Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 21, 2014, 04:07:17 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82958 Posts in 2255 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 64 65 [66] 67 68 ... 83
3251  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Nuclear War, WMD issues on: September 25, 2009, 11:52:45 AM
"Bottom line: If the Iranians indicate that they will not cooperate and the Russians do not budge on their opposition to imposing sanctions, then war could come suddenly — and from the United States. All the pieces for that war are already in place."

Are you kidding?

Where in the world would Stratford conclude this?

I seriously doubt this.

Israel will have to do it alone.

3252  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: September 25, 2009, 09:53:39 AM
The US's full retreat and appeasement to everyone overseas (except our friends) continues.
Of course Chavez, Ghaddafi and all the rest of our enemies and adversaries are praising Obama.
Obama to the border patrol:  let more Democrats come on in.  Will just continue our redistribution of wealth to his  personal constituents.  So despite us having a President who is doing everything possible to weaken the US he is still popular because he can buy off enough voters.  Great.   

CNSNews.com
Administration Will Cut Border Patrol Deployed on U.S-Mexico Border
Thursday, September 24, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief




A U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer is seen from Mexico's side of the San Ysidro port of entry guarding vehicles involved in a shooting in Tijuana, Mexico, Sept. 22, 2009. Four people were injured in a gun battle involving an attempt to smuggle illegal immigrants from Mexico at the busiest border crossing in the U.S., authorities said. (AP Photo/Guillermo Arias)(CNSNews.com) - Even though the Border Patrol now reports that almost 1,300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border is not under effective control, and the Department of Justice says that vast stretches of the border are “easily breached,” and the Government Accountability Office has revealed that three persons “linked to terrorism” and 530 aliens from “special interest countries” were intercepted at Border Patrol checkpoints last year, the administration is nonetheless now planning to decrease the number of Border Patrol agents deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border.
 
Border Patrol Director of Media Relations Lloyd Easterling confirmed this week--as I first reported in my column yesterday--that his agency is planning for a net decrease of 384 agents on the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal 2010, which begins on October 1.
 
A Department of Homeland Security annual performance review updated by the Obama administration on May 7 said the Border Patrol “plans to move several hundred Agents from the Southwest Border to the Northern Border to meet the FY 2010 staffing requirements, with only a small increase in new agents for the Southwest Border in the same year.”
 
Easterling said on Tuesday that in fiscal 2009, 17,399 Border Patrol agents have been deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border. In fiscal year 2010, the Border Patrol plans to decrease that by 384 agents, leaving 17,015 deployed along the Mexican frontier. At the same time, the number of Border Patrol agents deployed on the U.S.-Canada border will be increased by 414, from a fiscal 2009 total of 1,798 agents to a fiscal 2010 total of 2,212.
 
The Border Patrol is responsible for securing a total of 8,607 miles of border, including the U.S.-Mexico border, the U.S.-Canada border from Washington state to Maine, and sectors of coastline in the Gulf of Mexico, Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
 
Each year, the Border Patrol sets a goal for “border miles under effective control (including certain coastal sectors).” “Effective control,” as defined by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, means that when the Border Patrol detects an illegal border crosser in a particular area of the border the agency can be expected to succeed in apprehending that person.
 
In the May 7 update of its performance review, DHS said the Border Patrol’s goal for fiscal 2009 was to have 815 of the 8,607 miles of border for which the agency is responsible under “effective control.”  The review also said the Border Patrol’s goal for fiscal 2010 was to again have 815 miles of border under “effective control,” meaning DHS was not planning to secure a single additional mile of border in the coming year.
 
However, Acting Deputy Assistant Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Todd Owen told a House committee in July that the Border Patrol already had 894 miles of border under effective control as of May 31 of this year.  These 894 miles, Owen said, included 697 miles on the Mexican border, 32 miles on the Canadian border and 165 miles in the coastal sectors.
 
Easterling said this week that as of now the Border Patrol still has the same 894 miles of border under effective control that it had under effective control as of May 31. He also said the agency would not relinquish control of any of these miles in the coming year.  After the beginning of the new fiscal year, he said, the Border Patrol would reevaluate the situation and set a new goal for border miles under “effective control” for 2010 that would at least equal, and might exceed, the 894 miles currently under effective control.
 
“The intention is to take back the border incrementally, and make gains that we can keep,” Easterling said. “We do not intend, nor will we give back, miles that we have gained control over.”
 
Easterling said the Border Patrol would be able to maintain the current number of miles under effective control on the Mexico border with fewer agents deployed there thanks to “force multipliers,” including new fencing, roads and other infrastructure that has been built in recent years. He also cited the assistance the Border Patrol receives from local police and sheriffs departments and community watch groups.
 
But even if the Border Patrol is able to maintain or marginally improve on the current level of security on the U.S.-Mexico border, most of the border will remain effectively open to smuggling both contraband and persons.
 
The entire U.S.-Mexico border is 1,954 miles long, according to the International Boundary and Water Commission. While 697 of those miles are now under “effective control,” according to the Border Patrol, 1,257 miles are not under “effective control.”
 
Reports from other government agencies paint a vivid picture of the massive drug and alien smuggling that takes place in these uncontrolled expanses and the national security problem created by unsecured border lands.
 
Each year, the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center produces “drug market analyses” for each of 32 regions of the country that the NDIC describes as “high intensity drug trafficking areas.” Five of these areas sit along the U.S.-Mexico border. These include the California border region, Arizona, New Mexico, West Texas and South Texas. The latest reports, released in March and April of this year, use candid language in portraying the U.S.-Mexican frontier as wide open to drug smuggling and even vulnerable to penetration by potential terrorists.
 
The California-Mexico border, the NDIC said, was “easily breached” on both foot and in vehicles.
 
“The vast border area presents innumerable remote crossing points that traffickers exploit to smuggle illicit drugs, primarily marijuana, into the country from Mexico,” said NDIC. “These areas are easily breached by traffickers on foot, in private vehicles, or in all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) as they smuggle drugs between POEs [ports of entry], particularly the mountainous areas in eastern San Diego County and the desert and sand dune areas in Imperial County.”
 
Arizona’s border was judged to be open not only to drug smugglers but also aliens with “extensive criminal records” and from “special interest countries,” which are defined as “countries that could export individuals who could bring harm to the United States through terrorism.”
 
“Some criminal organizations smuggle aliens and gang members into the United States,” said NDIC’s report on Arizona. “These particular individuals typically have extensive criminal records and pose a threat, not only to the Arizona HIDTA [high intensity drug trafficking area] region but also to communities throughout the United States. Alien smuggling organizations reportedly also smuggle aliens from countries other than Mexico, including special-interest countries.”
 
“Special-interest countries are those designated by the intelligence community as countries that could export individuals who could bring harm to the United States through terrorism,” said the NDIC report.
 
The NDIC described the Arizona-Mexico border as “largely underprotected” in the areas between official ports of entry.
 
“Large amounts of illicit drugs are smuggled into the area from Mexico, and bulk cash is transported from the area into Mexico,” said NDIC. “These trafficking activities are facilitated by several factors unique to the region, including the continuing economic and population growth in Arizona’s two primary drug markets (Phoenix and Tucson), the highways that connect major metropolitan areas in Arizona with major illicit drug source areas in Mexico, and a remote, largely underprotected border area between Arizona’s ports of entry (POEs).
 
“Vast stretches of remote, sparsely populated border areas are located within the HIDTA region; these areas are especially conducive to large-scale drug smuggling,” said NDIC. “By the end of January 2009, 108 miles of the 262-mile shared border between Arizona and Mexico will have some type of fencing. However, few physical barriers exist in border areas between POEs, particularly in the West Desert area of the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Tucson Sector, to impede drug traffickers, chiefly Mexican DTOs, from smuggling illicit drug shipments into the United States from Mexico.”
 
Part of the New Mexico border was described as “an ideal smuggling corridor.”
 
“Southwestern New Mexico—specifically Hidalgo, Luna, and Dona Ana Counties—shares a 180-mile border with Mexico,” said NDIC. “More than half the length of this border is desolate public land that contains innumerable footpaths, roads, and trails. Additionally, many ranches are located along the border. These factors and minimal law enforcement coverage make the area an ideal smuggling corridor for drugs and other illicit goods and services— primarily alien smuggling into the United States and weapons and bulk cash smuggling into Mexico. Mexican DTOs smuggle multihundred-kilogram quantities of illicit drugs through this portion of the HIDTA region annually.”
 
Like the California border, the South Texas border is also “easily breached,” according to the NDIC.
 
“The combination of vast stretches of remote, sparsely populated land and extensive crossborder economic activity at designated ports of entry (POEs) creates an environment conducive to large-scale drug smuggling,” said NDIC. “Few physical barriers exist between POEs to impede drug traffickers, particularly Mexican DTOs, from smuggling illicit drug shipments into the United States from Mexico. Along many areas of the U.S.-Mexico border in South Texas, the Rio Grande River can be easily breached by smugglers on foot or in vehicles, enabling Mexican DTOs to smuggle multikilogram quantities of illicit drugs, primarily marijuana and cocaine, into the United States.”
 
In the West Texas sector, the NDIC again raised the possibility that terrorists could exploit the border to enter the country.
 
“Moreover, the region’s location along the U.S.-Mexico border poses national security and law enforcement issues for the region, such as alien smuggling, weapons transportation, and terrorist entry into the United States through and between ports of entry,” said NDIC.
 
While the U.S. government may be failing to exert effective control over most of the border, identical language in the NDIC reports for Arizona and West Texas said that drug trafficking organizations have set up “gatekeeper” operations that control smuggling into the U.S. and levy taxes on the smugglers they let through.
 
“Gatekeepers regulate the drug flow from Mexico across the U.S.-Mexico border into the United States by controlling drug smugglers’ access to areas along the border,” said the Arizona and West Texas NDIC reports. “Gatekeepers collect ‘taxes’ from smugglers on all illicit shipments that are moved through these areas, including drugs and illegal aliens. The taxes are generally paid to the DTO that controls the area; the DTO then launders the tax proceeds. Gatekeepers sometimes resort to extortion, intimidation, and acts of violence to collect taxes from smugglers. Gatekeepers also reportedly bribe corrupt Mexican police and military personnel in order to ensure that smuggling activities occur without interruption.”
 
“Gatekeepers generally operate at the behest of a Mexican drug trafficking organization (DTO) and enforce the will of the organization through bribery, intimidation, extortion, beatings, and murder,” said the reports.
 
A Government Accountability Office report released on August 31 pointed out that the Border Patrol’s top priority is to stop terrorists and weapons of mass destruction from entering the United States and revealed that three person’s “linked to terrorism” and hundreds of aliens from “special interest countries” were intercepted at Border Patrol checkpoints in fiscal 2008. These checkpoints, which act as a final line of defense for the U.S. border, are typically set up on highways 25 to 100 miles north of the Mexican border.
 
“CBP reported that in fiscal year 2008, there were three individuals encountered by the Border Patrol at southwest border checkpoints who were identified as persons linked to terrorism,” said GAO.
 
“In addition, the Border Patrol reported that in fiscal year 2008 checkpoints encountered 530 aliens from special interest countries, which are countries the Department of State has determined to represent a potential terrorist threat to the United States,” said GAO. “While people from these countries may not have any ties to illegal or terrorist activities, Border Patrol agents detain aliens from special interest countries if they are in the United States illegally and Border Patrol agents report these encounters to the local Sector Intelligence Agent, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Joint Terrorism Task Force, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Investigations, and the CBP National Targeting Center.”
 
The GAO also said one illegal alien detained in West Texas had come from Iran.
 
“For example,” said GAO, “according to a Border Patrol official in the El Paso sector, a checkpoint stopped a vehicle and questioned its three Iranian occupants, determining that one of those occupants was in the United States illegally. The individual was detained and turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for further questioning.”
 
There has been much discussion in the past week about whether President Barack Obama will heed the advice of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, to increase the U.S. troop deployment there.  The administration, however, has already decided to decrease by 384 the Border Patrol agents deployed on our own southern frontier.
3253  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: September 23, 2009, 07:42:27 PM
UN speech today could easily have come from Kofi Anan not a President of the US.
Or could it?

This must be a bad dream.  Tell me I am going to wake up.  I would be glad to have Bill Clinton back.

Notice the reference to "tyranny" on a couple of occasions on the ONe's megalomaniac speech to the world.  The One takes Mark Levin's use of the word to describe him and tries to turn it around.  No accident.
3254  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / ScientificAmerican: at least another 100 yrs of oil on: September 23, 2009, 07:36:22 PM
***scientific american
From the October 2009 Scientific American Magazine Another Century of Oil? Getting More from Current Reserves ( Preview )
Amid warnings of a possible "peak oil," advanced technologies offer ways to extract every last possible drop
By Leonardo Maugeri   

  Forecasts that global oil production will soon start to decline and that most oil will be gone within a few decades may be overly pessimistic. The author predicts that by 2030, thanks to advanced technologies, wells will be able to extract half of the oil known to be underground, up from the current average of 35 percent. Together with new discoveries, the increased productivity could make oil last at least another century. More from the Magazine
On fourteen dry, flat square miles of California’s Central Valley, more than 8,000 horsehead pumps—as old-fashioned oilmen call them—slowly rise and fall as they suck oil from underground. Glittering pipelines crossing the whole area suggest that the place is not merely a relic of the past. But even to an expert’s eyes, Kern River Oil Field betrays no hint of the technological miracles that have enabled it to survive decades of dire predictions.

When Kern River Oil Field was discovered in 1899, analysts thought that only 10 percent of its unusually viscous crude could be recovered. In 1942, after more than four decades of modest production, the field was estimated to still hold 54 million barrels of recoverable oil, a fraction of the 278 million barrels already recovered. “In the next 44 years, it produced not 54 [million barrels] but 736 million barrels, and it had another 970 million barrels remaining,” energy guru Morris Adelman noted in 1995. But even this estimate proved wrong. In November 2007 U.S. oil giant Chevron, by then the field’s operator, announced that cumulative production had reached two billion barrels. Today Kern River still puts out nearly 80,000 barrels per day, and the state of California estimates its remaining reserves to be about 627 million barrels. ***

I can't post the rest of the article but the author gives a compelling reason why we have far more oil available then present estimates.
We always find more than expected.
3255  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hyman Minsky on: September 22, 2009, 01:53:18 PM
From the Boston Globe about an economist who predicted the latest crash.  His prescription is Obama like.
Big government supporting unions and jobs to the lower socioeconomic classes even if supported by big government.
Sounds simply like New Deal stuff. 

What is interesting is that we already have millions upon millions of lower wage jobs (ala Minsky) available for the unemployed.
If we simply throw out the illegals who work for low wages our unemployed would have ample opportunity to make some money at least till the economy picks up.
Instead we give it all away.  What dopes:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/09/13/why_capitalism_fails/?page=5
3256  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Online buying of antibiotics without Rx on: September 22, 2009, 11:35:03 AM
Online antibiotic sales may be fueling drug-resistance trend, researchers report
Antibiotics are widely available for purchase online without a prescription, making it easy for patients to self-medicate and potentially contributing to antibiotic resistance, a recent study found.

Researchers conducted searches on Google and Yahoo using the keywords “purchase antibiotics without a prescription” and “online” and compared vendors according to classes of drugs, quantity, shipping locations and shipping time. Of the 138 vendors found, almost all shipped to the U.S., 36.2% sold antibiotics without a prescription and 63.8% provided an online prescription. Available antibiotics included penicillins (94.2% of sites), macrolides (96.4%), fluoroquinolones (61.6%) and cephalosporins (56.5%), and drugs were often sold in higher quantities than a single course. The results appear in the September-October Annals of Family Medicine.

The findings suggest that many antibiotics taken in the U.S. are not impacted by physician prescribing practices and may be contributing to antibiotic resistance, the authors said. The Web sites studied promote self-diagnosis and self-medication, they added, and drugs are likely to be used in inappropriate dosages. In addition, because the drugs are available in large quantities and take a week or more to be delivered, it is likely that they are being stored for future use or to sell.

The results indicate that the observed decline in overall antibiotic prescribing for viral illnesses may be misleading because patients are able to go online for medications when they can’t get a prescription from their physician. Physicians can play a role in mitigating the problem, the authors continued, by educating patients who self-medicate about antibiotic resistance and potential drug interactions.

