happy with his score of 129. The he rolled a gutter ball by quipping: "It was like the Special Olympics or something."

The audience laughed, but the White House quickly recognized the blunder.

On his way back to Washington on Air Force One, Obama called the chairman of the Special Olympics, Tim Shriver, to say he was sorry _ even before the taped program aired late Thursday night.

"He expressed his disappointed and he apologized in a way that was very moving. He expressed that he did not intend to humiliate this population," Shriver said Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America." Obama, Shriver said, wants to have some Special Olympic athletes visit the White House to bowl or play basketball.

Still, Shriver said, "I think it's important to see that words hurt and words do matter. And these words that in some respect can be seem as humiliating or a put down to people with special needs do cause pain and they do result in stereotypes."

Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton told reporters traveling with Obama that the president's offhand remark was not meant to disparage the Special Olympics, only to poke some fun at the commander-in-chief's bowling skills.

"He thinks that the Special Olympics are a wonderful program that gives an opportunity to shine to people with disabilities from around the world," Burton said.

Despite making fun of his score, the president appears to be getting better the more he visits the White House lanes, which President Truman installed in 1947. During a campaign photo op a year ago at a bowling alley in Altoona, Pa., he rolled only a 37 in seven frames. The clip of the disastrous game was replayed on late night television shows such as Leno's _ one of Obama's few campaign gaffes.

CIA Scandal Puts Focus on How Agency Polices Self

2009-03-22T19:49:00.001-08:00

AFTER READING THIS ARTICLE, I AM SURE YOU WILL WONDER THE SAME AS I, "WHO THE HELL IS MINDING THE STORE". NOT BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT USE OF SEXUAL PROUSS TO GATHER INFORMATION BUT IF IT AIM'T RIGHT NOW THEN WHO WAS MINDING THE SHOP BEFORE NOW.

Who's Blogging» Links to this article
By Joby Warrick and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 20, 2009; Page A01

As a novice CIA case officer in the Middle East, Andrew Warren quickly learned the value of sex in recruiting spies. Colleagues say that he made an early habit of taking informants to strip clubs, and that he later began arranging out-of-town visits to brothels for his best recruits. Often Warren would travel with them, according to two colleagues who worked with him for years.

This Story
Latest CIA Scandal Puts Focus on How Agency Polices Self
His methods earned him promotions and notoriety over a lengthy career, until Warren, 41, became ensnared in a sex scandal. Two Algerian women have accused the Virginia native of drugging and sexually assaulting them, and, in one instance, videotaping the encounter.

Six weeks after the allegations came to light, Warren has been formally notified by CIA Director Leon E. Panetta of his impending dismissal, according to U.S. government officials familiar with the case. But the episode -- one of three sex-related scandals to shake the CIA this year -- has drawn harsh questions from Congress about whether the agency adequately polices its far-flung workforce or takes sufficient steps to root out corrupt behavior.

The CIA says that these problems involve a tiny fraction of its workforce, and that those found to have breached rules are punished or fired. But former officers say the cases underscore a perennial challenge: guarding against scandal in a workforce -- the size of which is classified but is generally estimated to be 20,000 -- that prides itself on secrecy and deception.

"You have an organization of professional liars," said Tyler Drumheller, who oversaw hundreds of officers as chief of the agency's European division. Experienced field managers are needed, he said, because inevitably "some people will try to take advantage of the system . . . and it's a system that can be taken advantage of."

The allegations against Warren drew an angry blast from the Senate panel that oversees the CIA. "The alleged activities are completely unacceptable," committee leaders Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) said in a joint statement last month. Feinstein also criticized the CIA for what she said was not promptly informing Congress about the case, given its potential to damage U.S. relations with Algeria.

Repeated attempts in recent weeks to contact Warren through relatives were unsuccessful.

The recent string of embarrassing revelations started with the CIA's former No. 3 officer, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, who was indicted on corruption charges two years ago. Court documents released in recent weeks depict Foggo as bullying the office of the agency's general counsel into giving a job to his mistress, whose subsequent performance reviews were subpar.

Last month, agency officials confirmed the firing of Steve Levan, a 16-year veteran who pleaded guilty to misusing CIA credit cards. Levan, an analyst, worked at the agency's headquarters for the No. 2 official, Stephen R. Kappes. As part of his plea agreement, Levan acknowledged obtaining credit card numbers assigned to undercover operatives and using them to run up bills surpassing $115,000. Much of the money was spent on hotel rooms and gifts for a mistress, according to two agency officials familiar with the case. He is awaiting sentencing this spring.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Levan's attorney, declined to comment on the case. In a pre-sentencing motion filed last week, Nachmanoff said the judge should consider his client's strong record of service for the CIA -- a record the agency had declined to release, he said.

But the most damaging revelations involved Warren, an Arabic speaker and Middle East specialist who was on a rapid ascent after CIA postings in Kuwait, Iraq, Egypt and Algeria. He most recently served as Algiers station chief. But the State Department ordered him home in October after two Algerian nationals alleged that he assaulted them in separate incidents at his apartment.

The women told State Department investigators that Warren assaulted them after giving them drug-laced drinks that made them pass out. State referred the matter to the Justice Department, where an investigation is ongoing. Warren has not been charged.

Who's Blogging» Links to this article
While looking into the allegations, U.S. officials discovered in Warren's apartment more than two dozen video recordings that he apparently made of his sexual encounters, according to news accounts and two U.S. officials familiar with the investigation. One of the women behind the rape allegations appears in one of the videos, the officials said.

This Story
Latest CIA Scandal Puts Focus on How Agency Polices Self
Current and former agency officials say that Warren and Levan were considered competent professionals with stellar work records, qualities that perhaps explain why their alleged misdeeds would have gone undetected.

"The fact of the matter is that the thousands of people who work at CIA are exceptionally dedicated, and cases of impropriety are extremely rare," agency spokesman Mark Mansfield said. When there are such cases, he said, the CIA "looks into the allegations, follows up on them and cooperates fully with law enforcement authorities."

Several colleagues of Warren's, though, spoke of warning signs that might have alerted the CIA sooner. Some who worked with him over several years said they were particularly concerned about the frequency of Warren's use of strip clubs and other sex-related establishments for recruiting. The former officers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the agency does not allow them to discuss their CIA work publicly, said they were not surprised by the assault allegations.

As CIA case officers attempt to recruit a foreign spy, they often offer personal inducements, ranging from cash to medical care. In some cases, a potential recruit may be taken to a strip club or even to a prostitute if it is deemed critical to cementing the relationship, longtime officers say. But for Warren, "it was a lifestyle thing," costing the agency thousands of dollars, said one former co-worker who describes himself as a friend. The bills were routinely paid, he said.

"As long as you were doing good work, it was okay," he said.

A John Radsan, a former CIA assistant general counsel, said there are internal guidelines and structures -- including the CIA inspector general's office and a separate review board that oversees clandestine operations -- that are intended to guard against scandal. In reality, he said, it is a self-regulating system with few incentives for reporting bad behavior.

"You want a culture that values innovation and creativity and doesn't mind violating the laws of other countries, but at the same time, you want a culture of compliance and honesty," Radsan said. "It is a built-in contradiction."

The agency's internal management practices were also called into question last month during court proceedings for Foggo, who served as the top CIA administrator from November 2004 to May 2006.

A lengthy prosecution memo, made public over the objections of Foggo's attorneys, listed a series of ethical alarms that did not prevent his reaching the agency's highest ranks. Two personnel reports in 1989, for example, noted that Foggo "takes a very liberal and self-serving position regarding the interpretation of Agency rules and regulations" and warned that "he is likely to remain a potential threat to security through his poor judgment."

In a court filing last month, Foggo's attorneys said that their client has "committed his life to public service" and that his dedication and skills justified his promotions. They declined to comment further yesterday.

"Foggo was never a truly honest public servant" during his 24 years in the CIA, three prosecutors wrote in their memo to a federal judge in Alexandria shortly before Foggo was sentenced to 37 months in prison for corrupting the agency's contracts. "He spent years defrauding the country."

When Foggo manipulated agency contracts in 2003 and 2005, his colleagues and subordinates did not act on their suspicions of wrongdoing, the prosecutors said. Instead, they demonstrated a persistent reluctance to challenge authority that seems at odds with the climate of dissent and debate that the agency says it encourages.

After a former colleague of Foggo's who had become his mistress was turned down for a job in the general counsel's office, Foggo, who was the CIA's executive director, called an associate general counsel into his office and "grew increasingly loud in tone and condescending," according to a memo the counsel placed in her files. "[S]peaking in the third person, [Foggo] said, among other things, that when the EXDIR has an interest in a candidate for employment that I had better respect the EXDIR's interest."