Among other limitations, the study does not analyze how customers in the U.S. are using the Web sites and the quantities being purchased, the authors acknowledged. Nonetheless, the results highlight a need for increased regulation of Internet sites beyond controlled substances, they concluded.

3257  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America and the rest of the western hemisphere on: September 22, 2009, 11:24:19 AM
Well the organizers of this "event" are known anit-semites, anti- Christians, defenders of suicide bombers, defenders of terrorists acts on the US, and not interested in peace as much as they claim. 
I doubt they condemn terrorist acts, killing murdering and bigotry coming from their side like they do when they criticize us.
I have some Muslim patients who blend in with the rest of us and seem to all appearances to be American, but I dont know about some of the more "radical" ones.

For example:

Abdul Alim Musa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Imam Abdul Alim Musa (born 1945; Clarence Reams) is a Muslim activist and director of Masjid Al-Islam in Washington, D.C.. He is a member of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT) and a well-known speaker around the world. He is founder and director of As-Sabiqun.
Reams was born in Arkansas in 1945 but grew up in Oakland, California during the 1960s. It was during this period that he associated with H. Rap Brown (Imam Jamil Al-Amin), who later converted to Islam.

Having set up a drug dealing operation operation in Colombia, Musa was arrested on charges including heroin smuggling, currency smuggling and assaulting a federal agent. After evading the authorities for several years, Musa fled to Algeria, where he came in contact with several exiled Black Panther leaders such as Eldridge Cleaver. After returning to the US, he turned himself in and was eventually incarcerated at the U.S. Federal Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kan., among other institutions.[1]

While in prison, Musa converted to orthodox Islam. Musa suported the 1979 Iranian revolution, believing that it would lead to the revival of Islam.[1]

Following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Musa publicly expressed his support for the Islamic Republic and its leader Ayatollah Khomeini. Since the early 1980s he made several visits to Iran as a representative of Muslims in the United States and a supporter of the Islamic revival. He made connections with a wide array of Muslim leaders during the decade - both Sunni and Shia - and stressed that unity was a primary objective for the Islamic movements success. His references the writings of Malcolm X, Ayatollah Khomeini, Sayyid Qutb, Maulana Maududi, and Kalim Siddiqui. New members of the group are encouraged to individually familiarize themselves with the works of these political Islamic thinkers in addition to daily classes and lectures on classical Islamic studies, Arabic, hadith and Quran.


[edit] Antisemitism
According to the Anti-Defamation League, Musa "propagates a radical and anti-Semitic ideology." They quote him as saying “Who ran the slave trade…who funded [it]? You’ll study and you will find out: the Jews…It was the Jewish bankers…in Vienna, with pockets full of money, funding and insuring, that’s who did it…. you can’t tell us about no holocaust. Between the African Americans and the Native Americans, everybody else’s stuff was small potatoes.” [2]

According to Benjamin Ginsberg, student groups The Associated Students of the University of Washignton and the Black Students Commission sponsored "a vehemently Anti-semitic" speech by Musa, in which he asserted that America was controlled by Jews and that "Yahuds are the enemy of humanity." [3]

Critics have suggested that he promotes anti-Semitism in his speeches, which he defends are directed at Zionist supporters of Israel and not at Jewish people in general, although some of his statements suggest otherwise, such as: “Al-Amin [a convicted murderer] …turned his ideas, his belief in Islam, into practical solutions for society. And they can’t stand that. Just like our brother said: the Zionist are the same today as they was then. In those days [in Arabia before the ascendance of Islam] they controlled the liquor market in Madina… and the Zionists kept the Arab leaders broke and drunk…the yahud [Jew, in Arabic] were seating back and had each one of them [Arab clans] fighting each other because the leaders was both drunken and they was all in owe (sic) to the same Yahud… he was manipulating the Arabs…then Islam came [and abolished riba, or interest]."[4]


[edit] Recent Activities
During a rally in July 1999 Musa displayed a cashier's check made out to "Hamas, Palestine," to protest the 1996 U.S. law which declared Hamas a terrorist organization.[5] Musa said that "I would love to have a case in court with the FBI. I would love for them to arrest me on any trumped-up charges." Musa later commented that "I tried to get a case several years ago. We had a demonstration. I waved a check for Hamas, cashier's check, by the way. And I said, 'I'm donating this to Hamas.' Then I waited for them to arrest me. They didn't arrest me. So I put the thing back in the bank."[1]

At the January 21, 2001 event titled Shaping Our Perspective: Our Role in a Changing World, sponsored by Muslim Students Association at UCLA, Musa is quoted as stating: "If you were to say that the Soviet Union was wiped off the face of the earth . . . people would have thought you were crazy, right? The people of Afghanistan didn’t have the intellect or historical knowledge to know that they wasn’t supposed to wipe out the Soviet Union, is that right? . . . We saw the fall of one so-called superpower, Old Sam (the United States) is next."[citation needed]

On October 6, 2002 he spoke on Muhammad's model of leadership and its modern applications at the ICIT Seerah Conference in Sri Lanka.[6] On July 7, 2000 Musa, while in the company of his wife and daughter, witnessed the Metropolitan Police (Washington, DC) beating a citizen. He attempted to intervene by approaching the officers and telling them to stop. They continued until Musa grabbed one of the officers and was consequently arrested for assaulting the police. He spent two nights in jail before appearing before a judge on July 10. In court, the police reduced the charge against him to a misdemeanor.[7]

Musa has made a number of controversial statements:

Zionist American agents blew up the World Trade Center;
Palestinian suicide bombers are heroes;
the U.S. government saturated U.S. cities with heroin in the 1960s to snuff out blacks' rebellion;
that the United States should become an Islamic state[1]
In a video aired by Fox News, Musa stated, from behind a podium at the University of California at Irvine on Sept. 9, 2001, that "If you don't stay out of our way and leave us alone, we're going to burn America down." Musa later stated that he was simply paraphrasing Jamil Al-Amin, formerly H. Rap Brown, a prominent Black Panther in the 1960s. Musa never threatened to burn the United States down, according to a longer video and transcript of the speech posted on the Web site of the The Investigative Project.[8] [1]

Musa has stated that "the American ship is going down. And it's clowns like that [President George W. Bush] that's driving it down. We don't have to do nothing. Just step back, pray, fast, do good deeds, and stuff like that. And let that guy go. . . . When he finishes, nobody will love, nobody will trust, and nobody will believe anything coming from the United States of America."[1]


[edit] Banning from the UK
In April 2009 Musa's name was released to the press as one of 22 people banned from entering the United Kingdom in October 2008. The UK government said this was due to him being "Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fomenting and glorifying terrorist violence in furtherance of his particular beliefs and seeking to provoke others to terrorist acts." [9][10]
3258  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Eagleberger and the ONE on: September 22, 2009, 11:04:26 AM
I guess it was Greta's show.  I see Obama has been critical of the One for quite some time going back to the campaign as  a search pulls up past criticisms on the World's Savior:

http://radioviceonline.com/eagleburger-on-obama-foreign-policy-amateur-hour/
3259  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Foreign Policy on: September 22, 2009, 10:31:26 AM
Crafty,
Did you see Larwence Eagleberger on one of the  cable talk shows (CNN?) recently calling OBama's foreing policies "amateur hour"?

I could not believe I was hearing a Dem saying that.  He was pointing out how Obama ahs marginalized Hillary and more or less simply blows her off.

So he may have a bit of an ax to grind (being an ex Clintonite) who is not making his/her fame and fortune with the present leftist regime ala the rest of the liberal polictical mercenaries.

Yet it may also be a *true* reflection of reality and not the spin coming from the other Dems, MSM.  It may also be a kind of a leak as to what many Dems are thinking and saying privately but just not publically.

3260  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: September 20, 2009, 02:56:37 PM
"The more that we can get good information on the choices and their consequences and the more that we pay with our own money, the more accurately we will value that gain in our health or quality of life"

My little opinion FWIW is that I couldn't agree more.

Instead OBama wants to obtain the information so HE can make the choice for all of us.

And it is THAT reason along with the rest of his big government philosophy that we must stop.  It ain't because he is black.

Do any of these idiots in the MSM, Carter, Dowd, and the rest think we who are on the right would be any less fighting mad if the President who was pushing this sutff was a white like Biden, Pelosi, or Reid??
3261  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: September 20, 2009, 02:47:36 PM
"isn't it odd and a potential political time-bomb to know that the current, US ruling party includes nearly all Jewish-Americans and nearly all American haters of Israel, all in one big tent."

Doug,

Not only odd but remarkable.

I have asked the "how can this be question" many times.

All I can say is liberal Jews (At least the American ones) despise conservatives, Republicans more than ANYTHING else.
To them cans are worse than Nazis.  I am not kidding.

There pure hatred for anything leaning right will warp their reasoning.

They are in total denial about Obama and Israel.   They will endlessly rationalize away the obvious fact he is an enemy of Israel because they otherwise agree with his radical left wing agenda. 

"I suppose that liberal Jewish Americans don't favor Netanyahu or his policies so the contradiction is mutual."

I don't know the answer to this question but it is a good one.

*W was Israel's best friend.* 
An Israeli who is now in America and I suspect was supporter of Obama does agree with this statement - at least now.   I think he was duped by Obama's "make them think you are one of them" strategy.

He ain't duping me.




3262  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: September 19, 2009, 01:44:46 PM
Crafty,
the urologists note is interesting.
The advent of PSAs is also driving up urologic care with questionable outcomes.
One huge study suggested we reduce the rate of death from prostate cancer by 20% because of PSA screeing.
Another study suggested there is absolutely no difference.
For every life we may save with PSA screening there are probably at least many more men who go through screening testing anxiety for nothing. 

The problem is we still can't tell which is the occasional patient who may benefit from the one who will never have had any problem with his prostate if we didn't go on fishing expeditions.

Yet we have parades of famous people with prostate cancer getting on Larry KIng telling their stories as though it applies to anything in reality to large populations of people.

Cardiology costs have also gone crazy and out of control.
Cardiologists are in my view the biggest spenders in medicine that are not a surgical specialty.

It used to be a stress test once every two years or only if there were symptoms or other specific reasons to get them.
Now I see some cardiologists who are part or wholly owners of stress nuclear machines getting them as often as yearly.
They are ordering tests on everyone.
Their reimbursements per procedure etc are down so they simply order more.
Patients think they are being more thorough and as long as a third party pays they are delighted to get more and more tests.

Another example from the drug industry.  Plavix a blood thinner is marginally better than a two cent aspirin - roughly 20% at preventing heart or stroke events in selected patients.  Sound like a big difference?  We may be talking a reduction in "events" from five per hundred to four per hundred total patients treated.  Doesn't sound like as big a gain now does it?  The cost between using plavix and aspirin would be huge.  State it a different way though and if we treat say one milliion people per year and reduce the "event" rate from 50,000 to 40,000 we could be "preventing" 10,000 more events (stroke, heart attack, death).  Now it sounds like alot again.  People who push for tiny incrementle gains as being "huge" or great progress are happy to state the statistics either the first or thrid way and always avoid the latter.

To add insult to injury recent publication of an even newer drug then plavix points that it now reduces event rates by again by "20%".   Again that sounds like a lot from that point of view.  The people on wall street who invest and the bitg shot carediologists who researched the drug make it sound like it is a huge breakthrough (noted is that the newer drug does have an increased risk of bleeding that may hold down use of it to some extent).  But the actual reduction number is from around 5.8% to something like 4.5%.  So for every hundred people treated we could prevent only *one* more event.  The kicker is plavix may go generic in a few years (I am not sure) while this newer drug will of course be mega bucks.
All the cardiologists will of course want and brag how they give there patients the most modern and perfect care without consideration of cost.  Patients are fine with this as long as the pill is covered.  A few patients will have to pay more for it out of pocket and are willing.

So where does it end?

Answer:  it doesn't.

Small incremental gains made in modern medicine have huge costs.

People want to live for ever, everyone one perfect cutting edge care and no one wants to pay for it.
Nothing new.

Now we have a government who believes it is everyone's right to have equal access and equal care.
Yet they can't pay for it either.  They even want to extend it to millions of people who don't even belong here.
Their argument/idea is rationed care is smarter care.
There is some truth to that argument.  Is it smart to spend endless billions for small incremental gains?

At present the health system says yes.   
3263  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: September 18, 2009, 02:39:31 PM
I stand corrected cry
3264  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: China on: September 18, 2009, 01:40:09 PM
More China vs us - from Gertz.  They are going to beat us eventually.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/17/inside-the-ring-22287426/?page=2
3265  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: September 18, 2009, 12:01:00 PM
"Obama will support Israel just like he supports our other allies....."

Unless there is something behind the scenes we are not privy to he has already made it clear he will leave Israel at risk for a nuclear attack without lifting a finger.

What would one expect of a person who sat in J Wright's church for 20 years and like many radical Blacks defends the Muslim Palestinians before they would ever say a kind thing about Jews?

The Jews who work for him are just along for the ride to power (and riches from subsequent consulting fees) and have thrown Israel onto the back burner - pun intended.

George Soros - and a holocaust survivor too - are you happy now?

You just helped put your own heritage into the situation of either being murderers in self defense or risk being victoms of another holocaust.   What say you?
3266  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / ON the other hand on: September 18, 2009, 10:34:16 AM
This is a little encouraging:

***Others chanted, "Not Gaza, not Lebanon — our life is for Iran" — a slogan directly challenging the government's support for anti-Israeli Palestinian militants in Gaza and Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrilla"***

Full text below:

Hosted by      Back to Google NewsThousands march in Iran opposition protests
By NASSER KARIMI (AP) – 57 minutes ago

TEHRAN, Iran — Hard-liners attacked senior pro-reform leaders in the streets as tens of thousands marched in competing mass demonstrations by the opposition and government supporters. Opposition protesters, chanting "death to the dictator," hurled stones and bricks in clashes with security forces firing tear gas.

The opposition held its first major street protests since mid-July, bringing out thousands in demonstrations in several parts of the capital. In some cases only several blocks away, tens of thousands marched in government-sponsored rallies marking an annual anti-Israel commemoration.

The commemoration, known as Quds Day, is a major political occasion for the government — a day for it to show its anti-Israeli credentials and its support for the Palestinians. Quds is the Arabic word for Jerusalem. During a speech for the rallies, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad railed against Israel and the West, questioning whether the Holocaust occurred and calling it a pretext for occupying Arab land.

But the opposition was determined to turn the day into a show of its survival and continued strength despite a fierce three-month-old crackdown against it since the disputed June 12 presidential election.

Top opposition leaders joined the protests, in direct defiance of commands by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who barred anti-government demonstrations on Quds Day. That could provoke an escalation in the crackdown: hard-line clerics have been demanding the past week that any leader backing the protests should be arrested.

Tens of thousands joined the government-organized marches, starting in various parts of the capital and proceeding to Tehran University. Police and security forces, along with pro-government Basij militiamen, fanned out along main squares and avenues and in many cases tried to keep nearby opposition protesters away from the Quds Day rallies to prevent clashes, witnesses said.

Opposition supporters poured onto main boulevards and squares, wearing green T-shirts and wristbands and waving green banners and balloons — the color of the reform movement. They waved their fingers in the air in V-for-victory signs along with pictures of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, chanting "death to the dictator."

Others chanted, "Not Gaza, not Lebanon — our life is for Iran" — a slogan directly challenging the government's support for anti-Israeli Palestinian militants in Gaza and Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrilla. Some shouted for Ahmadinejad's government to resign. Some women marched with their children in tow.

But at one of the several opposition rallies around the city, a group of hard-liners pushed through the crowd and attacked former President Mohamad Khatami, a cleric who is one of the most prominent pro-reform figures, according to a reformist Web site. The report cited witnesses as saying the opposition activists rescued Khatami and quickly repelled the assailants.

Another reformist Webs site said Khatami's turban was disheveled and he was forced to leave the march.

Hard-liners tried to attack the main opposition leader, Mir Hossein Mousavi, when he joined another march elsewhere in the city, a witness said. Supporters rushed Mousavi into his car when the hard-liners approached, and the vehicle sped away as his supporters pushed the hard-liners back, the witness said. He and other witnesses spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of government retaliation.

Another pro-reform leader, Mahdi Karroubi, who also ran in the presidential election, also joined protests elsewhere in the city.