The mistress was subsequently hired after an accelerated security check, because her paperwork was tagged "ExDir interest." When her failure to perform required duties provoked her supervisor's complaints, Foggo arranged for the supervisor -- a 20-year veteran who had won many performance awards -- to be ousted and moved to the Defense Department. The supervisor alleged in a court affidavit that her ouster was retaliatory.

Great Orators of the Democratic Party

2009-03-22T19:42:00.000-08:00

Great Orators of the Democratic Party

'One man with courage makes a majority.'
- Andrew Jackson

'The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.'
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

'The buck stops here.'
- Harry S. Truman

'Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.'
- John F. Kennedy

And for today's Democrats....

'It depends what your definition of 'IS' is?''
- Bill Clinton

'That Obama - I would like to cut his NUTS off.'
- Jesse Jackson

'Those rumors are false ...... I believe in the sanctity of marriage.'
- John Edwards

'I invented the Internet'
- Al Gore

'The next person that tells me I'm not religious, I'm going to shove my rosary beads up their ASS.'
- Joe Biden

' America is--is no longer, uh, what it--it, uh, could be, uh what it was once was...uh, and I say to myself, 'uh, I don't want that future, uh, uh for my children.'
- Barack Obama

'I have campaigned in all 57 states.
- Barack Obama

'You don't need God anymore, you have us democrats.'
- Nancy Pelosi (said back in 2006)

'Paying taxes is voluntary.'
- Sen. Harry Reid

'Bill is the greatest husband and father I know. No one is more faithful, true, and honest than he..'

- Hillary Clinton (said back in 1998)

HOW LUCKY CAN WE BE TO HAVE SUCH BRILLIANT MINDS IN CHARGE OF OUR ONCE GREAT COUNTRY!!! "IN GOD WE TRUST "

Obama Signs Deal for Post-Presidency Book

2009-03-22T19:25:00.000-08:00

Obama Signs Deal for Post-Presidency Book

Thursday, March 19, 2009 10:18 AM

President Barack Obama already has a job lined up after his presidency: writing another book.

The best-selling author reached a new book deal a few weeks before his inauguration. A financial disclosure report released this week shows Obama amended his agreement with Crown Publishing Group to deliver a new nonfiction book after he leaves office.

Obama also approved an abridged version of his book, "Dreams From My Father," suitable for middle-school or young adult readers. The publisher is giving him a $500,000 advance for that. Obama didn't say how much his deal for the new nonfiction book might be worth.

Obama received nearly $2.5 million in book royalties last year.

The deal was first reported by The Washington Times.

Dodd Admits Role in AIG Bonus Scandal

2009-03-22T18:40:00.000-08:00

Dodd Admits Role in AIG Bonus Scandal

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 8:33 PM

WASHINGTON -- For a while, the disappearance of an executive bonus restriction from last month's economic stimulus looked like sleight of hand worthy of a Las Vegas stage. No one could explain how the provision faded into thin air. On Wednesday, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., acknowledged that his staff agreed to dilute the executive pay provision that would have applied retroactively to recipients of federal aid.

Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, told CNN that the request came from Obama administration officials whom he did not identify.

The provision was the subject of new attention this week because, had it survived, it would have prevented the American International Group Inc. from granting $165 million in bonuses to employees of its financial products division.

While the House and Senate reconciled their different stimulus bills last month, the Treasury Department expressed concern with a Senate restriction on bonuses, noting that if it applied to existing compensation contracts it could face a legal challenge.

"The alternative was losing, in my view, the entire section on executive excessive compensation," Dodd told CNN. "Given a choice, this is not an uncommon occurrence here, I agreed to a modification in the legislation, reluctantly."

An administration official said Treasury made Dodd's staff aware of the potential for litigation but did not demand that the provision be removed from the final bill. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter in public.

The legislation does include a provision that allows Treasury to examine past compensation payments to determine if they were "contrary to the public interest." Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Tuesday said he was using that provision to determine whether the government could somehow recoup the AIG bonuses.

Over the years, Dodd has been the top recipient of campaign contributions from AIG employees. During 2007-2008, when he ran for president, he received nearly $104,000 from AIG employees and their families, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that monitors money in politics.

In a statement, his office said Dodd only became aware of the AIG bonuses in the past few days. "To suggest that the bonuses affecting AIG had any effect on Sen. Dodd's action is categorically false," Dodd spokeswoman Kate Szostak said.

SAY "NO" TO 'Employee Free Choice Act'

2009-03-22T18:27:00.000-08:00

What would you say if Congress was about to pass just ONE LAW that would PERMANENTLY force YOU to fund the radical left-wing Obama-Pelosi agenda?

And, what if we told you that the same law would force the rationing of your paycheck to fund such an agenda?

Well, such a proposal exists and is being debated in Congress at this very moment. It is deceptively being called the Employee Free Choice Act - more commonly known as ”Card Check."

If you thought “Card Check” was simply a liberal payoff to Big Labor, think again.

In actuality, “Card Check” represents a greater threat to your freedoms than even the so-called Fairness Doctrine (which would silence Rush and conservative thoughts and opinions on the airwaves)!

If you want to know the details... if you want to know HOW “Card Check” is a threat to YOUR bottom line and your family’s way of life... then READ ON.

If you want to know EXACTLY how “Card Check” WILL FORCE YOU TO FUND THE RADICAL FAR-LEFT OBAMA-PELOSI AGENDA... then READ ON!

But for now, know that it is imperative that we STOP this freedom-crushing, job-killing legislation dead in its tracks. We must STOP it NOW!

Use the hyperlink below and send your personalized Blast Fax messages to President Barack Obama and EACH AND EVERY ONE of the Republican Members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives!

Demand that they do whatever it takes to stop this direct assault on our freedoms and the freedoms of our children and grandchildren that is being deceptively titled the Employee Free Choice Act!

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/nocardcheck.html

AOL Members May Use This Hyperlink

If the hyperlinks above do not work, copy and paste http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/nocardcheck.html into the address bar of your browser.

How Will Card Check Force YOU To Fund The Agenda Of The Far-Left?

The Heritage Foundation explains how the system presently works and how “Card Check” will tip the balance.

"For more than 60 years, American workers have decided whether to form a union with a private vote... neither management nor union organizers know how each individual worker voted. The secret ballot lets workers vote their conscience without risking job loss or physical assault for making the 'wrong' choice... . The EFCA would make it easier for union officials to pressure workers. Under the card-check process, union organizers would publicly solicit signatures on union authorization cards... Without secret ballots, union organizers know exactly who has signed union cards and who has not. In the past, union organizers have repeatedly approached and pressured-and, in some cases, threatened-reluctant workers. They have also used pro-union co-workers to solicit signatures, putting peer pressure on 'holdouts' to change their minds."

So what's the big deal?

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich explains just why such a change is a radical threat to your bottom line:

"Under Card Check, union organizers and their enforcers will be able to go into any small business, hospital or construction site and coerce workers into signing cards. If they get 50 percent plus one, the deal's done, and the workers are forced into a union. And if management and the new union fail to reach a negotiated contract, the federal government will just impose one. Coerced unionization allows for what is effectively a new, unaccountable form of forced taxation. Workers will have a portion of their paycheck going to the union to be spent as the bosses see fit, including political donations to parties and candidates that the workers may not even support." [Emphasis Mine]

Let's put that in more personal terms.

Let's say that union organizers come into YOUR workplace and through coercion or peer-pressure - or even physical intimidation - "convince" a simple majority of your co-workers to form a union.

At that point you only have two choices. You either join the union or face job termination. You can't opt-out!

And once you "join" the union, you are FORCED to pay union dues. Again, you cannot opt-out. You have no choice in the matter, and the union dues will come directly out of each and every paycheck you receive!

Not only will you have no choice but to have those union dues taken out of your paycheck every week, you will have little or no say in how those dues are spent!

How your hard-earned money gets spent will be up to the whims of union bosses. And make no mistake, your hard-earned money – this new-found windfall that the union will ration from your paychecks – will go, in large part, to fund advocacy for the very left-wing causes that you find repugnant.

But that's not all. When the union tells you to strike... you strike... no unemployment benefits... just a meager strike fund that does not even come close to paying the bills...

… during such a strike, you can’t go to work until a union boss tells you it is okay – NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTS!

Perhaps that's why, according to polls cited by Gingrich, "77 percent of Republicans, 82 percent of Democrats and 79 percent of independents" oppose doing away with the secret balloting provisions that “Card Check” would ERADICATE!

But it gets worse. If the union bosses and the company management can't reach an agreement about your job, then bureaucrats in the Obama Administration would then FORCE an agreement on both parties.

In other words, government bureaucrats would be empowered to determine all aspects of your job – even down to the compensation you make, regardless of any agreement you and your employer come to.

Heritage again:

"Section 3 of EFCA gives government officials the power to impose contracts on workers and firms. Government bureaucrats would set compensation and make most major business decisions at newly unionized companies. The bureaucrats writing these proposals would have no expertise in the company's operations or business model and would be unaccountable if their decisions drove the company into bankruptcy. Workers would lose all say over working conditions. EFCA would effectively create government-run workplaces."

To put it another way - and let's speak plainly here - if your boss doesn't knuckle-under to union demands, then some Obama appointee will simply step in and FORCE the union demands onto your employer!

That's essentially FASCISM!

Use the hyperlink below and send your personalized Blast Fax messages to President Barack Obama and EACH AND EVERY ONE of the Republican Members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives!

Demand that they do whatever it takes to stop this direct assault on our freedoms and the freedoms of our children and grandchildren that is being deceptively titled the Employee Free Choice Act!

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/nocardcheck.html

AOL Members May Use This Hyperlink

If the hyperlinks above do not work, copy and paste http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/nocardcheck.html into the address bar of your browser.

Will Unions Really Coerce You Into Joining The Union?

Heritage has a few things to say on the matter:

"During a card-check campaign at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, union organizers threatened that workers who did not sign union cards would lose their jobs when the union was recognized. In 2002, a long-time organizer for the United Steelworkers felt compelled to quit his job after 'a senior Steelworkers union official asked me to threaten migrant workers by telling them they would be reported to federal immigration officials if they refused to sign check-off cards.'"

And the above is not an isolated incident. Heritage cites yet another example:

"Hotel workers in Los Angeles, for example, had to seek an injunction against union organizers after groups of eight to ten of them harassed employees on their homes' porches late at night. A labor lawyer explained what happened to Trico Marine employees during another card-check drive... . Some employees, when solicited at their homes by union representatives, said, 'No,' to signing a card; yet, they reported repeated, frequent home visits by union representatives continuing to try to secure their signatures, and they complained to the company of this harassment. After 8 visits, one vessel officer in southern Louisiana had an arrest warrant issued against a union organizer.... Employees volunteered that they signed cards just to stop the pressure and harassment."

Of course, overt threats are not always necessary. Union officials are well-versed in psychological tactics that can be employed to deceive your co-workers into signing cards.

Heritage yet again:

"One former union organizer described the process in congressional testimony: They [organizers] are trained to perform a five-part house call strategy that includes: Introductions, Listening, Agitation, Union Solution, and Commitment. The goal of the organizer is to quickly establish a trust relationship with the worker, move from talking about what their job entails to what they would like to change about their job, agitate them by insisting that management won't fix their workplace problems without a union and finally convincing the worker to sign a card…."

"Typically, if a worker signed a card, it had nothing to do with whether a worker was satisfied with the job or felt they were treated fairly by his or her boss.… [I]f someone told me that she was perfectly contented at work, enjoyed her job and liked her boss, I would look around her house and ask questions based on what I noticed: 'wow, I bet on your salary, you'll never be able to get your house remodeled,' or, 'so does the company pay for day care?' These were questions to which I knew the answer and could use to make her feel that she was cheated by her boss. Five minutes earlier she had just told me that she was feeling good about her work situation.

"We rarely showed workers what an actual union contract looked like because we knew that it wouldn't necessarily reflect what a worker would want to see. We were trained to avoid topics such as dues increases, strike histories, etc. and to constantly move the worker back to what the organizer identified as his or her "issues" during the first part of the house call."

Use the hyperlink below and send your personalized Blast Fax messages to President Barack Obama and EACH AND EVERY ONE of the Republican Members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives!

Demand that they do whatever it takes to stop this direct assault on our freedoms and the freedoms of our children and grandchildren that is being deceptively titled the Employee Free Choice Act!

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/nocardcheck.html

AOL Members May Use This Hyperlink

If the hyperlinks above do not work, copy and paste http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/nocardcheck.html into the address bar of your browser.

And Yes, Card Check Is A Job-Killer... 600,000 Jobs (Or More) To Be Precise!

Senator John Thune had this to say:

"Not only does Card Check strip workers of their fundamental rights and allow government bureaucrats to dictate workplace wages and benefits, it will kill jobs as small businesses struggle to meet union demands. With the country in an economic crisis and working families struggling to pay their bills, Congress owes it to the American people to focus on creating jobs and growing the economy rather than paying back liberal special interests. Trading away the right and protection of a private vote in exchange for coercion is simply not the American way."

Thune goes on to say:

"A study recently released by Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar, an economist with the non-partisan LECG Consulting Group, concluded that the unionization of 1.5 million existing jobs in just the first year after enactment of Card Check (as predicted by union leaders) would lead to an initial loss of 600,000 American jobs."

Gingrich cites the same figure:

"That means that an estimated 600,000 jobs could be lost due to Card Check in the first year alone - and that's on top of the over four million jobs already lost to the flagging economy."

Yet, the Obama Administration - along with extreme liberals in Congress like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - want to fast-track “Card Check.”

They'd love to pass it before you are any the wiser.

It's high time that people learn that the well-being of the American people means nothing to those who want power and the advancement of an extreme left-wing agenda. In fact, to them, it would appear that your misery is just sauce for the goose.

Vice President Joe Biden recently told a group of labor leaders:

"You all brought me to the dance a long time ago, and it's time we start dancing."

The stakes are high. We must move quickly!

Use the hyperlink below and send your personalized Blast Fax messages to President Barack Obama and EACH AND EVERY ONE of the Republican Members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives!

Demand that they do whatever it takes to stop this direct assault on our freedoms and the freedoms of our children and grandchildren that is being deceptively titled the Employee Free Choice Act!

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/nocardcheck.html

AOL Members May Use This Hyperlink

If the hyperlinks above do not work, copy and paste http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/nocardcheck.html into the address bar of your browser.

Yours In Freedom,

Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org

P.S. Please help us reach as many concerned Americans as possible by forwarding this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends and family members.

Center for Individual Freedom
113 S. Columbus St., Suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-535-5836
Fax:703-535-5838

CFIF is a 501(c)(4) not-for-profit constitutional advocacy organization with
the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.

Contributions to CFIF are
not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Contributions may be deductible as a business expense.

Powered by GrassTopsUSA

Mob Rule In D.C.

2009-03-20T17:00:00.002-08:00

Mob Rule In D.C.

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, March 20, 2009 4:20 PM PT

The Law: Of all the alarming things going on in Washington these days nothing is as shocking, or disheartening, as the collapse in respect for the rule of law and the Constitution. Just look at the flap over AIG's bonuses.

Like most Americans, we found ourselves angry and perplexed that a company that took $173 billion in bailout aid because it had failed to run its affairs competently would hand out $165 million in "bonuses" to its top employees.

Yet, as with many things, the tale is a bit more complex than the sound bite. For one, Congress authorized the bonuses to be paid — at the direct instigation of Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who took $103,100 from AIG during the 2008 political cycle.

And while letting AIG pay some employees retention bonuses might seem wrong or even immoral to some, it wasn't illegal.

Yet Congress, which created the problem in the first place, acted with consummate cowardice by trying to "claw back" the money through a punitive, 90% retroactive tax, one specially levied on those who work at AIG. It wants to do the same thing with recipients of TARP money, too.

Why the big change? Public anger. Welcome to mob rule.

A measure to impose the 90% tax passed by more than a two-thirds majority, 328 to 93, in the House. Only problem is, it's almost certainly unconstitutional.

Our Founding Fathers, those towering thinkers who today get little but scorn from our elites for their brilliance, foresaw such shenanigans and warned against it. They knew the law could be used for political purposes, and wanted to make sure it couldn't.

That's why they put into the Constitution a provision against "bills of attainder" — attempts to legislate punishment for a specific group or person for past actions without benefit of a trial.

As James Madison wrote in the Federalist No. 44, "Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws and laws impairing the obligation of contracts are contrary to the first principles of the social compact and to every principle of sound legislation." They were explicitly made illegal by the Constitution, with Article I, Section 9 saying, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

The AIG tax is an ex post facto law, it is a bill of attainder and it definitely impairs the obligation of contracts. Three strikes.