In one of the main Tehran squares, Haft-e Tir, security forces weilding batons and firing tear gas tried to break up one of the opposition marched, and were met with protesters throwing stones and bricks, witnesses said. Several policemen were seen being taken away with light injuries. At least 10 protesters were seized by plainclothes security agents in marches around the city, witnesses said.

The pro-government Quds Day rallies were held in cities around the country. In the southern city of Shiraz, the opposition held a counter-demonstration, and a witness said police rushed the protesters with batons, scuffling with them. Opposition Web sites also reported pro-reform protests in the central city of Isfahan.

The opposition claims that Ahmadinejad won the June election by fraud and that Mousavi is the rightful victor. Hundreds of thousands marched in support of Mousavi in the weeks after the vote, until police, Basij and the elite Revolutionary Guard crushed the protests, arresting hundreds. The opposition says 72 people were killed in the crackdown, thought the government puts the number at 36. The last significant protest was on July 17.

In sheer numbers, the opposition turnout was far smaller than the mass pro-government Quds Day marches — not surprising given the state's freedom to organize the gathering.

Former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani — who is a behind-the-scenes supporter of Mousavi — made an appearance at one Quds Day march, as would be expected from him as a senior cleric in the leadership. For the past 25 years, Rafsanjani traditionally has delivered the Friday prayer sermon on Quds Day, but he was barred from doing so this year and replaced by a hard-liine supporter of Ahmadinejad, Ahmad Khatami.

Customarily on Quds Day, Iranians gather for pro-Palestinian rallies in various parts of the city, marching through the streets and later converging for the prayer ceremony. The ceremony was established in 1979 by the leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Just hundreds of yards (meters) away from opposition protesters on the main Keshavarz Boulevard, thousands of Ahmadinejad supporters marched carrying huge photographs of the president and Supreme Leader Khamenei. Some in the government-sponsored rally chanted: "Death to those who oppose the supreme leader!"

At the climax of the occasion, Ahmadinejad addressed worshippers before Friday prayers at the Tehran University campus, reiterating his anti-Holocaust rhetoric that has drawn international condemnation since 2005. He questioned whether the "Holocaust was a real event" and saying Israel was created on "false and mythical claims."

(This version CORRECTS that Rafsanjani appeared at a Quds Day rally, not an opposition protest.)

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
3267  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: September 18, 2009, 09:30:23 AM
I think the post on Drudgereport about Amendinjad again proclaiming it is religious duty to snuff out zionists and the holocaust didn't occur makes it clear Israel has no other choice.
My question is will they have to go nuclear to get the job done.
What a horrendous situation.
Just the thought of it.
But the alternative is worse.
3268  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / O is going to give amnesty to illegals on: September 18, 2009, 08:45:48 AM
Certainly no surprise.

Automatic millions of new Democrat voters.

The joke is on us.

We are giving it all away.
Now we are going to have millions of low wage uneducated new people that will clearly utilize more in doles than they will ever contribute.

For a country that is bankrupt this is unbelievable.
And not a peep from the MSM.


3269  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: September 17, 2009, 07:54:44 PM
No screw ball Pelosi, what is scary is a government that is spending trillions of dollars as fast as they can come up with ideas on how to spend steal, bribe constituents, payoff unions Acorn, legal lobby, give away our sovereignty to China, Russia, S Amerca, etc., try to control the media, tax everything from light bulbs to toilet flushes, control every movement of our lives including our health care and on and on and on.  THAT IS SCARY.  What a nut:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made."
3270  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / part two on: September 16, 2009, 04:35:10 PM
Iran attack: Israel ex-min sees end-yr deadline
Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:15am EDT  Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text

Featured Broker sponsored link
 Sneh said Israel had many reasons to block the emergence of a nuclear weapons-capable Iran, because in that event

-- Immigration to Israel would stop.

-- More able young men and women would emigrate to pursue their future in places seen as more secure.

-- Investment in Israel would be reduced.

-- Decision-making by the cabinet would be hostage to the fear of Iranian nuclear retaliation. The processes of government would thereby be "substantially distorted."

-- Extremist forces in the Middle East would be empowered.

-- Iran would pressure moderate forces in the region to toughen their positions in contacts or negotiations with Israel, for example in discussions over Jerusalem or the Golan Heights

-- Saudi Arabia and Egypt would seek to obtain nuclear weapons themselves, bringing about a Middle East "fully loaded with nuclear weapons."

(Editing by Samia Nakhoul)

3271  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / part one on: September 16, 2009, 04:34:04 PM


About Thomson ReutersIran attack: Israel ex-min sees end-yr deadline
Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:15am EDT 

Featured Broker sponsored link
 By William Maclean, Security Correspondent

LONDON (Reuters) - Israel will be compelled to attack Iran's nuclear sites if Western powers cannot agree crippling sanctions against Tehran by the end of the year, a former Israeli deputy defense minister said on Wednesday. Ephraim Sneh, who holds no position in the current Israeli government and was speaking in his personal capacity, told Reuters it was not clear the United States and European Union had the decisiveness to take such steps, which should include tougher banking and oil curbs, by year's end.

"We cannot live under the shadow of an Iran with nuclear weapons," he said in an interview on a visit to Britain. "By the end of the year, if there is no agreement on crippling sanctions aimed at this regime, we will have no choice."

"This is the very, very last resort. But ironically it is our best friends and allies who are pushing us into a corner where we would have no option but to do it."

"I wonder if they will do it (a tougher sanctions regime) quickly enough. If not, we are compelled to take action."

Sneh, a retired brigadier-general, is a former member of parliament's defense and intelligence committees. As deputy defense minister, he held responsibility for Iran.

A "BLOODLESS" STRATEGY

Sneh's visit was facilitated by The Israel Project, a privately-funded media organization that seeks to explain Israel's security position in the region and has arranged news conferences for serving Israeli officials overseas.

The United States, Germany, France and Britain have threatened Iran with a fourth round of U.N. sanctions if it continues enriching uranium and refuses to clear up concerns it has done extensive research into how to build a nuclear weapon.

Iran says the activity is a civilian electricity program.

Israel has said a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to its existence and points to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

That has raised worries that Israel could ultimately carry out a military strike against Iranian nuclear sites.

Sneh said the sanctions should consist of a total Western boycott of the Iranian banking system, a ban on selling Iran refined petroleum products, a ban on selling spare parts to the Iranian energy industry and a ban on senior Iranian officials traveling to Western capitals.

Sneh said the sanctions need be imposed only by the United States and European nations, because it was clear Russia and China would not go along with them and in any case the need for the involvement of "Russia and China is a myth." Imposed by the West, such a strategy would be tough enough to work.

"It is bloodless, and it even stops short of a naval blockade," he said.

In comments that appeared to signal Israel had not given up on international diplomacy to curb Tehran's atomic ambitions, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday the time had come for tougher sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.  Continued...


View article on single pagePrevious Page 1 | 2 Next Page

 
3272  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / This didn't take long:just a coincidence of course on: September 16, 2009, 04:30:27 PM
Of course the day after Obama's off the record calling West a "jackass" was publicized TIME CNN puts this out (No, of course they aren't on the OBama train):
 
What Presidents Say In Private: Bush and Obama Unplugged 
Posted by Michael Scherer
September 15, 2009 at 10:48 am 
ABC's Terry Moran looks kinda like a, um, donkey this morning, after reporting via Twitter that President Obama had called Kanye West a "jackass" yesterday, after West disrupted the MTV music awards in a typical fit of self-absorption. Obama's "jackass" utterance came during an off the record exchange with CNBC. ABC News has apologized for Moran's breach of protocol, announcing steps "to ensure that it will not happen again." (Will Moran lose his Twitter? Doubtful. He does it so much.)

Meanwhile, Bush aides are reportedly in white knuckle suspense over the revelations to come in an upcoming book, Speech Less, by former George W. Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer. Among the revelations, according to early leaks:

Bush says of Obama:

"He came in one day to rehearse a speech, fuming," Latimer writes. "'This is a dangerous world,'" he said for no apparent reason, "and this cat [Obama] isn't remotely qualified to handle it. This guy has no clue, I promise you."

Bush says of Biden:

"If bull---- was currency," he said, "Joe Biden would be a billionaire."

Bush says of Sarah Palin:

"I'm trying to remember if I've met her before. What is she, the governor of Guam?"

Bush says of Hillary Clinton:

"Wait till her fat keister is sitting at this desk."

Wam. Bang. Kaboom. The New York Daily News has more.

UPDATE: GQ has excerpts from the book here, including a great scene of disharmony in the White House in response to the financial crisis last fall.
Hours before the president was to speak to the country, Senator John McCain's presidential campaign informed Josh Bolten that McCain was going to phone the president and urge him to call off the address and instead hold an emergency economic summit in Washington. If the president did speak that night, the McCain campaign didn't want him to outline any specific proposal.Of course, this threw the proverbial monkey wrench into our plans—and at the eleventh hour. I overheard the president call McCain's plan “a stunt.” Dana Perino said the negotiations were nearly over, and suddenly he was going to swoop in and muck things up? The president's political adviser, Barry Jackson, was blunt, calling McCain a “stupid prick.” . . . .Bush seemed to feel considerable unease with the choice of McCain as well. I think he liked Romney best. (The rumor was that so did Karl Rove.) My guess was the president hadn't so easily forgotten the endless slights he'd suffered, but there was little he could do. To him, McCain's defeat would be a repudiation of the Bush administration, so McCain had to win. The president, who had quite a good political mind, was clearly not impressed with the McCain operation. I was once in the Oval Office when the president was told a campaign event in Phoenix he was to attend with McCain suddenly had to be closed to the press. The president didn't understand why when the whole purpose of holding the event had been to show Bush and McCain together so the press would stop asking why the two wouldn't be seen together. If the event was closed to the press, the whole thing didn't make sense.“If he doesn't want me to go, fine,” the president said. “I've got better things to do.”

Eventually, someone informed the president that the reason the event was closed was that McCain was having trouble getting a crowd. Bush was incredulous—and to the point. “He can't get 500 people to show up for an event in his hometown?” he asked. No one said anything, and we went on to another topic. But the president couldn't let the matter drop. “He couldn't get 500 people? I could get that many people to turn out in Crawford.” He shook his head. “This is a five-spiral crash, boys.”

CNN International 

© 2009 Time Inc. All rights reserved.
3273  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / LOL Buchanan & OBama on: September 16, 2009, 04:24:11 PM
Buchanan doesn't surprise me.  He has always as far as I know been a protectionist but Obama does.
This has to be a nod to unions.   Otherwise, isn't a tire tariff otherwise completely counter the Obama's talk of working with the world in partnership?

09/15/2009

Down at the Chinese outlet store in Albany known as Wal-Mart, Chinese tires have so successfully undercut U.S.-made tires that the Cooper Tire factory in that south Georgia town had to shut down.

Twenty-one hundred Georgians lost their jobs.

The tale of Cooper Tire and what it portends is told in last week's Washington Post by Peter Whoriskey.

How could tires made on the other side of the world, then shipped to Albany, be sold for less than tires made in Albany?

Here's how.

At Cooper Tire, the wages were $18 to $21 per hour. In China, they are a fraction of that. The Albany factory is subject to U.S. health-and-safety, wage-and-hour and civil rights laws from which Chinese plants are exempt. Environmental standards had to be met at Cooper Tire or the plant would have been closed. Chinese factories are notorious polluters.

China won the competition because the 14th Amendment's "equal protection of the laws" does not apply to the People's Republic. While free trade laws grant China free and equal access to the U.S. market, China can pay workers wages and force them to work hours that would violate U.S. law, and China can operate plants whose health, safety and environmental standards would have their U.S. competitors shut down as public nuisances.

Beijing also manipulates its currency to keep export prices low and grants a rebate on its value-added tax on exports to the U.S.A., while imposing a value-added tax on goods coming from the U.S.A.

Thus did China, from 2004 to 2008, triple her share of the U.S. tire market from 5 percent to 17 percent and take down Cooper Tire of Albany.

But not to worry. Cooper Tire has seen the light and is now opening and acquiring plants in China, and sending Albany workers over to train the Chinese who took their jobs.

Welcome to 21st century America, where globalism has replaced patriotism as the civil religion of our corporate elites. As Thomas Jefferson reminded us, "Merchants have no country."

What has this meant to the republic that was once the most self-sufficient and independent in all of history?

Since 2001, when George Bush took the oath, the United States has run $3.8 trillion in trade deficits in manufactured goods, more than twice the $1.68 trillion in trade deficits we ran for imported oil and gas.

Our trade deficit with China in manufactured goods alone, $1.58 trillion over those eight years, roughly equals the entire U.S. trade deficit for oil and gas.

U.S. politicians never cease to wail of the need for "energy independence." But why is our dependence on the oil of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, Nigeria, Canada, Mexico and Venezuela a greater concern than our dependence on a non-democratic rival great power for computers and vital components of our weapons systems and high-tech industries?

As Executive Director Auggie Tantillo of the American Manufacturing Trade Action Committee compellingly argues:

"Running a trade deficit for natural resources that the United States lacks is something that cannot be helped, but running a massive deficit in manmade products that America easily could produce itself is a choice -- a poor choice that is bankrupting the country and responsible for the loss of millions of jobs."

How many millions of jobs?

In the George W. Bush years, we lost 5.3 million manufacturing jobs, one-fourth to one-third of all we had in 2001.

And our dependence on China is growing.

Where Beijing was responsible for 60 percent of the U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods in 2008, in the first six months of 2009, China accounted for 79 percent of our trade deficit in manufactured goods.

How can we end this dependency and begin building factories and creating jobs here, rather than deepening our dependency on a China that seeks to take our place in the sun? The same way Alexander Hamilton did, when we Americans produced almost nothing and were even more dependent on Great Britain than we are on China today.

Let us do unto our trading partners as they have done unto us.

As they rebate value-added taxes on exports to us, and impose a value-added tax on our exports to them, let us reciprocate. Impose a border tax equal to a VAT on all their goods entering the United States, and use the hundreds of billions to cut corporate taxes on all manufacturing done here in the United States.

Where they have tilted the playing field against us, let us tilt it back again. Transnational companies are as amoral as sharks. What is needed is simply to cut their profits from moving factories and jobs abroad and increase their profits for bringing them back to the U.S.A.

It's not rocket science. Hamilton, James Madison and Abraham Lincoln all did it. Obama's tariffs on Chinese tires are a good start.


3274  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Refresher on *Acorn & Obama* on: September 15, 2009, 08:37:32 AM
People are occasionally asking if OBama is just affiliated with left wing radical groups or if he is a real believer.
People like Beck who say the latter of course are bieng lalbed "fringe" "right wing nuts" or a new one desperate one from MSNBC, "the fringe of the fringe".

Only a fool or sucker could see realize this guy is a true believer by now. 

Just a refresher from MM to remind us the intimate links between Obama and this corrupt organization.  He actually was doing some of the teaching.

"According to ACORN, Obama trained its Chicago members in leadership seminars".  I wonder if any of these training sessions have footprints?  What kind of training are we talking about?

The ACORN Obama knows
By Michelle Malkin  •  June 25, 2008 12:10 PM

My syndicated column today spotlights the whistleblower report on ACORN, which I’ve been blogging about (here) and which deserves more attention in the media and in Washington–especially in light of the radical activist group’s embrace of Barack Obama. The Consumer Rights League e-mailed to let me know that three GOP congressmen (Hensarling, Feeney, and Royce) have called on Barney Frank (D-Housing Boondoggle) to investigate ACORN’s taxpayer abuses. Snowball’s chance, I know, but conservatives ought to be turning up the heat and using every ounce of energy they have to, well, act like conservatives and push to de-fund the Left.

For excellent background on Obama and ACORN, see Stanley Kurtz’s NR piece here, plus City Journal pieces here and here. Also here and here.

***

The ACORN Obama knows
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

If you don’t know what ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is all about, you better bone up. This left-wing group takes in 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers — you and me — and has leveraged nearly four decades of government subsidies to fund affiliates that promote the welfare state and undermine capitalism and self-reliance, some of which have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and encouraging voter fraud. A new whistleblower report from the Consumer Rights League documents how Chicago-based ACORN has commingled public tax dollars with political projects.