We wish this was all, but it isn't. Democrats who routinely bashed President Bush for his supposed breaches of the law now show shockingly little respect for it themselves.

One sees it in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's recent comment that enforcing U.S. immigration laws is "un-American," one of the most astonishing utterances from a politician's mouth in decades.

One sees it too in the unilateral abrogation of the North American Free Trade Agreement by the White House, working in cahoots with Democrats in Congress and unions. The decision to ignore our treaty obligations by ending a NAFTA program that let a small number of Mexican trucks haul freight on U.S. roads has led Mexico to slap tariffs of up to 45% on U.S. goods, costing us 40,000 jobs.

And one sees it in the plan to take away workers' right to a secret union ballot in the Democrats' card-check legislation.

All these measures show the rest of the world that America, once a beacon of respect for the rule of law and a global leader in jurisprudence, is capable of extraordinary hypocrisy when it comes to the law.

You don't have to like or agree with the AIG bonuses to understand that Congress is doing something it shouldn't under the Constitution. Once a precedent is set, Congress will be able to go after anyone or any group, at any time, for any reason.

This bill is bad and unconstitutional. It was passed — let's face it — because Congress fears the people's wrath. The bill doesn't stand up to legal scrutiny. But then, neither does this Congress.

Promises, Promises, no action, no truth

2009-03-19T21:32:00.003-08:00

Dear DAVID,

Washington , D.C. right now is like one of those old fashioned records that scratched and so it keeps playing the same tune over and over.

President Obama and Speaker Pelosi slam through a $787 billion “stimulus” bill to “save the economy.” Then, they pass a $410 billion omnibus spending bill with 8,500 earmarks even though Obama campaigned on a promise to end earmarks.

Let your Senator Know that a Trillion Dollar Tax Hike Deserves Proper Debate on the Senate Floor

Call the Senate Switch Board at 202-224-3121.

Working with 465,000 Americans who signed on through NoStimulus.com we fought them every step of the way and came within 1 vote of victory in the Senate. We said the “stimulus” bill had waste and abuses in it and we were right more than even we knew.

Did you see the latest outrage?

These $165 million in bonuses to the people who ran AIG into the ground and have now taken over $130 billion in taxpayer bailout money – turns out someone slipped into the 1,000 page “stimulus” bill a provision allowing these bonuses to be paid even after our taxpayer bailout money was given to the company.

That’s what happens when they pass a 1,000 page $787 billion wasteful spending bill…especially when they pass it with no oversight and little study under pressure of politicians like President Obama and Speaker Pelosi.

But now we need to make sure your Senator is aware that we will be paying attention to the truly dangerous $3.6 trillion 2010 Obama budget. Some quick numbers:

Raises taxes by a net of $1.35 TRILLION in next decade – big increases in income taxes and the death tax comes back.
Adds an estimated $1.7 TRILLION in new debt just this year – the actual budget deficit will be an estimated 12% of our total GDP (gross domestic product).
Federal Government spending will account for 27.7% of our total economy. Think about it – the federal government will be spending more than $1 in every $4 spent in the American economy under the Obama budget.
Institutes an Enery Tax on energy totaling over $1 trillion. Gasoline will go up by at least 50%. Home energy costs will skyrocket. Food costs and consumer product costs will rise. This Energy Tax is hidden in a scheme called “Cap and Trade.” This “Cap and Trade” scheme will have the government rationing energy and thus driving up the costs of energy to consumers.
For more information on Obama’s “Cap and Trade” scheme use this address http://www.americansforprosperity.org/022709-obamas-energy-tax information.

There’s more. President Obama is attempting to pass his “Cap and Trade” scheme with only 50 votes in the Senate instead of the 60 required for most legislation by using a Washington procedural trick called “reconciliation.” Click here for an article by Americans for Prosperity’s own Phil Kerpen that provides more details.

But the bottom line is simple. Unless we act now the Senate may very well use a procedural maneuver to pass this massive Energy Tax called “Cap and Trade” without proper debate and with only 50 votes instead of the 60 that should be required under Senate rules.

I’m asking you to call your Senator now at 202-224-3121 and demand that the Energy Tax vote on “Cap and Trade” be done without “reconciliation” – for a $1 trillion tax increase the Senate should have to have 60 votes instead of 50!

Address here to contact your Senator:

http://capwiz.com/americansforprosperity/issues/alert/?alertid=12951421&type=CO

That’s the message in a nutshell.

It’s hard to believe the assault our economic freedoms are under. In fact, it can get down right maddening.

But as Americans we can and must respond the way we do to every serious challenge to our freedom and prosperity – by standing up and fighting.

At Americans for Prosperity, that’s exactly what we are doing.

Tim

PS Again, I urge you to contact your Senators now and tell them that the vote on the $1 trillion Energy Tax called “Cap and Trade” must be made without “reconciliation” because the Senate should follow its rules and require 60 votes, not 50, for such a huge tax increase.

Use the address below to contact your Senator by .......

http://capwiz.com/americansforprosperity/issues/alert/?alertid=12951421&type=CO

If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please click here.

Imagine being a Cop in SF?

2009-03-19T21:16:00.003-08:00

Subject: Fw: Imagine being a Cop in SF?

And you think YOUR Police Department is flakey…!!!???

Imagine being a cop in San Francisco .

Chief Heather Fong (left), the first SFPD female chief of police;

Theresa Sparks (center, former male), president of the San Francisco Police Commission, CEO of a multi million-dollar sex toy retailer, and a trans gender woman.

Sgt. Stephan Thorne (right, former female), the first transgender SFPD police officer.

Their Representative in Congress is Nancy Pelosi.

No wonder I wonder about Polisi.

Illegal Alien Amnesty Coming Soon!

2009-03-19T20:19:00.002-08:00

Yesterday, Obama promised Hispanic Caucus an Illegal Alien Amnesty Coming Soon!

Pelosi calls enforcement "un-American"

Help us Smash Amnesty and "re-educate" Pelosi

DEAR DAVID ANDERSON,

This is hell week for immigration enforcement. If you care about this issue, please read this entire email carefully, and then take every step we ask. Here's the update:

1. Yesterday President Obama seemed to rent out his immigration policy to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Mexican government.

2. And on Saturday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was caught on tape saying that immigration enforcement agents are "un-American" when they acted to enforce the laws.

Maybe you'll want to rub your eyes two or three times and re-read the above paragraphs.

Statements like "renting out" his foreign policy to the Mexican government are pretty alarming. We at NumbersUSA are usually careful to avoid heated rhetoric.

But read the details, and you'll see while I HAVE to let off some steam this time!

After spending the first weeks of his term engulfed by the financial mess, Obama has decided it's time to make nice with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. In a meeting with them yesterday in California, he promised to push ahead soon with the same "Immigration Reform"—i.e. Illegal Alien Amnesty—that McCain and Kennedy were promoting back in 2007.

Obama said he would soon be traveling to Mexico to meet with Mexico's President Calderon to work out immigration policy. That sounds like Obama is going to let the country responsible for sending us the most illegal aliens re-write America's immigration laws. What's next?

And did you hear about the House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi's wild statement? She called our immigration enforcement officials "un-American" for deporting illegal aliens. (This was actually caught on tape.)

Do you see where this is heading? The administration and Democratic leaders in Congress have removed all doubt about where they stand.

Amnesty for the 11-12 million illegal aliens is inevitable, unless we act now.

Please take all these actions:

1. Go to www.NumbersUSA.com. Send these faxes telling the President, Rep. Pelosi, and your members of Congress that you will never agree to Amnesty.

2. Phone the President and your members of Congress. Let's break the Congressional and White House switchboards today and tomorrow!

3. Make a gift to NumbersUSA so that we can ramp up our efforts right now, as the fight grows deadly earnest.

I need 2,000 of our members to press that Red Button and donate in the next 24 hours. Our members sent 100,000 faxes yesterday alone! Obviously, this takes money.

If this is your first donation, even better! At least 1/3 of the 2,000 donations we need in the next 24 hours must come from members who have never given before if we are to meet our goal.

We literally cannot send your faxes and maintain our lobbying efforts without funding from our members.

So please, press that red button (You will find the red button when you bring in
www.NumbersUSA.com.) and help us once again this month. We've got our perfect record on stopping illegal alien amnesties to protect. And it's time to "take the fight to the enemy!"

Remember, if you are ill, unemployed, or living on a small fixed income, please do not contribute. We only ask for help from those able to help.

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE,

SOLUTION & MEDICINE

2009-03-19T18:19:00.001-08:00

THANKS GARDNER WE APPRECIATE THIS.

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
SOLUTION

This was an article from the St. Petersburg Times Newspaper on Sunday. The Business Section asked readers for ideas on "How Would You Fix the Economy?"

I thought this was the BEST idea.

I think this guy nailed it!

Dear Mr.President,

Patriotic retirement:

There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force;

pay them $1 million a piece severance with stipulations:

1) They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.

2) They buy NEW American cars. Forty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed.

3) They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage- Housing Crisis fixed.

All this and it's still cheaper than the "bailout".

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
MEDICINE

MEDICINE

An Israeli doctor said to a medical conference, "Medicine in my country is
so advanced, we can take a kidney out of one person, put it into another and
have him looking for work in six weeks!"

The German doctor stood up and said, "Well medicine in my county is so
advanced, we can take a lung out of one person and put it into another and
have him looking for work on 4 weeks"

The Russian doctor got up and said "My country is even more advanced, we can
remove half a heart from one person, put it
into another and have them both looking for work in just 2 weeks!"

Not to be outdone, the American doctor stood up and addressed the
conference, "Well", he said, "My country is so far advanced in medicine, we
can take an Asshole out of Chicago , put him in the White House, and have
half the country looking for work in 24 hours!"

CLEANER. I SUPPOSE?

2009-03-19T11:07:00.003-08:00

SOMETHING SOME TIMES FOR ALL OF US.

1st came the commemorative coins, then the T-shirts, then the plates, & now something for the rest of us ..

Speaker Pelosi is a saint."

2009-03-19T11:00:00.001-08:00

THIS BIT OF HUMOR FROM MINNIE IS PASSED ON TO ALL WITH A SMILE AND A WINK.

Nancy Pelosi is now a Saint....CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS ?

On a Saturday afternoon, in Washington, D. C., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's aide visited the Cardinal of the Catholic cathedral.

He told the Cardinal that Nancy Pelosi would be attending the next day's sermon, and he asked if the Cardinal would kindly point out Pelosi to the congregation and say a few words that would include calling Pelosi a saint.

The Cardinal replied, "No. I don't really like the woman, and there
are issues of conflict with the Catholic Church over certain of Pelosi's views." Pelosi's aide then said, "Look. I'll write a check here and now for a donation of $100,000 to your church if you'll just tell the
congregation you see Pelosi as a saint."

The Cardinal thought about it and said, "Well, the church can use the money, so I'll work your request into tomorrow's sermon." As Pelosi's aide promised, House Speaker Pelosi appeared for the Sunday sermon and seated herself prominently at the edge of the main aisle.

And, during the sermon, as promised, the Cardinal pointed out that House Speaker Pelosi was present.

Then the Cardinal went on to explain to the congregation -- "While Speaker Pelosi's presence is probably an honor to some, she is not my favorite person. Some of her views are contrary to those of the church, and she tends to flip-flop on many other views. Nancy Pelosi is a petty, self-absorbed hypocrite, a thumb sucker, and a nit-wit. Nancy Pelosi is also a serial liar, a cheat, and a thief.

Nancy Pelosi is the worst example of a Catholic I have ever personally witnessed.

She married for money and is using it to lie to the American people. She also has a reputation for shirking her Representative obligations both in Washington, and in California. She simply is not to be trusted."

The Cardinal completed his view of Pelosi with, "But, when compared to Senators Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and John Kerry, House Speaker Pelosi is a saint."

.

Bush's Big Victory

2009-03-19T10:42:00.002-08:00

Bush's Big Victory

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, March 16, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Mideast: In most ways, the news from Iraq couldn't be better. People there feel more secure, and are more committed to democracy, than ever. Is it possible that President Bush was right after all?

A poll of average Iraqis conducted by ABC News, the BBC and Japan's NHK shows significant progress on virtually all fronts. Yet, we've heard nary a peep about it from anyone.

Some 85% of respondents said their neighborhood security was "good," vs. 62% a year ago and just 43% in August of 2007. And 52% said security had gotten better in the last year — during the Bush-Petraeus "surge," which was widely ridiculed at the time as an unnecessary escalation of the Iraq War.

Support for democracy jumped to 64%, a 21-percentage-point gain since 2007, according to a report on CNSNews.com. As for how Iraqis felt about the general state of affairs in Iraq, 58% called it "very good" or "quite good," up significantly from 43% last year and 22% in 2007.

When asked what their concerns are today, Iraqis sound a lot like Americans: Jobs and prices are at the top of their list — not war, not security, not terrorism.

In short, it sounds like we not only won the war, but the peace as well. And for those who cast a skeptical eye on the idea that any Islamic country could ever be democratized, it turns out the former President Bush is winning that debate too.

With President Obama in the middle of withdrawing troops from Iraq on a schedule that looks suspiciously identical to the one that Bush had in place, it's safe to say that Obama increasingly sees the wisdom of what his predecessor tried to do in Iraq.

Maybe the rest of us should as well.

It's become de rigueur to deride Bush's "failed" policies in Iraq. No one speaks well of them — except, maybe, Iraqis.

But here are the facts, stark as they are: During his vicious 20-year reign, Saddam Hussein — remember him? — killed an estimated 5% of Iraq's population. That works out to about 5,000 people a month slaughtered by the regime.

You might disagree that Bush was right to depose this murderous thug. But in doing so, you would then have to defend the deaths of thousands of innocents.

For those who say Bush went to war in Iraq under false pretenses — you know, "Bush lied, people died" — there's this: He made a lengthy, nuanced defense of his decision to get rid of Saddam. It was reflected in Congress' own resolution in late 2002, which cited 23 reasons for removing Saddam from power.

The ideas that it was all about oil or that Congress was bamboozled on WMD are both false.

Bush, Congress and our foreign allies all saw the same intelligence, and all came to the same conclusion: Saddam had a nuclear weapons program, and intended to build one as soon as he was able. That was, and remained, true.

After being bashed relentlessly in the media and on the campaign trail, President Bush left the White House with his approval ratings low and little, except his dignity, intact.

If he is to have a Truman-like reprieve in the public eye, it will surely come as we all start to realize that on Iraq, contrary to popular and elite opinion, Bush got it right. Mission accomplished.

Email To Friend |

Billing Veterans’ Private Insurance

2009-03-19T10:14:00.002-08:00

This, folks, is another example of what the President and the Democratic
party think of the Veteran.

When there is a need for the Veteran to put his/her body in harms way "well
that's what they get paid for" id the statement coming from the mouths of these
that would shut down the military if it were left to them.

the idea of forcing military to provide insurance for reasons of keeping the
nation from providing what it should for the rehabilitation and health care
for their wounded smacks to me of out and out treason.

But I digress, it is the hatred spilling from the soul of the President and
his followers, socialist communists all. I am afraid that what we sow is
what we will reap. President Obama has sown the seeds of socialism and this
in turn flourishes as communism.

CNSNews.com
Pelosi: Obama Scraps Idea of Billing Veterans’ Private Insurance for Treating Service-Related Injuries
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
By Fred Lucas and Michael Chapman

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) (AP Photo) (CNSNews.com) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced on Wednesday afternoon that President Barack Obama is shelving a controversial proposal that would have forced the private health insurance of veterans to pay for their war- and service-related injuries.

“President Obama listened to the genuine concerns expressed by the veteran service organizations regarding the option of billing service-connected injuries to veterans’ insurance companies,” said Pelosi. “Based on the respect President Obama has for veterans and the principle concerns of our veteran leaders, the president made the decision that combat wounds should not be billed through their insurance policies.”

Pelosi made her comments at a meeting with veterans’ service organizations at the Capitol in Washington, D.C. After her announcement, the group gave her a standing ovation.

The proposal, which was discussed in recent hearings of the Veterans Affairs committees in the House and Senate and in the House Budget Committee, would have shifted more of the cost for service-related injuries from the government--through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)--to the private, third-party insurance plans held by many veterans.

Currently, the VA covers the full cost of medical ailments related to military service and bills third-party insurers only for non-service related ailments.

For example, if an injured veteran is treated for the flu, the veteran’s personal insurance is billed. If the injured veteran is treated for a service-related injury and requires hearing aids or prosthetics, for example, the VA covers the cost. The proposal Obama has decided to abandon would have shifted the expense of treating service-related injuries and illnesses from the VA to private insurance companies.

Last week, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed to the House and Senate committees on veterans’ affairs that the idea to bill veterans’ private individual insurance was being considered by the administration but was not yet a formal proposal.

“It is a consideration. It is not in the budget, but it is a consideration, and I'll be sure that your concerns are delivered,” Shinseki told the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee. “And again, we’re talking--in health care--the two aspects of this are delivery of health care and the financing of it. This is about the financing. I want to assure you that there should be no concern about the delivery.”