Who in Washington will fight to ensure that your money isn’t being spent on these radical activities?

Don’t bother asking Barack Obama. He cut his ideological teeth working with ACORN as a “community organizer” and legal representative. Naturally, ACORN’s political action committee has warmly endorsed his presidential candidacy. According to ACORN, Obama trained its Chicago members in leadership seminars; in turn, ACORN volunteers worked on his campaigns. Obama also sat on the boards of the Woods Fund and Joyce Foundation, both of which poured money into ACORN’s coffers. ACORN head Maude Hurd gushes that Obama is the candidate who “best understands and can affect change on the issues ACORN cares about” — like ensuring their massive pipeline to your hard-earned money.

Let’s take a closer look at the ACORN Obama knows.

Last July, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State. Seven ACORN workers had submitted nearly 2,000 bogus voter registration forms. According to case records, they flipped through phone books for names to use on the forms, including “Leon Spinks,” “Frekkie Magoal” and “Fruto Boy Crispila.” Three ACORN election hoaxers pleaded guilty in October. A King County prosecutor called ACORN’s criminal sabotage “an act of vandalism upon the voter rolls.”

The group’s vandalism on electoral integrity is systemic. ACORN has been implicated in similar voter fraud schemes in Missouri, Ohio and at least 12 other states. The Wall Street Journal noted: “In Ohio in 2004, a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey. During a congressional hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained ACORN’s practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier.”

In March, Philadelphia elections officials accused the nonprofit advocacy group of filing fraudulent voter registrations in advance of the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary. The charges have been forwarded to the city district attorney’s office.

Under the guise of “consumer advocacy,” ACORN has lined its pockets. The Department of Housing and Urban Development funds hundreds, if not thousands, of left-wing “anti-poverty” groups across the country led by ACORN. Last October, HUD announced more than $44 million in new housing counseling grants to over 400 state and local efforts. The White House has increased funding for housing counseling by 150 percent since taking office in 2001, despite the role most of these recipients play as activist satellites of the Democratic Party. The AARP scored nearly $400,000 for training; the National Council of La Raza (”The Race”) scooped up more than $1.3 million; the National Urban League raked in nearly $1 million; and the ACORN Housing Corporation received more than $1.6 million.

As the Consumer Rights League points out in its new expose, the ACORN Housing Corporation has worked to obtain mortgages for illegal aliens in partnership with Citibank. It relies on undocumented income, “under the table” money, which may not be reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Moreover, the group’s “financial justice” operations attack lenders for “exotic” loans, while recommending 10-year interest-only loans (which deny equity to the buyer) and risky reverse mortgages. Whistleblower documents reveal internal discussions among the group that blur the lines between its tax-exempt housing work and its aggressive electioneering activities. The group appears to shake down corporate interests with relentless PR attacks, and then enters “no lobby” agreements with targeted corporations after receiving payment.

Republicans have largely looked the other way as ACORN has expanded its government-funded empire. But finally, a few conservative voices in Congress have called for investigation of the group’s apparent extortion schemes. This week, GOP Reps. Tom Feeney, Jeb Hensarling and Ed Royce called on Democrat Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, to convene a hearing to probe potential illegalities and abuse of taxpayer funds by ACORN’s management and minions alike.

Where does the candidate of Hope and Change — the candidate of Reform and New Politics — stand on the issue? Barack Obama, ACORN’s senator, is for more of the same old, same old subsidizing of far-left politics in the name of fighting for the poor while enriching ideological cronies. It’s the Chicago way.

3275  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama: West a "jackass" on: September 15, 2009, 08:28:04 AM
Another example of the MSM trying to protect a guy who is not Abe Lincoln.

As for OBama these outbursts are obviously reflections of the real man coming out despite the denials from the protective MSM.
""ABC has since issued an apology to the White House for quoting words that were never intended to be made public.""  

Why apologize - did anyone ever apologize when this happened to W?  A real journalist might say this is the *real* man behind the facade of the great mediator.

As for Taylor Swift I am of the *opinion* she is a little creep.  All her hit lyrics that she claims she wrote are exactly like songs and parts of song lyrics that Katherine wrote and were taken out of our house by her psychopathic mother or appear to taken via networking into computers or printers hooked up to computers.

Taylor Swift has minimal talent.  She can't sing very good at all, she can't dance and she cannot create music contrary to her claims.  Yet she is a chosen annointed one, apparantly because her father (probably) knows the right people, her stuff sellls to the teeny boppers, and big music is behind her and making money.  As for the West thing it will turn out to be her biggest boon.
And my wife and I sit here and can do nothing while people moved into several homes near us and surveillance the crap out of us.

Our lives are ruined, the peopel robbing us think this all one big funny game and little shits like Taylor Swift who have little talent are collecting awards on the national stage.
****The US president made the uncharacteristically blunt remark during an interview with CNBC, the US business news network, on Monday.

Although Mr Obama delivered the aside during an off-the-record segment of the pre-recorded interview, it was picked up and tweeted by a journalist from a rival network.

The message has since been deleted, but not before it was re-tweeted by many of Mr Moran's more than one million followers, ensuring that it was read across the web.

ABC has since issued an apology to the White House for quoting words that were never intended to be made public.  
(WHY apologize - did anyone ever apologize when this happened to W?)


"In the process of reporting on remarks by President Obama that were made during a CNBC interview, ABC News employees prematurely tweeted a portion of those remarks that turned out to be from an off-the-record portion of the interview," a spokesman said.

"This was done before our editorial process had been completed. That was wrong. We apologize to the White House and CNBC and are taking steps to ensure that it will not happen again."

The White House has yet to comment on the affair, but the president's criticisms of West certainly chime with the public mood.

The rapper has been widely condemned for interrupting 19-year-old country-pop singer Taylor Swift during her acceptance speech at the New York award ceremony on Sunday night to claim that his friend Beyoncé should have won the best female video gong.

In an contrite appearance on the Jay Leno show last night, he said that he planned to apologise to the Swift in person and said he was going to take some time off from the music industry.****
 
3276  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: September 14, 2009, 12:25:10 PM
As of 08/31.  Awaiting to see what bounce he is getting and calling those who disagree with him the fringe, liars, deceivers, bogus and all paid off special interests:

http://www.zogby.com/features/featuredtables.cfm?ID=171
3277  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Analysis of tire tariff on: September 12, 2009, 09:36:11 AM
One interesting analysis of the "net" affect of the trade tariff imposed by Obama.   I guess this could go under a "trade" or "tariff" thread but since it was imposed at a request of a union it seems reasonable to put here under a "union" thread.  I think the bottom line is this is a political reward to his constituency which is now obvious Obama consistently does - reward his base and pretend he is willing to compromise with his opponents.  In affect he makes the divide in this country worse.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/09/simple-economic-analysis-of-tire-tariff.html
3278  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: unions on: September 12, 2009, 08:40:57 AM
In this vein Obama appears more like Lou Dobbs or Pat Buchanan.
It has the appearance he is protecting his union friends.  Another possible explanation is he is using this to punish China for something or to send them some sort of signal.  Unclear.   

***U.S. to Impose Tariff on Tires From China

By Peter Whoriskey and Anne Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 12, 2009

In one of his first major decisions on trade policy, President Obama opted Friday to impose a tariff on tires from China, a move that fulfills his campaign promise to "crack down" on imports that unfairly undermine American workers but risks angering the nation's second-largest trading partner.

The decision is intended to bolster the ailing U.S. tire industry, in which more than 5,000 jobs have been lost over the past five years as the volume of Chinese tires in the market has tripled.

It comes at a sensitive time, however. Leaders from the world's largest economies are preparing to gather in Pittsburgh in less than two weeks to discuss more cooperation amid tensions over trade.

The tire tariff will amount to 35 percent the first year, 30 percent the second and 25 percent the third.

Although a federal trade panel had recommended higher levies -- of 55, 45 and 35 percent, respectively -- the decision is considered a victory for the United Steelworkers union, which filed the trade complaint.

"The president sent the message that we expect others to live by the rules, just as we do," Leo W. Gerard, president of the union, said Friday night.

China's government and its tire manufacturers, as well as tire importers and some U.S. tire makers with plants overseas, had strenuously objected to the measure.

"The President decided to remedy the clear disruption to the U.S. tire industry based on the facts and the law in this case," the White House said in a statement released Friday night.

Obama's decision signals a marked shift from the policy of the Bush administration, which had rejected taking action in four similar cases it reviewed.

The union complaint was filed under a law Congress passed in 2000 that allows the United States to impose tariffs and other trade protections if a surge in Chinese imports damages a U.S. industry.

China agreed to the provision while negotiating to join the World Trade Organization, but until Friday the general "safeguard" provisions of the law had never been invoked.

Critics warned that if the general "safeguard," which expires in four years, was never used to protect American workers from Chinese imports, then political support for free trade would be eroded.

"Since China joined the WTO, American workers have not been assured that the government would defend them against unfair trade," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said.

The tariff, which will take effect Sept. 26, represents the first such case under the law for Obama, and his decision has been highly anticipated.

During the campaign, he had pledged to "crack down on China" and "work to ensure that China is no longer given a free pass to undermine U.S. workers," as his Web site put it.

But his commitment to that point of view was thrown into doubt during the primaries when a Canadian official said an Obama adviser had privately characterized his tough stance on the North American Free Trade Agreement as political posturing.

Marguerite Trossevin, who represents a coalition of U.S. tire companies that import Chinese tires, said the tariff decision is "very disappointing." She predicted price increases for U.S. consumers and losses for U.S. tire importers.

"For the U.S. tire distributors and consumers, there's going to be a heavy burden to bear," she said. "It sends the message that special interests will get protection if they ask for it -- regardless of what that means for broader trade policy."

China's Ministry of Commerce said in a statement early Saturday that the move violated WTO rules. "China strongly opposes this serious act of trade protectionism by the U.S," the ministry said, according to the Associated Press.

Not surprisingly, there were conflicting predictions about what effect the tariff might have on the U.S. industry.

Supporters said the measure would have only a negligible effect on the price of tires and would lead U.S. manufacturers to invest in their U.S. plants.

The tariff's detractors said higher tire prices could lead some consumers to wait longer before replacing tires, creating a safety risk. Moreover, they said, the tariff won't result in more jobs. Tires will simply come in from other low-cost countries, they say, and U.S. manufacturers, keep making their cheaper tires in China.

"U.S. tire manufacturers years ago decided to move production of low end tires off-shore," said David Spooner, a lawyer representing the Chinese tire industry. "Frankly, a temporary tariff is not going to get them to change their business plan."****
3279  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: September 12, 2009, 08:27:55 AM
This goes along with the stereotye that if you mess with a Jew he/she will kick your tuchus. wink
3280  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / again on: September 11, 2009, 10:35:36 AM
Not one ioda about Bamas calling his opponents claims as "lies" "distortions" and "bogus" as *erroding* debate.
As always he is off the hook.  The opponents can never get away with his and his parties tactics.

Typical AP writer.


****Analysis: 'You lie!' further erodes discourse
        Associated Press Writer Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 17 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Screams of "Socialism!" Conservative talk show hosts peddling debunked "death panels." Placards likening Barack Obama to Hitler. And now, to the president's face: "You lie!" A breach of civility? Absolutely. A strategic political mistake? Maybe.

Republican Rep. Joe Wilson's personal attack on Obama and jeering from other GOP lawmakers as the president spoke to Congress escalated the opposition's outrage machine that over the summer framed the health care debate and knocked the White House back on its heels.

The rare lack of decorum on the House floor as Obama addressed lawmakers could provide him with a much-needed opening to retake control of the national conversation over a health care overhaul by turning off Americans to his critics' acerbic claims.

Or, people could dismiss derisive laughter and head-shaking from Republicans and embrace the opposition's broader argument that Obama's prescription for the ailing health care system would expand the government's reach into people's lives.

At the very least, Wednesday night marked the further erosion of long deteriorating discourse in a country where political opponents increasingly try to out-yell each other, vocal extremes of each political party shape the debate and a 24/7 media focused on ratings amplifies the tit for tat while latching onto phrases that fan the flames.

"What we've seen all summer was the worst of debate," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania and an expert on political communication. "It does suggest a decline."

That's not lost on voters.

"We are becoming more adversarial and more shrill," says Jeffrey Howell of Cincinnati, 43. "We don't have discourse anymore."

It's become so bad that Donna Schwinghammer of Washington, Pa., 54, has stopped listening — to both sides. "I'm tired of all of it. There's so much fingerpointing," she says.

The latest low point in the nation's political dialogue came Wednesday when the vitriol of the summer's town-hall style events spilled into the Capitol as Obama addressed a joint session of Congress, saying: "The time for bickering is over ... Now is the season for action."

Some Republicans applauded and gave standing ovations through the speech. But, at times, GOP critics also shouted "not true" and "shame." There were boos, hisses and grumbles. One Republican, Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, left the chamber, his spokesman says in frustration, even before the president had finished.

But it was Wilson's boorish outburst that froze Republicans in their seats.

"You lie!" the South Carolina congressman shouted and jabbed a finger in the air when Obama said that Democratic plans do not cover illegal immigrants.

Taking advantage of the extraordinary accusation, Obama calmly replied, "That's not true," and went on with his speech.

Will personal attacks on a president who people generally like — even if they disagree with his policies — ultimately prove to have gone too far?

Certainly, in the short-term, the chorus of criticism painted an unflattering — many Republicans say embarrassing — picture of the GOP. Wilson apologized shortly after the speech, which some say may have limited the fallout.

But the outbursts also gave Obama an opportunity that he seized, pleading for civil discourse and bipartisan solution-making. And they added fuel to Democratic arguments that Republicans simply belong to "The Party of No."

The Democratic-aligned Americans United for Change quickly rolled out a Web video, saying: "It's Official — The Party of NO Has Become the Party of No Shame."

What's more: the behavior highlighted personal volleys coming from the GOP's far right wing just as party leaders in Congress are trying to position themselves as centrists debating policy. The Republican base and right flank may be energized by what they saw and heard but independents and moderates may have cringed.

That could spell trouble for Republicans looking ahead to next year's midterm elections.

While midterms typically are base elections and vitriol will get hard-core party loyalists to turn out, Republicans also don't want to look too extreme as they try to pick up seats in Congress.

Several Republicans called the outbursts unhelpful — particularly Wilson's.

"It combined two things that just aren't the same: legitimate outrage people feel over government-run health care and manufactured vitriol that I think most people dismiss," veteran Republican communications strategist Todd Harris said. That, he said, plays into the Democrats' hands.

But Republicans also are betting that there's no long-term damage to the GOP's strategy because Republicans have tapped into fear among Americans about the government intruding into their lives.

"Intemperate and clearly a mistake," Phil Musser, the former executive director of the Republican Governor's Association, said of Wilson's remark. But, he added: "It didn't shift the debate."

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Liz Sidoti has covered national politics for The Associated Press since 2003.****
3281  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / soft civil war on: September 11, 2009, 10:18:49 AM
This article is food for thought whether or not one would agree with the specifics.
I agree we are in a soft civil war.
My hypothesis is that much of it can be brought down to a fight over those who want more entitlements/government and those that want the opposite.   Or perhaps it could be looked at as socialism/facism vs democracy/capitilism.
I suspect iF it wasn't for this issue, other issues, such as environmental issues, energy issues, (though perhaps not abortion), foreign policy could somehow be hashed out.  But the core divide is now unbreachable because of this taking of sides based on opposing philosophy.  It appears to have all started in the early 20th century.  The left brings back the label "progessives".   Suddenly the talking points is that they are not "liberals" but they are progressives.  The only difference is in the label.

The left has their annointed champion.  The right does not.  Yet the left even with the ONE is having trouble convincing most of us thier point of view is better. 



Comments Is America Coming Apart?
by  Patrick J. Buchanan

09/11/2009


Flying home from London, where the subject of formal debate on the 70th anniversary of World War II had been whether Winston Churchill was a liability or asset to the Free World, one arrives in the middle of a far more acrimonious national debate right here in the United States.
   
At issue: Should Barack Obama be allowed to address tens of millions of American children, inside their classrooms, during school hours?
   
Conservative talk-show hosts saw a White House scheme to turn public schools into indoctrination centers where the socialist ideology of Obama would be spoon-fed to captive audiences of children forced to listen to Big Brother -- and then do assignments on his sermon.

   
The liberal commentariat raged about right-wing paranoia.
   
Yet Byron York of The Washington Examiner dug back to 1991 to discover that, when George H.W. Bush went to Alice Deal Junior High to speak to America's school kids, the left lost it.
   
"The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," railed The Washington Post. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander was called before a House committee. The National Education Association denounced Bush. And Congress ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate.
   
Obama's actual speech proved about as controversial as a Nancy Reagan appeal to eighth-graders to "Just say no!" to drugs.
   
Yet, the episode reveals the poisoned character of our politics.
   
We saw it earlier on display in August, when the crowds that came out for town hall meetings to oppose Obama's health care plans were called "thugs," "fascists," "racists" and "evil-mongers" by national Democrats.
   
We see it as Rep. Joe Wilson shouts, "You lie!" at the president during his address to a joint session of Congress.
   
We seem not only to disagree with each other more than ever, but to have come almost to detest one another. Politically, culturally, racially, we seem ever ready to go for each others' throats.
   
One half of America sees abortion as the annual slaughter of a million unborn. The other half regards the right-to-life movement as tyrannical and sexist.
   
Proponents of gay marriage see its adversaries as homophobic bigots. Opponents see its champions as seeking to elevate unnatural and immoral relationships to the sacred state of traditional marriage.
   
The question invites itself. In what sense are we one nation and one people anymore? For what is a nation if not a people of a common ancestry, faith, culture and language, who worship the same God, revere the same heroes, cherish the same history, celebrate the same holidays, and share the same music, poetry, art and literature?
   
Yet, today, Mexican-Americans celebrate Cinco de Mayo, a skirmish in a French-Mexican war about which most Americans know nothing, which took place the same year as two of the bloodiest battles of our own Civil War: Antietam and Fredericksburg.
   
Christmas and Easter, the great holidays of Christendom, once united Americans in joy. Now we fight over whether they should even be mentioned, let alone celebrated, in our public schools.
   
Where we used to have classical, pop, country & Western and jazz music, now we have varieties tailored to specific generations, races and ethnic groups. Even our music seems designed to subdivide us.
   
One part of America loves her history, another reviles it as racist, imperialist and genocidal. Old heroes like Columbus, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee are replaced by Dr. King and Cesar Chavez.
   
But the old holidays, heroes and icons endure, as the new have yet to put down roots in a recalcitrant Middle America.
   
We are not only more divided than ever on politics, faith and morality, but along the lines of class and ethnicity. Those who opposed Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court and stood by Sgt. Crowley in the face-off with Harvard's Henry Louis Gates were called racists. But this time they did not back down. They threw the same vile word right back in the face of their accusers, and Barack Obama.
   
Consider but a few issues on which Americans have lately been bitterly divided: school prayer, the Ten Commandments, evolution, the death penalty, abortion, homosexuality, assisted suicide, affirmative action, busing, the Confederate battle flag, the Duke rape case, Terri Schiavo, Iraq, amnesty, torture.
   
Now it is death panels, global warming, "birthers" and socialism. If a married couple disagreed as broadly and deeply as Americans do on such basic issues, they would have divorced and gone their separate ways long ago. What is it that still holds us together?
   
The European-Christian core of the country that once defined us is shrinking, as Christianity fades, the birth rate falls and Third World immigration surges. Globalism dissolves the economic bonds, while the cacophony of multiculturalism displaces the old American culture.
   
"E pluribus unum" -- out of many, one -- was the national motto the men of '76 settled upon. One sees the pluribus. But where is the unum? One sees the diversity. But where is the unity?
   
Is America, too, breaking up?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

3282  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / second post on: September 11, 2009, 09:21:42 AM
Another post from MM on this topic going back to May.
Didn't we already have a long history of corruption and organized crime with unions in this country?
Too bad unions are not a public company.  I would definitely buy stock in what we will eventually see an explosion of corruption.  It is the union version of Fannie May in its early stages. 

The annointed one has the nerve to insult all of us with the idea we will pay for the increase in Medicare by cutting fraud and abuse and he can't and won't even do it now.  And he suggest that increasing speding in this area by a trillion is not going to come with an explosion of more fraud and abuse?  This flies in the face of common sense.

Our government is obviously overflowing with fraud and abuse as it is.
 
  ***Michelle Malkin  Obama slashes anti-union corruption budget at DoL
By Michelle Malkin  •  May 7, 2009 12:19 PM Well, well, well. The President uses toy knives to “cut” the rest of the budget, but somehow finds a working chainsaw to slash funding of the anti-union corruption unit at the Labor Department.

Philip Klein at the American Spectator has the scoop:

…buried in the budget documents released by the White House today is a 9 percent cut in the unit of the Department of Labor that is in charge of regulating unions.

Under the leadership of Elaine Chao during the Bush administration, the Labor Department’s Office of Labor-Management Standards took its job of policing unions seriously. Its actions led to 929 convictions of corrupt union officials and to the recovery of more than $93 million on behalf of union members. Yet the Obama administration has proposed slashing its budget from $45 million in 2009 to $41 million in 2010, citing an insufficient “workload” for the office.

Instead of using the money to make sure unions play by the rules, the Obama administration proposes shifting resources to the department’s Wage and Hour Division, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration — all areas of the agency focused on regulating businesses.****

3283  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / unions on: September 11, 2009, 09:14:11 AM
We need more journalism into the infiltration of the unions in this government.
The corruption of unions is legendary.  Yet the great one, the arbitor of the universe, the annointed step father of the downtrodden, embraces them.
 
From a logical point of view this is not reconcilable.

***Lead StorySpecial report: How Obama cronyism threatens rail security
By Michelle Malkin  •  September 11, 2009 07:29 AM

How Obama cronyism threatens rail security
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009

New Delhi. Mumbai. Chechnya. Madrid. London. The question isn’t whether America will suffer a jihadi attack on our passenger rail lines, but when. So, why has President Obama neutered the nation’s most highly-trained post-9/11 counterterrorism rail security team?

All signs point to business-as-usual cronyism and pandering to power-grabbing union bosses.

Amtrak’s Office of Security Strategy and Special Operations (OSSSO) grew out of a counterterrorism and intelligence unit developed by the Bush administration in the wake of global jihadi attacks on mass transit systems. The office was staffed with Special Forces veterans, law enforcement officers, railroad specialists, other military personnel, and experts who collectively possessed hundreds of years of experience fighting on the front lines against terrorism. Each member underwent at least 800 hours of rail security-related training, including advanced marksmanship, close quarters, and protective security exercises.

OSSSO’s mobile prevention teams acted as “force multipliers” working with local, state, and federal authorities across the country to detect, deter, and defend against criminal and terrorist attacks on mass transit. They conducted hundreds of show-of-force, uniformed, and rail marshal rides.

OSSSO also provided security services for President Bush, the Pope, the 2008 Democrat and Republican conventions, then-Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s campaign events, and then-Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden’s Amtrak whistle stop tours. The counterterrorism unit’s push to conduct random passenger and baggage screening earned predictable criticism from civil liberties absolutists, but also garnered bipartisan praise on Capitol Hill. Even Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas hailed the rail security team’s work last year:

“Let me congratulate them for being aware” of the threat to rail passengers, the chairman of a House Homeland Security subcommittee on transportation security, told USA Today in July 2008. “(But) this has to be the new standard for Amtrak.”

How will Congress react to the news that this high standard has been obliterated?

According to multiple government sources who declined to be identified for fear of retribution, OSSSO’s East Coast and West Coast teams have not worked in a counterterrorism capacity since the summer. Their long-arms were put under lock and key after the abrupt departures of Amtrak vice president for security strategy and special operations Bill Rooney and Amtrak Inspector General Fred Weiderhold.

Weiderhold played an instrumental role in creating OSSSO’s predecessor at Amtrak, the Counter-Terrorism Unit (CTU). He tapped Rooney to oversee the office. But Rooney was quietly given the “thank you for your service” heave-ho in May and Weiderhold was unexpectedly “retired” a few weeks later — just as the government-subsidized rail service faced mounting complaints about its meddling in financial audits and probes.

As I reported in June, Weiderhold had blown the whistle on intrusion of Amtrak’s Law Department into his financial audits and probes. A damning, 94-page report from an outside legal firm concluded that the “independence and effectiveness” of the Amtrak inspector general’s office were “being substantially impaired” by the Law Department – which happens to be headed by Eleanor Acheson, a close pal of Vice President Biden.

Biden, in turn, is tight with the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the powerful union that represents the Amtrak Police Department. According to OSSSO sources, the APD brass have been aggrieved over the non-unionized counterterrorism unit’s existence from its inception. A West Coast OSSSO team member told me that union leaders blocked police credentialing efforts by his office for more than a year. An East Coast OSSSO team member told me that the FOP recently filed a grievance against one of its counterterrorism officers for assisting a train conductor who asked for help in ejecting a ticketless passenger.

Unlike the highly-specialized officers at OSSSO, APD officers possess minimal counterterrorism training. Past studies show alarmingly low pass rates among APD patrolmen who have attended undergone basic special operations classes, according to government sources. The Amtrak FOP continues to squabble over turf with the rival Teamsters Union; its leaders can’t even agree on minimal physical fitness standards for its members that have yet to be implemented. Nevertheless, OSSSO is now under the command and control of the APD — and federal stimulus funding specifically earmarked for the counterterrorism unit has now been absorbed by the police department.

Amtrak did not respond to my questions about OSSSO by my column deadline Thursday afternoon.

Al Qaeda operatives have repeatedly plotted to wreak havoc on our mass transit systems. And they will try, try again. American jihadi Bryant Neal Vinas recently gave the feds details about a plot blow up a Long Island Rail Road commuter train in New York’s Penn Station. As America marks the September 11 anniversary and the “Never forget” mantra echoes, an OSSSO team member told me: “There is no room for internal protectionism, vested interests of unions, or asset-manipulating bureaucracies where the safety of our national passenger railroad is concerned.”

Does anyone else in Washington agree?

***
The RAND Corporation conducted an internal review of the Amtrak Police Department’s deficiencies in counterterrorism training, and made the following observations:

Although APD officers receive police training, they do not receive special counterterrorism training either as part of their initial training or in training activities after they join the APD. The lack of counterterrorism training might explain why every APD officer interviewed indicated that he or she saw no fundamental difference between police and counter-terror work.

(By counterterrorism training, we refer to knowledge and skills to conduct counter-surveillance, special training to respond to chemical, biological, radiation, and nuclear threats and familiarization with attack methods that might involve the use of these types of weapons, profiling techniques to identify suspicious behaviors, knowledge about protocols for security information sharing, and awareness of how to work with Federal Government agencies and other entities involved in counterterrorism.)

…Moreover, there are no metrics in the Amtrak Security Threat Level Response Plan against which to monitor compliance or to gauge the effectiveness of prescribed countermeasures. There are no performance metrics for the divisional security coordinators program either. RAND’s review of Amtrak security documents and interview responses also did not find any explicit criteria guiding the selection of additional or alternative countermeasures or shifts in response levels within the system. It was, thus, not clear what would guide the Chief of Amtrak Police’s decisions on these matters. In this connection, it is also not clear how management would know with high confidence that the response posture chosen by APD translates into reduced vulnerability for Amtrak….****

3284  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / contrast Ted Stevens on: September 11, 2009, 08:59:59 AM
Remember Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens???

Remember who the msm was all over his case?

Did you know his conviction and indictment were thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct?

The charges against him may have totally trumped up.   I didn't know that until I just read this on Wikepedia.  The msm has not publically exonerated him.  Even Eric Holder had to admit there was misconduct.

Yet narry a peep about Rangle in the msm.  If it wasn't for fox or drudge we probably wouldn't even know he is being investigated.

Controversies
In December 2003, the Los Angeles Times reported that Stevens had taken advantage of lax Senate rules to use his political influence to obtain a large amount of his personal wealth.[56] According to the article, while Stevens was already a millionaire "thanks to investments with businessmen who received government contracts or other benefits with his help," the lawmaker who is in charge of $800 billion a year, writes "preferences he wrote into law," from which he then benefits.[56]

Home remodeling and VECO
 
Stevens' home in Girdwood, AlaskaMay 29, 2007, the Anchorage Daily News reported that the FBI and a federal grand jury were investigating an extensive remodeling project at Stevens' home in Girdwood. Stevens' Alaska home was raided by the FBI and IRS on July 30, 2007.[57][58] The remodeling work doubled the size of the modest home. Public records show that the house was 2,471 square feet (230 m2) after the remodeling and that the property was valued at $271,300 in 2003, including a $5,000 increase in land value.[59] The remodel in 2000 was organized by Bill Allen, a founder of the VECO Corporation, an oil-field service company and has been estimated to have cost VECO and the various contractors $250,000 or more.[60] However, the residential contractor who finished the renovation for VECO, Augie Paone, "believes the [Stevens'] remodeling could have cost ― if all the work was done efficiently ― around $130,000 to $150,000, close to the figure Stevens cited last year."[61] The Stevens paid $160,000 for the renovations "and assumed that covered everything."[62]

In June, the Anchorage Daily News reported that a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., heard evidence in May about the expansion of Stevens' Girdwood home and other matters connecting Stevens to VECO.[63] In mid-June, FBI agents questioned several aides who work for Stevens as part of the investigation.[64] In July, Washingtonian magazine reported that Stevens had hired "Washington’s most powerful and expensive lawyer", Brendan Sullivan Jr., in response to the investigation.[65] In 2006, during wiretapped conversations with Bill Allen, Stevens expressed worries over potential misunderstandings and legal complications arising from the sweeping federal investigations into Alaskan politics.[66][67] On the witness stand, "Allen testified that VECO staff who had worked on his own house had charged 'way too much,' leaving him uncertain how much to invoice Stevens for when he had his staff work on the senator's house ... that he would be embarrassed to bill Stevens for overpriced labor on the house, and said he concealed some of the expense."[68]


[edit] Former aide McCabe
The Justice Department is also examining whether federal funds that Stevens steered to the Alaska SeaLife Center may have enriched a former aide.[69] Currently the United States Department of Commerce and the Interior Department's inspector general are investigating "how millions of dollars that Stevens (R-Alaska) obtained for the nonprofit Alaska SeaLife Center were spent."[69] According to CNN, "Among the questions is how about $700,000 of nearly $4 million directed to the National Park Service wound up being paid to companies associated with Trevor McCabe, a former legislative director for Stevens."[69]


[edit] Bob Penney
In September 2007, The Hill reported that Stevens had "steered millions of federal dollars to a sportfishing industry group founded by Bob Penney, a longtime friend." In 1998, Stevens invested $15,000 in a Utah land deal managed by Penney; in 2004, Stevens sold his share of the property for $150,000.[70]


[edit] Trial and aftermath

[edit] Indictment
On July 29, 2008 Stevens was indicted by a federal grand jury on seven counts of failing to properly report gifts,[71][72] a felony,[1] and found guilty at trial three months later (October 27, 2008).[1] The charges relate to renovations to his home and alleged gifts from VECO Corporation, claimed to be worth more than $250,000.[73][74] The indictment followed a lengthy investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for possible corruption into Alaskan politicians and was based on his relationship with Bill Allen. Allen, then an oil service company executive, had earlier pleaded guilty, with sentencing suspended pending his cooperation in gathering evidence and giving testimony in other trials, to bribing several Alaskan state legislators, including a disputed claim about Stevens' son, former State Senator Ben Stevens. Stevens declared, "I'm innocent," and pleaded not guilty to the charges in a federal district court on July 31, 2008. Stevens asserted his right to a speedy trial so that he could have the opportunity to promptly clear his name and requested that the trial be held before the 2008 election.[75][76]

US District Court Judge in Washington DC Emmet G. Sullivan, on October 2, 2008 denied Stevens' chief counsel, Brendan Sullivan's mistrial petition due to allegations of withholding evidence by prosecutors. Thus, the latter were admonished, and would submit themselves for internal probe by the United States Department of Justice. Brady v. Maryland requires prosecutors to give a defendant all information for defense. Judge Sulllivan had earlier admonished the prosecution for sending home to Alaska a witness who might have helped the defense.[77][78]

The case was prosecuted by Principal Deputy Chief Brenda K. Morris, Trial Attorneys Nicholas A. Marsh and Edward P. Sullivan of the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section, headed by Chief William M. Welch II, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph W. Bottini and James A. Goeke from the District of Alaska.