But the idea had already generated strong opposition from veterans’ groups and members of Congress, and the veterans’ service organizations were making their concerns known to the White House.

Also last week, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, said, “I believe that veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line for our safety. When our troops are injured while serving this country, we should take care of those injuries completely. We shouldn’t nickel and dime them with their care.”

House Veterans Affairs Committee Rep. Michael Michaud (D-Me.) told Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki during the Mar. 10 hearing, “If that [third-party payment proposal] is in the budget, I will not be supporting the budget. It is unconscionable and is an insult to our veterans who've been hurt overseas. So hopefully, you will give that message to OMB as it relates to third-party collections for disabled veterans, which is just unbelievable that anyone would ever think of doing that in this budget.”

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the ranking member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, also expressed opposition. “If this proposal reaches the Senate, I will strongly oppose it,” Burr told CNSNews.com in a statement Monday.

“The VA was created for the purpose of caring for those who have fought and sacrificed for our country, and the care for injuries sustained while serving is our responsibility.”

On Wednesday, before Pelosi announced that Obama was scrapping the proposal, a couple members of Congress spoke with CNSNews.com about the issue.

"I'm for keeping the veterans organization the way it is right now," said Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). "I look at the VA this way -- 80 years ago the VA system was set up so that people who served to defend our freedom wouldn't have to be on charity. I think the system is still very good."

In reference to U.S. veterans, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said, " I think they've done enough. I certainly don't want them to have to pay out of their own pockets."

Goodbye Farmer's Market.

2009-03-18T21:12:00.001-08:00

Goodbye Farmer's Market.
OBAMA STRIKES AGAIN!! KILL THE GARDENERS!!9

> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:42:44 -0500
> Subject: OBAMA STRIKES AGAIN!! KILL THE GARDENERS!!9 (pleasse read this)
>
> I am writing you today to URGE you to contact your Congressmen and
> Senators, and urge them to oppose Bill HR 875 in its current form.
>
> In the guise of ensuring "FOOD SAFETY", President Obama is pushing
> through a law that will make the ONLY "Federally-sanctioned" as 'safe'
> food, or seeds, those supplied by LARGE COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURAL OUTFITS
> like Monsanto, and will OUTLAW BACKYARD VEGETABLE GARDENS. I know this
> sounds ridiculous, but I have read the text of the law, and NO WHERE IN
> IT ARE ANY EXCEPTIONS FROM THE LAW MADE FOR SMALL BACKYARD VEGETABLE
> GARDENS OR SMALL FARMS. Under the provisions of this law, as written,
> you could NOT, legally, buy heirloom seed and then harvest and re-use
> your own seed; you could ONLY legally purchase "govenment - approved"
> seed. You could NOT, under this law, raise your own vegetables and
> fruits and then sell -- or even GIVE--them to your neighbor. You would
> no longer be able to take your kids down to the local "pick-your-own"
> blueberry or strawberry farms, or buy from the roadside backyard grower
> of garden vegetables, or even grow your own vegetable plants, fruit
> trees, or nut trees, for your own consumption. Under this new law, ANY
> of these acts would be ILLEGAL without first having obtained "government
> approval" that your product is "safe"---BUT, the legal red tape and
> paperwork and INSPECTIONS required, to OBTAIN this "approval", would
> make the expense so great that only the LARGEST agricultural monopolies
> would be able to meet the costs.
>
> I know this isn't the "intent" of the Bill, but there's no language in
> it "exempting" small gardeners or small farmers. The Bill is ANOTHER
> example of the "law of unintended consequences" (just like the recent
> "lead" laws), in that it imposes a "one-size-fits-all" rule regarding
> seed propagation and purchasing, and food propagation, that backyard
> gardeners and small farmers will NOT be able to comply with.
>
> Here's the info on the bill---PLEASE help get the word out, and contact
> your representatives! If the government has total control of the food
> supply--SO THAT WE CAN'T EVEN BE FOOD-INDEPENDENT, BUT MUST RELY ON
> GOVT.-APPROVED SOURCES FOR ALL OUR FOOD--then what's to prevent what
> happened to the Ukraine under Stalin, from happening here?
>
> The info and links on the Bill:
>
> Fight HR 875 - Say good-bye to homegrown Gardens!
>
>
> PLEASE GET ACQUAINTED WITH HR 875 (THE FOOD SAFETY MODERNIZATION ACT OF
> 2009), which is currently under consideration by Congress. The proposed
> bill is in response to the many recent episodes of contaminated food
> problems (i.e. salmonella and peanuts). Like many laws, it is well
> intended, but will have disastrous outcomes:
>
> DO YOU LIKE YOUR HEIRLOOM TOMATOES?........DO YOU APPRECIATE SHARING
> HOME GROWN VEGETABLES WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS?.....do you support local
> farmers.....local farmer's markets.....organic farming practices? ENJOY
> IT WHILE YOU CAN.....THIS BILL HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CRIMINALIZE SHARING
> OR DISTRIBUTING FOOD OR SEEDS THAT ARE NOT SANCTIONED BY THE FEDERAL
> GOVERNMENT.
>
> The bill has the potential to lead to such strict control of the food
> supply, that only the BIG GROWERS will have the facilities and finances
> to conform to the new regulations.
>
> The act can force farmers to use chemicals and genetically modified
> seeds (purchased from the major agricultural companies) in order to make
> the food "safe". The penalties for not using the "safe" seeds and plants
> are so severe (up to $500,000) that it would put local, back yard and
> organic farmers out of business. Seed banks and heirloom plants could be
> forbidden because they could be viewed as a potential source of
> contamination.
>
> HERE IS A LINK TO THE TEXT AND STATUS OF THE BILL. IT IS PENDING A VOTE
> BY THE HOUSE AND SENATE:
>
> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-875
>
> THE LEGISLATION IS ON A 'FAST TRACK' FOR APPROVAL:
>
> http://ecochildsplay.com/2009/03/10/could-the-food-safety-modernization-act-of-2009-be-the-end-to-farmers-markets-and-organic-farms/
>
>
> I have contacted my Senators and Representative and I ask you to do the
> same. Please contact your congressman and speak out against HR 875 in
> its current form.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows Live™ Contacts: Organize your contact list. Check it out.

2009-03-18T20:57:00.002-08:00

A democrat's confession

I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now
marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.

I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies'
profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the
government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a
better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I voted Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long
as nobody is offended by it.

I voted Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust
that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because
they now think we're good people.

I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to
own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to
protect me from murderers and thieves.

I voted Democrat because I believe that people who
can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that
the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I
don't start driving a Prius.

I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about the
slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death
row inmates alive.

I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not
be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to
break even and give the rest away to the government for
redistribution as THEY see fit.

I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to
rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe
kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my
rectum that it is unlikely that I'll ever have another
point of view.

"A Liberal is a person who will give away

everything they don't own."

"The problem with Socialism is that you

eventually run out of other peoples's

money". Margaret Thatcher

Economic terms we should all know..

2009-03-18T20:47:00.000-08:00

Economic terms we should all know..

1. Recession: when your neighbor loses his job.
2. Depression: when you lose yours..
3. Recovery: when Obama loses his.

____________________________________________________________

AN OPINION FROM THE EDITOR

2009-03-15T22:43:00.000-08:00

THIS IS YOUR EDITOR VENTING SOME THOUGHTS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE RELEVANT TO TODAY'S FOULED AS USUAL SO CALLED LEADERS AND THUSLY OUR COUNTRY.

AGAIN TODAY THERE ARE READINGS, CLIPS OF READINGS, IN THE NEWS AND ON THE TUBE ABOUT THE NEED FOR A 'PRIVATE' CIVILIAN ARMY. A LA THE BROWN SHIRTS OF 1920 TO 1945 GERMANY AND THE BEGINNING OF THE NAZI PARTY.

THE REASON THAT OBAMA WANTS A CIVILIAN POLICE FORCE IS FOR THE EVENTUAL USE . REMEMBER IF YOU WILL (THOSE WHO WERE AROUND AT THAT TIME, AND THOSE THAT WERE TAUGHT IN THE PAST REAL SCHOOLS OF RIGHTEOUS EDUCATION) THAT THE COLLAPSE OF THE MARK AND THE LOSS OF JOBS CREATED THE RIPE TIMING FOR THE REAL POLITICAL DISCORD THAT HITLER WANTED.