[edit] Guilty verdict and consequences
 Wikinews has related news: US Senator Ted Stevens convicted on 7 counts
On October 27, 2008, Stevens was found guilty of all seven counts of making false statements. Stevens is the fifth sitting senator ever to be convicted by a jury in U.S. history,[79] and the first since Senator Harrison A. Williams (D-NJ) in 1981[80] (although Senator David Durenberger (R-MN) pled guilty to a felony more recently, in 1995). Stevens faces a maximum penalty of five years per charge.[81] His sentencing hearing was originally scheduled February 25, but his attorneys told Judge Emmet Sullivan they would file motions to overturn the verdict by early December.[82] However, it was thought unlikely that he would have seen significant time in prison.[83]

Within a few days of his conviction, Stevens faced bipartisan calls for his resignation. Both parties' presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, were quick to call for Stevens to stand down. Obama said that Stevens needed to resign to help "put an end to the corruption and influence-peddling in Washington."[84] McCain said that Stevens "has broken his trust with the people" and needed to step down—a call echoed by his running mate, Sarah Palin, governor of Stevens' home state.[85] Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, as well as fellow Republican Senators Norm Coleman, John Sununu and Gordon Smith also called for Stevens to resign. McConnell said there would be "zero tolerance" for a convicted felon serving in the Senate—strongly hinting that he would support Stevens' expulsion from the Senate unless Stevens resigned first.[86][87] Late on November 1, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed that he would schedule a vote on Stevens' expulsion, saying that "a convicted felon is not going to be able to serve in the United States Senate."[88] Had Stevens been expelled after winning election, a special election would have been held to fill the seat through the remainder of the term, until 2014.[89] Some speculated Palin would have tried to run for the Senate via this special election.[90][91] No sitting Senator has been expelled since the Civil War.

Nonetheless, during a debate with his opponent Mark Begich days after his conviction, Stevens continued to claim innocence. "I have not been convicted. I have a case pending against me, and probably the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct by the prosecutors that is known." Stevens also cited plans to appeal.[92] Begich went on to defeat Stevens by 3,724 votes.[93]

On November 13, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina announced he would move to have Stevens expelled from the Senate Republican Conference (caucus) regardless of the results of the election. Losing his caucus membership would cost Stevens his committee assignments.[94] However, DeMint later decided to postpone offering his motion, saying that while there were enough votes to throw Stevens out, it would be a moot point if Stevens lost his reelection bid.[95] Stevens ended up losing the Senate race, and on November 20, 2008, gave his last speech to the Senate, which was met with a rare Senate standing ovation.[96]

In February 2009, FBI agent Chad Joy filed a whistleblower affidavit, alleging that prosecutors and FBI agents conspired to withhold and conceal evidence that could have resulted in a verdict of "not guilty."[97] In his affidavit, Joy alleged that prosecutors intentionally sent a key witness back to Alaska after the witness performed poorly during a mock cross examination. The witness, Rocky Williams, later notified the defense attorneys that his testimony would undercut the prosecution's claim that his company had spent its own money renovating Sen. Stevens' house. Joy further alleged that the prosecutors intentionally withheld Brady material including redacted prior statements of a witness, and a memo from Bill Allen stating that Sen. Stevens probably would have paid for the goods and services if asked. Joy further alleged that a female FBI agent had an inappropriate relationship with Allen, who also gave gifts to FBI agents and helped one agent's relative get a job.

As a result of Joy's affidavit and claims by the defense that prosecutorial misconduct caused an unfair trial, Judge Sullivan ordered a hearing to be held on February 13, 2009, to determine whether a new trial should be ordered. At the February 13 hearing the judge held the prosecutors in contempt for failing to deliver documents to Stevens' legal counsel.[98] Judge Sullivan called this conduct "outrageous."


[edit] Convictions voided and indictment dismissed
On April 1, 2009, NPR’s Nina Totenberg, citing sources close to the case, reported that Attorney General Eric Holder decided to drop the government’s opposition to the motion for a new trial. Totenberg also reported that Holder intended to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, meaning that he would not seek to retry the case. Since this occurred prior to sentencing, this would have the effect of vacating Stevens' conviction. Holder was reportedly very angry at the prosecutors’ apparent withholding of exculpatory evidence, and wanted to send a message that prosecutorial misconduct would not be tolerated under his watch. After the prosecutors had been held in contempt, Holder replaced the entire trial team, including top officials at the public integrity section. However, Totenberg reported, the misconduct, Stevens’ age, and the fact he was no longer in office prompted him to drop all charges against Stevens—effectively vacating the guilty verdict.[3] The Associated Press subsequently confirmed NPR’s report.[99]

The final straw for Holder, according to numerous reports, was the discovery of a previously undocumented interview with Bill Allen, the prosecution's star witness. Allen stated that the fair-market value of the repairs to Stevens' house was around $80,000—far less than the $250,000 he said it cost at trial. More seriously, Allen said in the interview that he didn't recall talking to Bob Persons, a friend of Stevens, regarding the repair bill for Stevens' House. This directly contradicted Allen's testimony at trial, in which he claimed Stevens asked him to give Persons a note Stevens sent him asking for a bill on the repair work. At trial, Allen said Persons had told him the note shouldn't be taken seriously because "Ted's just covering his ass." Even without the notes, Stevens' attorneys claimed that they thought Allen was lying about the conversation. [100]

Later that day, Stevens' attorney, Brendan Sullivan, said that Holder's decision was forced by "extraordinary evidence of government corruption." He also said that prosecutors not only withheld evidence, but "created false testimony that they gave us and actually presented false testimony in the courtroom"--two incidents that would have made it very likely that the convictions would have been overturned on appeal.[101]

On April 7, 2009, federal judge Emmet G. Sullivan formally accepted Holder's motion to set aside the verdict and throw out the indictment [102], based on what he called the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct he'd ever seen. He also initiated a criminal contempt investigation of six members of the prosecution. Although an internal probe by the Office of Professional Responsibility was already underway, Sullivan said he was not willing to trust it due to the "shocking and disturbing" nature of the misconduct. [103]

3285  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: September 11, 2009, 08:48:14 AM
Also the part that doctors and nurses support him and his plan.
Some undoubtedly do.  But many do not.
The msm continues to back him:

All the opponents are liars, distorters, and playing the "fear" card.
Everything he says is truth.

Has anyone noticed the countless fact checks and the keeping em honest CNN stuff?
Yet always the facts and the honesty concludes that the right is wrong and the leftist views are the truth.

He still has the msm media in his back pocket.
Ideologically they are all one in the same.

I doubt his speech will win people over long term.
Yet the Dems will try to ram this through nonetheless.

3286  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: September 10, 2009, 02:57:20 PM
Does anyone else see THIS as remarkable?  While the media of course focus on the exclamation of the Congressman calling Obama's statement about illegals a lie I don't hear one ioda from the msm about this:

"Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple."

I don't recall ever hearing a President call those who disagree with HIM liars in a speech to Congress.
Is this a first?

3287  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The United Nations on: September 09, 2009, 05:27:15 PM
I can't find any information on "Chairs" of the UN security council though Presidents of the security council are picked each month from the existing members (temporary and permanent) in English alphabetical order.
Yet I can't find anything on "chair".
What is the rest of the story here?
One has to ask why he is so enthralled with the UN and why so many from there love him. 
It can't be good for the US.  To me this guy is absolutely resolute in making us a third rate nation.
There should be no countries.  Just one government of mankind with Obama as head of the world.
Megalomania to me.   I don't know.  This guy is nuts to me.  I feel sorry for future generations of America.

 
***Obama First US President to Chair UN Security Council Obama First US President to Chair UN Security Council
September 9, 2009
(ChattahBox)—President Barack Obama will make history later this month when he takes the head seat at the table of the United Nations 15-member Security Council. Amazingly, President Obama will become the first United States president to chair the important international council, which deals with issues of global security, including nuclear disarmament.

President Obama’s direct involvement with the important work of the United Nations marks a distinctly different approach from former President Bush, whose unilateral foreign policy and bullying of its world partners frequently led to the isolation of the United States from the rest of the global community.

The Bush administration’s disdain for the UN came to the forefront during its rush to make the case of the existence of WMD’s in Iraq. “If we need to act, we will act. And we really don’t need United Nations approval to do so,” Bush said in 2003 before invading Iraq.

President Obama plans to join other heads of state in New York later this month for the 64th session of the UN General Assembly when the nuclear summit will be held.

Many vital issues will arise during the UN session, including a climate change debate that will set the stage for the upcoming global climate talks in Copenhagen at the end of the year. There are also the concerns with Iran’s nuclear program, which will be on the agenda during the Security Council meeting.

President Obama issued a September deadline to Iran reply to a negotiation offer, but Iran’s president recently announced that the subject of its nuclear programs would not be part of any discussions.

On the Middle East front, President Obama may host a meeting between Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas to set perimeters for a possible future peace deal between the warring nations.

Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi is also attending and speaking during the UN session, where he is expected to receive a cool reception in light of the recent public outrage over the hero’s welcome given to released Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.***
3288  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Corruption on: September 08, 2009, 12:12:24 PM
On the Huf post by Charles Rangel.  A few posters have called him on it.
I don't know what other thread to post this under other then *corruption*.

From the esteemed Congressman:

"The relevant provisions apply to wealthy individuals and corporations that engage in abusive tax shelter transactions, and they have nothing to do with taxpayers who err in good faith on their tax returns."

What a joke.

The post from him:



***The Huffington PostSeptember 8, 2009
   
Rep. Charles RangelPosted: September 8, 2009 11:14 AM BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index
August Was a Sideshow, September Is for Progress
digg  Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us ShareThis
Read More: Charlie Rangel, Health Care Bill, Health Care Debate, Health Care Reform, Health Reform, Rangel Tax Break, Tax Provision Health Care Bill, Politics News
     
 Share Print CommentsThe August recess -- which was supposed to be all health care, all the time -- ended up being about anything and everything but health care. For a few tense days outside President Obama's town halls, it became about gun rights. Then abortion. For weeks, the focus was grandma and euthanasia. And now, Republicans are intent on making it about me.

The New York Post, with an assist from its ally Fox News Channel, reported last week that I had quietly snuck into the health care bill new provisions cracking down on taxpayers who make honest mistakes on their tax returns. That's quite an inflammatory scoop, even for the Post. It's also entirely made up.

The relevant provisions apply to wealthy individuals and corporations that engage in abusive tax shelter transactions, and they have nothing to do with taxpayers who err in good faith on their tax returns. They certainly aren't new. These provisions have passed both the House and Senate in the past, enjoyed bipartisan support, and were included in the president's budget. And they certainly weren't snuck in. These provisions were considered by the full Committee on Ways and Means during a public markup, and materials describing them have been public for months. Under this bill, the IRS will continue to waive penalties for taxpayers who err in good faith, and claims to the contrary are part of a continuing effort to undermine the health care bill by raising unrelated issues.

Our objective here is quite simple. We are attempting to provide health care for the millions of American families that cannot afford it, to end the discriminatory practice of denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, and to effectively lower costs by introducing competition and choice through a public option. This is not an attempt to fund abortions with taxpayer dollars or a secret attempt to hoist end-of-life decisions on America's elderly. This bill isn't a tax-penalty bill dressed up to look like a health insurance reform bill. It actually is a health insurance reform bill. That's it. The GOP would disingenuously have you think otherwise.

Republicans have decided the business of killing health care reform and upending a potential Obama victory is too important not to exploit anything that sticks, including an Ethics Committee investigation I myself initiated last fall. A spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner echoed the Post's faulty reporting about tax penalties, knowing full well no such language exists in the bill. The partisan attacks have had no impact on my effectiveness as Chairman. I am proud that the Committee on Ways and Means was the first committee in Congress to report out a truly comprehensive health reform bill, one with a strong public option that most represents the principles set out by President Obama. We did this by bringing the members of the Committee together for over 80 hours of spirited and detailed debate over the direction of reform.

The spectacles we've watched over the month of August have diverted attention away from our work and onto various distractions. Opponents cannot sideline health care reform on the merits, particularly when they lack a plan of their own, so they have resorted to unrelated wedge issues that serve to fire up the base but do little to advance actual reform. Folks responded by showing up to town halls with loaded firearms, burning public officials in effigy, making Nazi comparisons, and shouting down those with opposing viewpoints. But they forgot to bring something far more helpful: Facts. Solutions. Truth.

We have had our fill of sideshows in August. In September, we get back to the real work of providing health care reform to Americans who need it.

More in Politics...
Deeply Divided House Democrats Return To WorkWhy the President Has Been Losing on...It May Take A Revolt To Fix...Al Franken Draws Map Of U.S.--From Memory...
Ads by Google
Fast Relief for IRS Debt.
30 Second Quote to see how low you can settle IRS Debt.
FreedomTaxRelief.com
 
Comments6
Pending Comments1
FAQ: Comments and ModerationFAQ: HuffPost Accounts
Post Comment
Post Comment
You must be logged in to comment on this article. Log in or Create an account
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:  Newest First Oldest First HuffPost's Picks  Expand All Collapse All 
All comments on this article are pre-moderated. This means that every comment submitted will be reviewed by a moderator before it is posted to the site. Unfortunately, depending on the volume of comments, it may take time- +  DickyTrik I'm a Fan of DickyTrik I'm a fan of this user permalink
Indeed! How can the country be worried about cracking down on honest mistakes done in good faith regarding tax returns when we have so much being done in BAD faith? Need I bring up those who oppose Ted Kennedy's healthcare initiatives or Van Jones' clean energy efforts?! What we need is to stop bothering our honest politicians so they can continue to work on overdue agendas!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:48 PM on 09/08/2009
- +  max hp I'm a Fan of max hp I'm a fan of this user 18 fans permalink
**********­**********­********** AN OPEN LETTER TO THE US CONGRESS **********­**********­**********

----------­----------­----------­--- Heed this or enjoy your last term in US Congress ----------­----------­----------­----

We, the people, DEMAND that a strong condition-free PUBLIC OPTION be included in whatever Health Care Reform legislation you enact. We will be watching your actions closely, so, keep the following in mind before casting your vote. Make it count for all Americans :-

Health Care Reform is MEANINGFULL only if:

1. There is a Public Option ( with a clear path to Single Payer, without Co-operatives or Triggers ).
2. Everybody is covered. (Without Exception)
3. Coverage can't be denied based on "Pre-existing" conditions.
4. It contains Patients' Rights.
5. Strict Regulations are imposed on insurance plans.
6. Affordability and costs to consumers, as well as providers, are addressed.
7. Accessibility, delivery and quality are maintained and/or improved.
8. There's oversight from medical, financial and nat.ional sec.urity persp.ectives.
9. Profit motive is REMOVED.
10. Innovation, Research guidelines and funding are addressed.

Health Care For Patients, NOT For Profit because Health Care For Profit is Health Care DENIED.

Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should an insurance middleman come between a patient and his/her doctor - especially, if the insurance middleman stands to gain from it.

Insurers and Employers have no business being in Health Care. They contribute nothing towards it.

..........­..........­    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:39 PM on 09/08/2009
- +  wonderone1 I'm a Fan of wonderone1 I'm a fan of this user permalink
Over the last eight years we have witnessed the most corrupt, unethical,and incompotent administration in U.S. History. The nerve of these republicans to try and distract attention from their failures and disdain for the poor by pointing to allegations lodged against Chairman Rangel; who I might add was an effective prosecutor and decorated veteran of the Korean conflict. Mr. Rangel, pass a health reform bill with a strong public action and ingnore these vipers, who have had 8 years to pass health care reform if they truly believed in it. Am I the only one who wishes the Democrats will just shut up and ram a bill down the throats of these ignorant, racist, intellectually challenged ingrates? Pass the bill, and these trailor park dwellers will thank you later.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:34 PM on 09/08/2009
- +  RobHunt I'm a Fan of RobHunt I'm a fan of this user 5 fans permalink
 "(They) reported last week that I had quietly snuck into the health care bill new provisions cracking down on taxpayers who make honest mistakes on their tax returns."

Mr. Rangel, How disingenous can you be? Do you really believe that the "attention" you've been getting recently has anything to do with language you've slipped into bills?