WITH DISCORD COMES HATE AND WITH HATE COMES DESPAIR. THIS FURTHER AGGRAVATES THE RIOTOUS SITUATION AND LAYS BIRTH FOR THE ACTION OF IMPLEMENTING THE BROWN SHIRTS.

I DIGRESS FOR A MOMENT TO LAY OUT WHAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW TODAY IN OUR OWN COUNTRY THANKS TO THE SELF PROCLAIMED MESSIAH.

1. Origins and early existence: 1918-1923 GERMANY 2008 TO ???? USA
IN A MERE 5 YEARS HITLER WAS ABLE TO CAUSE ENOUGH DISCORD
HATE AND POVERTY THAT THE RECRUITMENT OF THE BROWN
SHIRTS WAS SIMPLIFIED BY THE PROMISES THAT BY JOINING THE
PEOPLE WOULD RISE TO POWER AND AGAIN DOMINATE THEIR
FUTURE.

IF IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS (ENDING WITH A POSSIBLE
REELECTION OF OBAMA) WE DO NOT REACT IN A POSITIVE WAY
WE WILL HAVE THE BROWN SHIRTS OF AMERICA FACING US MUCH
THE SAME WAY THE GERMAN PEOPLE DID BY 1923.

THIS ECONOMIC DISASTER, FOR THE MAJOR PART, CAN BE LAID
AT THE FEET OBAMA, FRANK, DODD, BIDEN, PELOSI, REED AND
REST OF THE DEMOCRATS THAT ARE SELF-SERVING USERS OF
TAX MONEY TO RETAIN POWER. AS POWER IS ALL THEY KNOW.

OBAMA IS USING THE ECONOMIC CRISIS TO FORWARD HIS
AGENDA OF HAVING A 'CIVILIAN ARMY'. AND TO WHAT END IS
THE GOAL. IT CAN ONLY BE THE SUPPRESSION OF THE PEOPLES
RIGHTS.

THUS THE ORIGIN OF OBAMA'S RISE FROM THE DEPTHS.

2 Rise to power: 1925-1933
HITLER USED THE RIOTS AND CLASHES AND THE JEWISH
SITUATION TO SOLIDIFY HIS POWER AND IT BECAME ABSOLUTE
BY SEPT. 1933.

THE FEDERAL (GERMAN) ELECTIONS RESULTED IN HIS FINAL
RISE .

DOES OBAMA HAVE THAT MANY YEARS TO SOLIDIFY HIS
POSITION? AT THE RATE HE IS GOING IT WILL BE SOONER
THAN YOU THINK.

CONSIDER THIS, IT TOOK MINIMUM TIME A BIT OVER 143 DAYS
ACTING AS A SENATOR AND THEN MERE MONTHS WITH THE
HELP OF A MESMERIZED MEDIA TO BECOME THE CANDIDATE
OF CHOICE (NOT MINE THO) AND THEN TO WIN THE ELECTION.

THUS HIS RISE TO POWER. AND NOTE IT WAS WITH FEDERAL
ELECTION. IRONIC YES

3 In power: 1933-1945
HITLER WAS ABLE TO RETAIN POWER FOR AS LONG AS DID BY
VIRTUE OF FEAR (GESTOPO AND SS). BUT THE TIME WAS NOT WHAT
WAS PLANED FOR A 1000 YEAR REIFH. BUT GREED AND DISTRUST
REARED ITS UGLY HEAD AND HITLER HAD MANY OF HIS BEST
GENERALS LILLED MANY OTHERS JUST FLAT GAVE UP. AND IN
THE END THE COLLAPSE CAME.

OBAMA ON THE OTHER HAND MUST FACE REELECTION THAT IS
IF OUR GOVERNMENT THEN IS STILL FREE. THIS MIGHT LIMIT
TENURE AGAIN IF WE ARE STILL ABLE TO EXERCISE OUR SECRET
VOTE (THAT IS NOT LIKE THE PROPOSED UNION VOTE -
OPEN) AND WITH OUT THE BROWN SHIRTS HELPING MAKE
OUR MARK.

4 War and eclipse
AS THE WARS HITLER WAS FIGHTING WERE GOING AWRY
AND HIS GENERALS BEING KILLED AT HIS ORDER OR DIS-
OBEYING FULTILE ORDERS HIS DEMISE WAS INEVITABLE
AND RATHER THAN FACE FAULT HE CHOSE TO END HIS LIFE.

THUS WAR AND ECLIPSE FOR THE DEMON OF OUR TIME.

AS FOR THE CURRENT IDIOT IN CHARGE WE FACE WAR
WITH ANY NUMBER OF ARAB NATIONS THAT TOTALLY HATE
US FOR THE SOLE REASON WE ARE'FREE'

MILIITARY STRENGTH IS NOT TO RUN ROUGH SHOD OVER
ANOTHER BUT RATHER SERVE NOTICE THAT
TRANSGRESSIONS AGAINST US WILL NOT SERVE THE
PERPETRATOR WELL. AND THERE IN IS THE PROBLEM I
HAVE. AFTER EVERY WAR THE IS PAID FOR IN AMERICAN
BLOOD THE PEACENICS COME TO THE FRONT AND CARVE
UP THE MILITARY. AND AT THE SAME TIME THEY BEGIN TO
THE BUILD UP OF CROOKED MEMBERSHIP IN ANY
NUMBER OF BOGUS ENTITIES THAT BECOME A PART OF
SPEARHEAD TO DESTROY THE COUNTRY. ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER. STRIKES (BREAK THE COMPANY), SLOWDOWNS,
TC.

HOW THIS IS HAPPENING NOW IS THE MEDIA IS STILL
PREACHING THE GODLINESS OF OBAMA. YET TRUTH IS
THIS COMMUNIST IS THE CAUSE OF ONE THIRD OF THE
NATIONS WEALTH GOING DOWN THE TUBES, AND ALL OF
WITH THE PLEASURE OF A BUNCH OF CRONIES IN THE
HOUSE AND SENATE.

THUS THE ECLIPSE OF A STRONG MILITARY AND THE
SHADOW IS ABOUT THERE.

5. Recuitment and enlistment.
SAY NO TO ANY ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CIVILIAN FORCE.
ITS CHARTER WOULD SURELY BE TO AID IN DESTROYING
AND FRACTURING THE NATION,

BEFORE JOINING SOMETHING FIND OUT WHO, WHAT,
WHY. THEN MAKE YOUR DECISION.

DO NOT LET YOURSELF BE TALKED OR LURED INTO THAT
WHICH YOU KNOW IS WRONG. IF IT IS WRONG FOR ONE
IT IS WRONG PERIOD.

IF YOU WOULD BE SO KIND I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR CRITICS AND YOUR OPINIONS, I AM DAVE ANDERSON OAD@ALASAKA.NET

Trouble in Mexico?

2009-03-15T18:32:00.007-08:00

Those groups of people wanting to disarm our country must have lost all association with reality, Unarmed Masses are ripe for plucking, Remember how the German nation was taken from the internal revolt that was in the beginning a way to overturn the government, and being unarmed those opposed to the the take over were
unable to fight the SS, Gestapo and the the Brown shirts, Unarmed is an invitation to destruction of the free nation,

Our internal traitors (starting with Obama0 will use any and all means to disarm us and turn us into a slave state. Beware of the ides of March for the Traitor is
acting now. I am Dave Anderson oad@alaska.net comments please.

Trouble in Mexico? Anti-Gunners Say, "Blame America."

Friday, March 13, 2009

Over the past few weeks, the number of stories in the press regarding the escalating violence in Mexico has dramatically increased. Now, hardly a day goes by when another story describing the atrocities committed by violent drug cartels cannot be found in an American newspaper or on a cable news channel.

Gun owners need to pay attention to these stories, because the opponents of our Second Amendment rights are starting to use this situation as a pretext to push their gun ban agenda here in the United States.

New Attorney General Eric Holder is the first Administration official to cite Mexican drug cartel killings as an excuse to reinstate the semi-auto ban. And now some in Congress have jumped on the bandwagon.

Just this week, two House subcommittees held hearings on the issue. The Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism of the House Homeland Security Committee had a hearing entitled "Border Violence: An Examination of DHS Strategies and Resources," while the House subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs held a hearing entitled "Money, Guns, and Drugs: Are U.S. Inputs Fueling Violence on the U.S.-Mexico Border." At the latter hearing, leading anti-gun absolutist Tom Diaz (senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center) testified, calling for a litany of new gun laws including the reinstatement of the 1994 "assault weapons" and magazine ban. Andrew Selee, Director of the Woodrow Wilson Center's Mexico Institute echoed the call for more gun laws.