The fact is, people are OUTRAGED at the idea that a serial tax delinquent could be Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Every few months we learn more about your slipshod self-reporting that leaves out huge chunks of your income and assets. When people ask you why you can occupy FOUR rent-controlled apartments in one building, in defiance of the law, you tell them its "none of their business."

Some have called on you to resign as Chairman of that most powerful of House Committees, but that does not go far enough. You should resign your HOUSE SEAT immediately, and you should expect to be PROSECUTED for tax evasion and CONVICTED of same.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:11 PM on 09/08/2009
- + texaz3step I'm a Fan of texaz3step I'm a fan of this user permalink
 Mr. Rangel, are you saying this line “Bar the IRS from waiving penalties against taxpayers who clearly erred in good faith" is not in the health care bill ? Does this also include someone that does it over and over, again and again?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:45 AM on 09/08/2009
- + Kassandra I'm a Fan of Kassandra I'm a fan of this user 65 fans permalink
 Well, in spite of the press Baucus sure doesn't have a plan that'll work. I wonder how he thinks Medicaid can take up the slack when it's being cut continually?
Give US a public Plan, Mr. Rangel*******
3289  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: September 05, 2009, 09:35:33 AM
HI Rachel,
The Swiss article may have been motivated by anti semitism.  I am not clear on that matter.
But there may also be truth to it.

Have you been watching CNN's special on organ smuggling.
Jewish Israelis were putting ads in Arab Israeli newspapers targeting the poor and basically taking their kidneys for small pittances and in at least some cased ripping them off altogether.
They would promise them 3K and then turn around and bill them for hotel stays food etc, and by the time it was done they might make almost nothing.

We Jews should stand up and condemn this stuff to the highest level.
Not exclaim the messengers are anti semites.

These are the actions of Jews that give us a bad name.  These scum, these animals, these pigs tarnish all of us in a world that is happy to use this as a poster of how evil Jews are - the enemies of all Jews which are widespread.
And yes because of history we as a people should show no tolerance/mercy to those of our faith who commit such sins.

None of us are saints but this crap is an outrage.

And Mt. Sinai and the surgeons in NY and Cedar Sinai who look the other way because they have cash paying customers are NOT off the hook either.

It is not enough to state,
"well there are bad apples in every group".


3290  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: September 04, 2009, 02:07:21 PM
I can only hope OBama is as stupid as Weiner.  Then we are assured of acute total destruction of BO and the Dems in the next election cycle.   But I doubt he could be that stupid.  This guy Weiner is in total denial lala land.  From yesterday's (I think) Rachel Maddow show:

****Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) said Obama has been hurting the cause of health care reform by sitting out the fight.

"David Axelrod said on your show that this is like we're in the ninth inning," he told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow last night. "That's not true. Our cleanup hasn't even come to the plate."

Weiner is a forceful advocate of a public health insurance option. He's said he thinks about 100 Democratic House members would vote against a bill that didn't include it.

"We've been in a scrap through the month of August, but we really haven't had presidential leadership in the way we need it most," Weiner told Maddow. He told he thought Obama's speech next week would turn things around. "If he stands up Wednesday and says to the country, we need to have a public option and here's why, it's going to get done. If he don't we'll settle for less and that will be a tragedy."

Weiner dismissed talk of an incremental approach or a bill that only deals with some problems of the health care industry. "That's not the change that a lot of people think they voted for," he said****
3291  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / To the nation's school children on: September 04, 2009, 01:54:17 PM
JFK twisted??   To our school children:

"Ask NOT what your country can do for you",

but ask,

what you can do FOR Obama?"  angry
3292  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Obama Phenomena-over? on: September 04, 2009, 11:56:11 AM
Great news.
I have to admit it is really great to start to see pictures of BO without that smug grin.
He has to triangulate.  It appears he has no other option.
The truth though is we still have a huge proportion of Americans who still believe in entitlements.
We have to somehow get that to change.
Entitlements are NOT the answer to our problems.
Yet I agree with O'Reilly - it is crazy not do something with health care.  Something has to be done.
But what?

 
« HEALTH BILL BREACHES IRS PRIVACYPOLL DISASTER FOR OBAMA
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann 09.3.2009 Published in the New York Post on September 2, 2009

This week’s polls are a disaster for President Obama. The Rasmussen poll has his approval dropping to 45 percent, after several weeks at 49 percent. The Zogby poll has it even lower — at 42 percent.

Worse yet, he’s losing his political base:

* People under 30 — long a key element of his support — give him no better than break-even ratings, with 41 percent approving and 41 percent disapproving of the job he’s doing, according to Zogby.


* Only 75 percent of Democrats, who formerly have supported Obama strongly, now approve of his performance in office. Zogby reports that this represents a slide of more than 10 points over the summer.

* Even among blacks, only 74 percent approve of the job he’s doing (also a drop of more than 10 points).

* Hispanics, who voted for him by a margin of more than 40 points, now break even (36-36) when rating his performance.

Independents, the key swing group in our politics, now deliver a sharply negative 37-50 verdict on Obama’s job performance. The elderly also give him negative ratings by 42-51.

This poll-implosion leaves Obama with few good options.

He obviously can’t get 60 votes in the Senate for his health-care proposals in their current form. No Republican will support them, and moderate Democrats aren’t likely to vote with him.

If he tries to pass it with 50 votes, using so-called reconciliation procedures, he may also fail — because he’d also lose the votes of less-moderate Democrats who’d quail at using parliamentary tricks to pass such a radical, unpopular program.

If Obama waters down his proposals to attract moderate support, he’d lose votes on the left — perhaps more than he’d gain, at this point.

Yet the longer he takes to resolve this political problem, the more his ratings will slip — diminishing his power to achieve anything. No president with support in the 30s would be able to push through a program like his health-care agenda.

It now looks like health-care reform will cripple the Obama presidency, as it did Bill Clinton’s in 1993.

Of course, Clinton was able to move to the center and secure re-election in 1996. But can a true believer like Obama do the same? He’s shown a willingness to move to the center on foreign policy, leaving troops in Iraq and adding them in Afghanistan. But on the domestic front, the only aread where he’s been willing to embrace centrist positions is education.

At best, Obama will be months if not years recovering from this disaster. In the short term, he’s likely to finish September wishing he’d stayed in Martha’s Vineyard.
 
Copyright © 2009 DickMorris.com | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Login   
Permanent Link to POLL DISASTER FOR OBAMAhttp://www.dickmorris.com...
3293  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government Programs, spending, budget process on: September 01, 2009, 12:25:51 PM
I guess the economy is just going to collapse.
I hear no one stating the obivous - less doles, less pulbic pensions, social security/medicare at age 70 not younger etc.
Otherwise we are done as we know it.

Illegals out of the  country - Americans taking their jobs for less.  We have to get more people off the dole and get them working.

As for my part doctors making less - although as it is my expenses are already sky high.

Bama is heading right for the proverbial end of the line.


3294  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / More thoughts on: September 01, 2009, 09:49:56 AM
"Americans only receive 55% of recommended care."

Well it depends on what measures.  Probably they are looking at flu vac. rates, objective BP, cholesterol, diabetes goals, cancer screening, such as pap smears, mammograms and colononoscopies.

It could very well be that 55% are not at the goals that are recommended.

But there are many reasons for this, including but not limited to patients simply refusing such tests.  I have many patients who outright refuse flu shots.

"In March 2007, a team of Harvard researchers published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that looked at nearly 10,000 patients at community health centers and assessed whether implementing similar quality measures would improve the health of patients with three costly disorders: diabetes, asthma and hypertension. It found that there was no improvement in any of these three maladies."

Actually, my experience is somewhat different.  I believe there can be some improvement in measures and some patients can be caught that fall throught the cracks.  However the improvement may be only short lived and the long term cost savings is still rather dubious despite what anyone may tell you as far as I know at least.

I do care coordination work and results are mixed and so far appear to be somewhat short lived though this is just one small experience.  There are probably many reasons for this and multifactorail.

"Even when experts examine the same data, they can come to different conclusions. For example, millions of Americans have elevated cholesterol levels and no heart disease. Guidelines developed in the U.S. about whom to treat with cholesterol-lowering drugs are much more aggressive than guidelines in the European Union or the United Kingdom, even though experts here and abroad are extrapolating from the same scientific studies. An illuminating publication from researchers in Munich, Germany, published in March 2003 in the Journal of General Internal Medicine showed that of 100 consecutive patients seen in their clinic with high cholesterol, 52% would be treated with a statin drug in the U.S. based on our guidelines while only 26% would be prescribed statins in Germany and 35% in the U.K. So, different experts define "best practice" differently. Many prominent American cardiologists and specialists in preventive medicine believe the U.S. guidelines lead to overtreatment and the Europeans are more sensible. After hearing of this controversy, some patients will still want to take the drug and some will not."

The above is so true of how complicated it is.  For example, we could treat 100 people with a drug for the rest of their lives and perhaps to extend one person's life.  Some including the greats from the Cleveland Clinic who are now proponents of their own supposed cost saving system might say this is great.  Some years ago there was a debate between two editorialists on which clost busting drug was better TPA vs streptokinase.   The guy from the Cleveland clinic who did research on TPA (the newer one and ten times more expensive one) would state how it could save one or two more lives per at best 100 people.  The article writer suggested that if we don't take a stand against the extra cost to society we "NEVER WILL".  We as a profession have to say enough already.  We can't keep spending more and more for trivial gains.  In my opinion he was right.  But it is just that - my opinion.  It is not unreasable for some to say that any gain in human life has no limits on how much we spend.

Needless to say the expensive drug won out.  Streptokinase was essential never ever used again.  What Er doctor or cardiologist would use a drug that is 1 or 2% inferior for no other reason than to save money.  If YOUR patient dies no one can say THAT was the one who would not have died if only the more expensive drug was used.  No one wants to be sued.   And no lawyer will mind loking at taking such a case and arguing their client died because a drug known to be "inferior" was used. 

And the other side of it is if you, or I are lying in the ER with a massive heart attack and you or I can choose which drug to use AND if the cost goes to someone else which would you or I pick??

The answer is obvious.

"Dr. Rodney Hayward, a respected health-services professor at the University of Michigan, wrote about this negative result, "It sounds terrible when we hear that 50 percent of recommended care is not received, but much of the care recommended by subspecialty groups is of a modest or unproven value, and mandating adherence to these recommendations is not necessarily in the best interest of patients or society."

I would say this statement is for the most part certainly true - at least the second half of the sentence.

• The World Health Organization ranks the U.S. 37th In the world in quality. This is another frightening statistic. It is also not accurate. Yet the head of the National Committee for Quality Assurance, a powerful organization influencing both the government and private insurers in defining quality of care, has stated this as fact.

By some measures this is probably true.

But why?

probably many reasons one being some don't or can't pay to see a doctor.
I am not sure how much is obesity, drug addiction, too many people refuse to bother to get health care for whatever reason.







3295  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / From TIME rag, I mean mag on: September 01, 2009, 09:06:10 AM
This could easily have been written by the DNC posing as journalism.  No where does it mention a proposed 500 billion cut to Medicare.  Of course there is the usual, "Republicans have been capitalizing" and of course the obligatory leftist mention of Sarah Palin as confusing our elderly.  Nothing of course about the fact the bill is 1000 pages long, virtually no law makers had read it yet were happy to vote for it, that few in the public were or still are aware of what is even in it or what it means to them individually or us as a nation yet the problem is not with that - it is with the evil opponents of the bill.
Typical left wing media. angry

By KATE PICKERT Kate Pickert – Tue Sep 1, 5:40 am ET
Many observers are puzzled by the level of anger and vitriol senior citizens have been directing toward their besieged elected representatives during recent health-care town halls. But no one can be more surprised, or put in a more uncomfortable position, than the organization that supposedly represents their interests, AARP. The 40 million–member advocacy group, after all, signed on early as a key supporter of President Obama's health-care-reform plan, and now it finds itself on the defensive, scrambling to win back much of its own membership. "A year ago, it seemed obvious that AARP would be for health reform," says the group's legislative-policy director David Certner. "Our membership as far as we could tell was quite ginned up about health-care reform." (See TIME's guide to understanding the health-care debate.)

Since then, members' views have apparently shifted. At least 60,000 AARP members quit the organization between July 1 and mid-August specifically because of its pro-reform stance, and the organization's online message boards are littered with anti-reform posts. (AARP is quick to point out that during the same period, it signed up 400,000 new members.) According to a poll conducted Aug 4-11 by the Kaiser Family Foundation, just 23% of Americans over 65 feel they would be better off under reform proposals and even fewer believe the Medicare program would benefit. While plenty of other groups are united against reform, opposition from seniors, who consistently have the highest voter turnout rates of any age group - especially in midterm elections like the one next year - may prove especially perilous for the reform effort. (Read "The Real Issues of End-of-Life Care.")

AARP's support for Democrats' health-care-reform proposals is critical this year. The group is one of several health-care power players the White House struck deals with in hopes of shoring up support for reform early on. In June, AARP, President Obama and PhRMA, a group representing drug companies, announced they had agreed to a plan to help close the Medicare Part D prescription-drug coverage gap known as the "doughnut hole," which leaves seniors without coverage after their drug costs exceed $2,700 and until they spend $4,350 of their own money. The White House deal, triggered if reform becomes law, would save seniors 50% on name-brand drugs and cost the drugmakers $80 billion. But this boon for the elderly was apparently not enough to sell seniors on reform overall. "Somewhere along the line, we seemed to have veered really off course based on a lot of the misinformation and disinformation that clearly is making its way to the older population in particular," says Certner.


It's not hard to see how seniors got spooked, which to some degree is an indictment of AARP, not to mention the Democrats. Sarah Palin and other conservative opponents have helped fuel rumors that the House health-reform bill calls for the establishment of "death panels" to decide when to cut off medical care for seniors. (This is not true - the House bill includes a provision to reimburse doctors who provide voluntary end-of-life counseling to patients.) Judging by comments at town-hall meetings, the elderly are also fearful that Democratic proposals would take funding away from Medicare to pay for coverage for Americans who don't currently have health insurance. This is not entirely untrue; Democratic proposals call for spending money to help insure the uninsured, alongside targeted reductions in Medicare reimbursements to doctors and hospitals and major funding cuts to Medicare Advantage, which allows seniors to buy private insurance with federal dollars. Most health-policy experts, however, believe these cuts are necessary for the program to remain financially solvent.




See the top 10 health-care-reform players.


Certner, of AARP, says the group agrees with this sentiment, but simultaneously opposes any proposals that would cut Medicare benefits or services. He says Democratic health-reform proposals "can strengthen the Medicare system," by "finding savings through reducing inefficiencies, waste and overpayment." "If that's done correctly, there shouldn't be any harm to the program," says Certner. "But most people hearing about cuts to Medicare have no idea how the cuts are being done." (See five truths about health-care in America.)

Critics might say that AARP has been out of touch with its members, while defenders could say that it is taking a more fiscally responsible view of what needs to be done to fix Medicare for the long-term. But part of the organization's current bind stems from its uniquely hybrid functions and makeup. In addition to being the voice of seniors in Washington, it also offers all Americans over the age of 50 reduced prices for gym memberships, travel and rental cars, while also selling AARP-branded insurance policies; AARP Services, a for-profit subsidiary, earned some $650 million in royalty revenue in 2008, 65% of which came from health-related offerings like insurance. (This dual advocacy/insurance brokerage role has made AARP a lightning rod for criticism over the years, especially in cases when the group lobbied for legislation that would have been a boon to its for-profit operations.) AARP, therefore, has to balance the interests of members aged 50-64 with those of members over 65. Its younger members are among the fastest growing cohorts of the uninsured and pay some of the highest premiums for insurance policies on the open market; these members would be most affected by private health-insurance reform and a public health-insurance option that could reduce costs. AARP's Medicare-eligible members, on the other hand, are focused on preserving that program's benefit levels. (See TIME's video on the struggles of an uninsured woman.)

To try to get its membership back in line with AARP's pro-reform stance, the group is stepping up its communication efforts. A national television advertising campaign got underway in August, 8 million pieces of direct mail related to Medicare and health reform will be sent out after Labor Day and the September issue of AARP Bulletin, which reaches some 40 million households, will include a cover story on health-care myths. The White House is also gearing up for a new message campaign aimed at seniors; it hosted a late-August conference call with advocacy groups with the power to reach seniors, including AARP, to brief them on a new eight-page talking-points memo from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about how reform could help older Americans.

The HHS memo outlines reasons seniors need reform, including increasingly high out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries to pay for drugs and medical services that could be lowered if comprehensive reform brought down the overall growth in health-care spending. The memo also points out ways that comprehensive reform could benefit seniors indirectly - uninsured Americans, who typically get less routine medical care, are sicker once they become eligible for Medicare, increasing costs for everyone in the program, for example. Unfortunately for Democrats, these nuanced points are not easily translated into sound bites, further evidence of why Democrats are currently losing the public-relations battle.

Meanwhile, Republicans have been capitalizing on the moment, suddenly presenting themselves as the defenders of a government health-care program they have spent years attacking. Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele published an Op-Ed in the Washington Post on Aug. 24 titled "Protecting Our Seniors," and the RNC issued a press release on Aug. 28 titled "Real Solutions for Seniors."

Edward Coyle, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, a union-affiliated pro-reform advocacy group that represents some 4 million seniors, says the "solo drum beat" from the opposition has so far successfully drowned out its and AARP's message. "Frankly, the other side has done a better job of raising issues that are of concern to seniors," he says. "I think the right word to use about seniors right now is confused."
3296  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: August 31, 2009, 11:49:18 AM
Some different thoughts on the matter:

Political considerations
Obama must pull a Clinton - "triangulate" if that is what you want to call and move to the center guided strictly aka D. Morris style by daily polls.
If he wants to maintain power this is what he will do.  This is what I suspect he will do; esp. with the armey of Clintonites in his administration.
I really doubt he will continue to shove his radical agenda down Americans and throw away his power - and the Dems.
The cans can only gain so much by being the party of NO.  They really gain traction then thye do need to come up with alternatives.
I guess the risk to them if they do is BO will steal their thunder aka CLinton with welfare reform.

Economic considerations
with or without trying to cover 50 million new peopel the system is broke.
First are there really 50 million people or is it the rights alleged much lower number that can't get insurance?
I don't know who to believe.

As Body points out
"so you want to be in charge of making your own medical decisions and utilize the most innovative and advanced medical system in the world, or do you want your government to make those decisions for you and control costs by limiting innovation and ceding advance status?"
I think most would agree that people would rather be able to choose though I am speculating.
We must ration somehow.
either insurance will decide for us or we have some sort of tiered system wherein people can decide with their doctors what they are willing to pay for meds, procedures, etc.

People who get dropped from insurance need to be albe to get it somewhere.
Those with preexisting conditions need to get it somewhere without having to go into poverty and get medicaid or go on disability.
We do need to decide what we are doing with illegals who are here.
WE do need to know in the medical field which things we do are more expensive than less cheaper alternatives if the option exists.  We need more studies but as Charles Kruathammer points out the publication of these in journals is not enoght for us doctors who neither pay attention or don't want to be bothered with cost savings when it doesn't do anything for ourselves.
We do need some tort reform.
There is no quesiton we order tests "just in case" the one person in front of us is the one that happens to have the cancer or other hidden though rare condition.  Miss it and our lives and carreers are in jeopardy.
But when is rare 'rare enough' to not justify a an expensive test?  It depends who you talk to.

I think it a terrible mistake to make health care a gigantic government entiltilement though a lot of it already is.
I prefer reversing this not expanding this.
Of course those in this country who like to have others pay for them thnk the opposite.

 
3297  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: August 29, 2009, 12:31:04 PM
"What’s not to like? If you have insurance, you’ll never lose it. Nor will your children ever be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions."

Well we will still go broke and care will be rationed.

That is what is not to like.

Crafty your questions need TO BE answered by the cans and I have not heard any of them do that explicitly.

Not even supersalesman Shawn Hannity.  He can sit there and rattle off five changes he would make to health care and not one addresses these issues directly.

That is why I can barely stand him.  He is just another blowhard - but from the right.

 
3298  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: August 29, 2009, 08:26:54 AM
Well that certainly does sound like we are headed for a collapse.

It doesn't even seem as though number One would mind.
He doesn't believe in our system as it was anyway.
3299  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Buchanan flaw of Democracies on: August 28, 2009, 02:47:04 PM
John Adams said this?  We may as well pack it in and go home:

"Remember," said John Adams, "democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."   

Fatal Flaw of Democracies
by  Patrick J. Buchanan

08/25/2009

"We just can't afford it!"

Not long ago, every America child heard that, at one time or another, in the home in which he or she was raised.

"We just can't afford it!" It may have been a new car, or two weeks at the beach, or the new flat-panel TV screen.

Every family knew there were times you had to do without. Every father and mother has had to disappoint their kids with those words. Why is it that what parents do many times a year politicians seem incapable of doing: saying no.

How many times in the last decade have the political leaders of either party stood up and declared, "No, we cannot afford this."

Consider. Friday, the White House conceded that the deficits over the next 10 years will total $2 trillion more than they had reported just months ago. Instead of $7.1 trillion, we will run $9 trillion in deficits.

Meanwhile, the White House demands a new entitlement -- health care coverage for 47 million uninsured who can't afford it or refuse to buy it -- that will cost at least $1 trillion over 10 years. Can we afford this -- now?

"We can't afford not to," comes the retort. This is "a core ethical and moral obligation," says Barack Obama.

But is it not a core ethical and moral obligation not to debauch the currency in which most of the hard-earned wealth of the American people is invested? Yet, as Warren Buffett writes in The New York Times, collapse of the dollar and the end of its days as the world's reserve currency is what we are risking.
Government expenditures are running at 185 percent of revenue, which is like the lone family breadwinner earning $50,000 a year, while the family spends $92,500 a year. With families that do that, it is not too long before the credit cards are cut off, the mortgage is called in and the family Chevy is repossessed.

According to those same White House figures, this year's deficit will be closer to $1.6 trillion than the $1.8 trillion previously projected. Now, there are only three basic ways to finance that deficit.

The first is by borrowing the savings of one's own citizens, thus consuming the seed corn of the private economy. The second is by borrowing from abroad. The third is by having the Fed, "through a roundabout process," writes Buffett, "printing money."

Assume the Treasury borrows most of the savings of the American people this year, say, $500 billion. Then Uncle Sam is able to persuade Beijing to buy another $500 billion in Treasury bonds. The Fed must still run the printing presses to create another $600 billion.

How long before our Chinese, Japanese and OPEC creditors conclude that the Americans are depreciating their currency, and dump their U.S. Treasury bonds, or demand a higher rate of interest to cover the risks of their dollar-denominated assets sinking in value?

Can anyone believe the dollar can even retain its present diminished purchasing power if we run $9 trillion in deficits over 10 years? How long before producers conclude the same and start to demand more dollars for their goods -- and inflation takes off?

As Buffett argues, even when the U.S. economy returns to full employment, the new tax revenue it would throw off cannot close a deficit of that size. One must either slash spending or raise taxes to balance a budget where the feds are spending a fourth of gross domestic product.

But how do we cut spending when the five largest items in the budget -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt and national defense -- are untouchables and growing faster then the 3 percent to 4 percent a year a full-employment economy can manage?

Are we going to cut veterans benefits, spending on our crumbling infrastructure or education, when Obama is promising every kid a college degree? Are we going to cut funds for Afghanistan and Iraq, and risk losing both wars? Are we going to cut foreign aid after Hillary Clinton has been touring Africa telling one and all America is here to stay?

How about cutting funds for food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit? Good luck. How about PBS and the National Endowment for the Arts? Just try it.

Does either party have any plan to cut federal spending from today's near 28 percent of GDP to the more traditional 21 percent?

George W. Bush didn't even try, and Obama is making that Great Society Republican president look like Ron Paul.

When a democracy reaches a point where the politicians cannot say no to the people, and both parties are competing for votes by promising even more spending or even lower taxes, or both, the experiment is about over.

"Remember," said John Adams, "democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."     



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reader Comments: (248)
And in 1787, when old Benjamin Frankliln cam doddering out of the Constitutional Convention, someone asked him, "What kind of government did you give us?" and old Ben replied, -- "A Republic -- IF YOU CAN HOLD IT."

Old Ben seemed to believe that the triumph of Democracy was NOT inevitable, but that it depended on the caliber of its citizenry to uphold it.

And according to his colleague John Adams, the necessary caliber of its citizenry needs to be sober, wise, and virtuous.

America is indeed "tolerant." But is it wise and virtuous?

And if America's citizenry does not measure up to the calber of citizenship that is equired to sustain democracy, can democracy be sustained?

Benjamin Franklin doubted it. So too do I.

It's a shame, in a way, because the ULTIMATE blame for thse problems is WE THE PEOPLE. It is WE THE PEOPLE who demand more services than we can afford. It is WE THE PEOPLE who picked Obama Osama and his ilk - and who likewise picked both of the George Herbert Hoover Bushes who did nothing to rein in spending.

Special interests have learned that the power is in the Federal Government, and they will crucify a politician that tries to cut down their government largess. The same with voters.

Voters don't want to tighten their belts. Don't cut my farm subsidies, don't cut my welfare, don't cut my federal contract, don't cut my medicare.

3300  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Jews selling body parts on: August 28, 2009, 10:12:01 AM
Well there is some recent news concerning Jews and body parts I am sad to say.
I don't know about taking these parts from Palestinians but I certainly wouldn't write it off.
When money is involved all bets are off - as always whether the people are Jews or non Jews.

I am not going to defend Jews just because they are Jews if they commit criminal acts.

****July 23: FBI agents lead arrested suspects from their headquarters as part of a corruption investigation in Newark, N.J.
NEWARK, N.J. —  Levy Izhak Rosenbaum of Brooklyn called himself a "matchmaker," but his business wasn't romance.

Instead, authorities say, he brokered the sale of black-market kidneys, buying organs from vulnerable people from Israel for $10,000 and selling them to desperate patients in the U.S. for as much as $160,000.

The alleged decade-long scheme, exposed this week by an FBI sting, rocked the nation's transplant industry. If true, it would be the first documented case of organ trafficking in the U.S., transplant experts said Friday.

"There's certainly cross-national activity, but it hasn't touched the United States or we haven't known about it until now," said University of Pennsylvania medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, who is co-directing a U.N. task force on international organ trafficking.

Rosenbaum was arrested Thursday, 10 days after meeting in his basement with a government informant and an FBI agent posing as the informant's secretary. The agent claimed to be searching for a kidney for a sick uncle on dialysis who was on a transplant list at a Philadelphia hospital.

"I am what you call a matchmaker," Rosenbaum said in a secretly recorded conversation. "I bring a guy what I believe, he's suitable for your uncle." Asked how many organs he had brokered, he said: "Quite a lot," the most recent two weeks earlier.

As part of the scheme, the organ donors were brought from Israel to this country, where they underwent surgery to remove the kidneys, authorities said. Prosecutors did not identify which hospitals in the U.S. received the donors and their kidneys.

"The allegations about an organ trafficking ring in the United States are appalling," said John Davis, CEO of the National Kidney Foundation.

Israel Medical Association spokeswoman Orna Cohen said the organization had no reports there of Israelis selling organs. "If it's true, then it's shocking," she said.

Related StoriesInformant, Rabbi's Son Allegedly Aided Massive New Jersey Corruption Bust
New Jersey Mayors, Rabbis Allegedly Trafficked Knock-Off Gucci Bags With Laundered Money
Micky Rosenfeld, a spokesman for Israel's national police force, said Israeli police were not involved in the investigation, and he would not comment further.

Under 1984 federal law, it is illegal for anyone to knowingly buy or sell organs for transplant. The practice is illegal just about everywhere else in the world, too.

But demand for kidneys far outstrips the supply, with 4,540 people dying in the U.S. last year while waiting for a kidney, according to the United Network for Organ Sharing. As a result, there is a thriving black market for kidneys around the world.

Nancy Scheper-Hughes, an anthropology professor at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of an upcoming book on human organ trafficking, said that she has been tracking the Brooklyn-connected ring for 10 years and that her contacts in Israel have called Rosenbaum "the top man" in the United States.

Scheper-Hughes said she was told Rosenbaum carried a gun, and when a potential organ seller would get cold feet, Rosenbaum would use his finger to simulate firing a gun at the person's head.

Scheper-Hughes said she was also told that some of the kidney transplants using sellers procured by Rosenbaum were performed at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York.

The hospital said it is aware Rosenbaum has been charged but that its transplant screening process is rigorous and that it assesses each donor's motivation.

"All donors are clearly advised that it is against the law to receive money or gifts for being an organ donor," spokeswoman Brenda Perez wrote in an e-mail. "... The pre-transplant evaluation may not detect premeditated and skillful attempts to subvert and defraud the evaluation process."

Rosenbaum was arrested in a sweeping federal case that began as an investigation into money laundering and trafficking in kidneys and fake designer bags. It mushroomed into a political corruption probe, culminating in the arrests this week of 44 people, including three New Jersey mayors, various other officials, and five rabbis. The politicians and rabbis were not accused of involvement in the organ trafficking.

Rosenbaum, 58, is a member of the Orthodox Jewish community in the Borough Park section of Brooklyn, where he told neighbors he was in the construction business.

For someone who was not a surgeon, Rosenbaum seemed in his recorded conversations to have a thorough knowledge of the ins and outs of kidney donations, including how to fool hospitals into believing the donor was acting solely out of compassion for a friend or loved one.

He was recorded saying that money had to be spread around liberally, to Israeli doctors, visa preparers and those who cared for the organ donors in this country. "One of the reasons it's so expensive is because you have to shmear (pay others) all the time," he was quoted as saying.

"So far, I've never had a failure," he bragged on tape. "I'm doing this a long time."

At a 2008 meeting with the undercover agent, Rosenbaum claimed he had an associate who worked for an insurance company in Brooklyn who could take the recipient's blood samples, store them on dry ice and send them to Israel, where they would be tested to see if they matched the prospective donor, authorities said.

Four checks totaling $10,000, a down payment on the fictitious uncle's new kidney, were deposited in the bank account of a charity in Brooklyn, prosecutors said.

An after-hours phone call to Rosenbaum's lawyer, Ronald Kleinberg, was not immediately returned Friday.

Dr. Francis Delmonico, a Harvard professor, transplant surgeon and board member of the National Kidney Foundation's Board of Directors, said similar trafficking is going on elsewhere around the world. He said an estimated 10 percent of kidney transplants — 5,000 to 6,000 each year — are done illegally. Hot spots are Pakistan, the Philippines and China, where it is believed organs are obtained from executed prisoners, he said.

Caplan, the University of Pennsylvania ethicist, said he expects the U.N. task force to make recommendations in October that would hold hospitals worldwide accountable for establishing the origins of each organ they transplant and whether it was freely donated without compensation.

"There is a black market, almost exclusively in kidneys," Caplan said. "All international medical groups and governments ought to condemn any marketing in body parts. It's simply too exploitative of the poor and vulnerable. The quality of the organs is questionable. People lie to get the money. The middle men are irresponsible and often criminals. They don't care about the people who sell."

Scheper-Hughes said her research has uncovered hundreds of cases of illegal organ transactions brokered by and for Israelis in Israel, South Africa, Turkey and other countries, with sellers recruited from poor communities in Moldova, Brazil and elsewhere.

In 2003 and 2004, 17 people were arrested in Brazil and South Africa on suspicion of participating in an international human organ trafficking organization. Investigators said Brazilians who passed a medical checkup were flown to South Africa, where their kidneys were extracted.

A few transplant surgeons support changing the law to allow a system of regulated compensation to increase the pool of donor kidneys.

Arthur Matas, a transplant surgeon who directs the kidney transplant service at the University of Minnesota Medical School, said donors could be compensated with some combination of lifetime access to medical care, life insurance, a tax credit, help with college and a small direct payment.

"It would minimize the extraordinary black market and exploitation of impoverished people internationally," Matas said.

Martin Weinfeld, who lives around the corner from Rosenbaum in Brooklyn, said the allegations bring shame on the community.

"It puts a bad name on good people," he said. "Religion is supposed to be about God, helping others, not about the cash."****
Pages: 1 ... 64 65 [66] 67 68 ... 83
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!