Fortunately, Arizona State Senator Jonathon Paton (R-AZ) also testified but noted that new gun laws were not the answer. Paton correctly stated that securing our borders, increased local federal cooperation and enforcing our existing gun laws is the right approach. NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox also provided written testimony to the subcommittee that you can read here.

But don't count on the gun ban crowd to get that message. They see an opportunity to use fear created by the violence in Mexico to advance their domestic anti-gun agenda.

The Senate Judiciary Committee's Crime and Drugs subcommittee and the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control have already set a hearing for next Tuesday, March 17. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) is expected to use that forum to blame American gun owners and American gun laws for the violence in Mexico. Her solution, once again, will almost certainly be to restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans. We can once again expect Senator "Mr. and Mrs. American, turn them in" to call for a new gun ban. And on March 25, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on U.S.—Mexico Border Violence.

Gun owners know that restricting our rights will not stop Mexican drug lords from arming themselves. More U.S. gun laws will not stop these mass murderers who are already armed with military hardware such as grenades, anti-tank missiles, and mortars--weapons that are certainly not generally available to American gun buyers.

Just as they have so many times before, the gun ban crowd is blaming criminal violence—this time in a foreign country—on American gun owners. If we are to prevail and stop them from dismantling our rights, we have to be vigilant. NRA will continue to monitor these hearings and report to you on their content.

To read additional testimony and opening remarks from the House subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs hearing, please use the following links:

http://nationalsecurity.oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=2343

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/ushousehearings/031209/MemobytheMajorityStaff.pdf

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/ushousehearings/031209/OpeningStmntJeffFlake.pdf

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/ushousehearings/031209/TestimonyMichaelABraun.pdf

Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy

Links to Congress
The U.S. Senate

U.S. House of Representatives

Senate Schedule

House schedule today

Search THOMAS

New Jersey Assembly Passes Two Pro-Hunting Measures!

Connecticut: “Micro-Stamping” Bill Heard Yesterday in Hartford

Your Help is Needed Today to Protect Arkansas’ Hunting Heritage!

South Dakota: Governor Signs Bill Repealing Waiting Period!

New Hampshire: Join GO-NH for Their Free “Round-Up” on Tuesday, March 17!

MORE >>

Voter Information

Grass Roots Activism
Volunteers Needed In Phoenix For 2009 NRA Annual Meetings

Redesigned NRA T-Shirt Available NOW!

"I'm A Bitter Gun Owner And I Vote!" Yard Signs Available Now

Another Way To Get Involved And Make A Difference

Time Is Running Out To Register To Vote!

National Park Service Calls For Lead Ammo Ban: The National Park Service (NPS) has announced its intention to ban traditional ammunition containing lead in all its parks. The move would needlessly push hunters to use more costly bullets made of tungsten, copper, and steel. The restrictions, set to take effect by the end of 2010, were announced without regard to science and without soliciting feedback from sportsmens' groups.

Volunteers Needed In Phoenix For 2009 NRA Annual Meetings: The 2009 NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits will be an exciting weekend, as thousands of NRA members will come together May 15-17, 2009, in Phoenix, AZ. You can contribute to the success of our meeting by participating as an Annual Meeting Volunteer.

What Should We Expect Now from the White House? Update for the Second Amendment Book Bomb: With Attorney General Eric Holder indicating his intent to reinstate the ban on the sale of "assault weapons," Independent Institute Research Fellow Stephen P. Halbrook was recently interviewed by Lou Dobbs on CNN on the new threats of gun control.

Fourth Nominee Withdraws From Treasury's Roster

2009-03-15T18:09:00.000-08:00

Fourth Nominee Withdraws From Treasury's Roster
By David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 13, 2009; Page D01

H. Rodgin Cohen, chairman of the New York law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, has withdrawn his name from consideration for deputy Treasury secretary, becoming the fourth pick for a prominent Treasury Department post to pull out in recent weeks.

A prominent attorney who has advised many of the top Wall Street firms, Cohen dropped out after the White House found an issue during his vetting process, two sources familiar with the matter said. The sources declined to identify the reason. Cohen did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Though the Treasury is filling its lower-level positions, the thin ranks on the senior levels are taking a toll on the department's ability to deal with a financial crisis that continues to deepen in scope and complexity, government and industry officials say.

Gus O'Donnell, Cabinet Secretary for the British government, was quoted this week in British news reports saying it has been "unbelievably difficult" to talk to people at the U.S. Treasury: "There is nobody there."

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said Wednesday during a briefing with reporters that he was "a little surprised" when told of the comments. He added that he has been working closely with British officials and had not heard of any communication problems.

Treasury officials say the staffing shortage has not hindered their ability to address the financial crisis. In just over a month, the department has announced a "stress test" to capitalize banks in case the economy worsens, a plan to aid homeowners and an initiative to restart the consumer lending markets. Treasury officials also played a key role on the federal budget announced last month and are working on a plan to tackle the toxic assets clogging the books of banks as well as a plan to overhaul financial regulation.

Others who removed themselves from consideration in recent weeks include Annette Nazareth, an attorney who was being considered for the deputy post; Lee Sachs, a former Treasury official in the Clinton administration, who was expected to be the under secretary for domestic finance; and International Monetary Fund official Caroline Atkinson, who was in line for under secretary for international affairs.

Lael Brainard, deputy national economic adviser under Clinton who was set to take a post at the State Department, instead is expected to be nominated as Treasury under secretary for international affairs, administration officials have said.

Brown Shirt Army (ala Germany 1936).

2009-03-14T14:24:00.002-08:00

IT IS TIME THE ROSE COLORED GLASSES COME OFF AND ALL OF US TAKE A LOOK AT REALITY. IT AIN'T GOOD FOLKS, IT IS DESPERATE AND GETTING WORSE. THIS MESSIAH IS IN THE PROCESS OF DESTROYING OUR NATION. AS EVIDENCE OF THIS ARTICLE, AND ON THIS SAME DAY DISCUSSION OF ALLOWING RUSSIAN MILITARY AIRCRAFT TO BE STATIONED IN CUBA. SOME ONE IN THIS GOVERNMENT HAS GOT TO WAKE UP AND IT MUST BE THE NATION AS WE RID OURSELVES OF THIS SELF PROCLAIMED MESSIAH. WHERE IS OUR SPINE? HAVE WE LOST IT ALL?
FOR GOODNESS SAKE SOMEONE ANSWER ME.

Apparently the HNTIC (Head Negro That's In Charge) is sticking by his plan for a new civilian Brown Shirt Army (ala Germany 1936).

Excerpts from Obama's speech today at the dedication of Abraham Lincoln Hall at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C.:

"The attacks of 9/11 signaled the new dangers of the 21st century. And today, our people are still threatened by violent extremists ...

Yet terrorism and extremism make up just one part of the many challenges that confront our nation. ... A historic economic downturn has put at stake the prosperity that underpins our strength, while putting at risk the stability of governments and the survival of people around the world. ... Poverty, disease, the persistence of conflict and genocide in the 21st century challenge our international alliances, partnerships and institutions -- and must call on all of us to reexamine our assumptions.

These are the battlefields of the 21st century. These are the threats that we now face. And in these struggles, the United States of America must succeed -- and we will succeed.

We also know that the old approaches won't meet the challenges of our time. ... No army -- no matter how strong -- can eliminate every adversary. No weapon -- no matter how powerful -- can erase the hatred that lies in someone's heart.

So it falls to institutions like this -- and to individuals like you -- to help us understand the world as it is, to develop the capacities that we need to confront emerging danger, and to act with purpose and pragmatism to turn this moment of peril into one of promise. That's how we will find new pathways to peace and security. That is the work that we must do.

Now, make no mistake: This nation will maintain our military dominance. ... But we also need to look beyond this conventional advantage as we develop the new approaches and new capabilities of the 21st century -- and in that effort, this university must play a critical role.

America must also balance and integrate all elements of our national power. We cannot continue to push the burden on to our military alone, nor leave dormant any aspect of the full arsenal of American capability. And that's why my administration is committed to renewing diplomacy as a tool of American power, and to developing our civilian national security capabilities. This effort takes place within the walls of this university, where civilians sit alongside soldiers in the classroom. And it must continue out in the field, where American civilians can advance opportunity, enhance governance and the rule of law, and attack the causes of war around the world. We have to enlist our civilians in the same way that we enlist those members of the armed services in understanding this broad mission that we have.

Say it again, Margaret, loud and clear!

2009-03-14T14:01:00.002-08:00

Say it again, Margaret, loud and clear!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------