Who's Afraid of Obama?

Yesterday on a news program the question was asked, "Are evil people like Kim Il-Jong and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad afraid of Barak Obama"? The context was that dictators like those mentioned above were afraid of the Bush/Cheney team and thus were loathe to antagonize them, lest they get a Tomohawk cruise missile sent up their butts by the US Navy. I had to laugh at the question, because clearly if the Iranians were afraid to build their nuclear bomb and drop it on someone, they aren't anymore since their program is going ahead full steam. (What is more likely is that they will hand over a nuclear bomb to their Hamas or Hezbollah allies who wil then ship it to New York City on a cargo freighter, BOOM!).

The real question (I believe) is not are these murderous madmen afraid of the United States and its military but is the average US citizen now afraid of the government (and its czarist leader, Barack Obama). You see, BO has no problem in speaking to vicious America-haters like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, even though these monsters have killed millions of their own people (literally millions). The reason why Obama has no problem speaking to them is that they are left-wingers like he is. All you have to do is take a look at the high-level Maoist and communists that Obama has placed in his cabinent (and administration) to realize how leftist he really is: Van Jones, Mark Lloyd, John Holdren, and Anita Dunn to name a few. He apparently has no moral qualms speaking to mass murderers who still kill and oppress their own people, to this very day. I think the Americans who founded this country would be shocked to know that our latest President could care not one whit about dictators and murderers and people who deny liberty to their own citizens. They would surely be deeply angry at how stupid we are as a nation to elect someone so venial and clearly morally bankrupt. I guess we deserve what we get....

Unfortunately it doesn't stop there because it is clear that Obama has no problem hanging out with leftist nutjobs like Chavez and Manuel Ortega of Nicaragua (who killed millions in his own country) but he is no refusing to speak to the right wingers in his own country. So let me be clear, he will speak to Machmoud Ahmadinejad who wants to kill all the Jews in the Middle East but he won't speak to Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or Laura Ingraham?! He has also said no one in his administration will be speaking to the Fox News Network and that Fox isn;'t even a "real" tv network. This sounds very much what Chavez pulled in Venezuela when he destroyed the opposition tv and radio stations in his country, eventually imprisoning his enemies by saying they supported seditious acts against the government and his leadership. Many on the left are also saying Fox News is seditious, which is ridiculous because I watch it every night, looking closely at the facts with an objective point-of-view. In the end the stupid President of the United States (Obama) is only cutting his own throat by using these dictator-style tactics against his fellow Americans and he will be re-elected. In fact, I believe tha Democrats will be gutted in the next election cycle (fall 2010) because they have stooped to gutter-style political tactics that sicken average Americans. Refusing to speak to a 100 million people in this country becuase they do not have the same Maoist/communist viewpoints that you do is brainless, foolhardy, and laughable. Luckily this will ensure no second administration for he Obamination.

Three STUPID Things Obama Just Did

Okay the Obama Administration is becoming more and more irrelevant as they continue to do the most startlingly stupid things both domestically and internationally. Listed below are the three stupidest things the Obamabots have done in the last week:

1)Wage War on Fox: While we as a nation are still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the stupid Obama crowd has decided it wants to wage a brand new war: against Fox News. Their incredibly stupid pissing match with Fox, which easily represents at least 100 million Americans with similar views only cripples the President in his domestic agenda. How foolish can you be to try and start an internal fight within the United States while we are still fighting two major wars overseas? Obama should pay attention to the fighting in Afghanistan, which is deteriorating, and stop picking fights with his domestic opponents. Are we still in an economic crisis?! Are we still not at war?! Hopefully Obama and his idiot crowd in the White House will get the message that We The People want him to work on the very serious problems we already have in this country, not start new ones (like bullies do).

2)Dropping Nukes: At a time when the rest of the world seems intent on getting nuclear weapons, the looney left crowd surrounding Obama have convinced him that getting rid of all nukes will somehow solve much of the worlds problems, which is stupid beyond belief. First off, nuclear weapons created a strategic peace for over 60 years after WW2 as all sides feared a nuclear holocaust and behaved themselves. One week after the Obamabots running the White House declared their intention to work on getting rid of all nukes, the Russians formally came out and said that their nation couldn't rely on its conventional defenses to defend their country, so they would use nuclear weapons first in any future war. If the Iranian and North Korean efforts to get nukes didn't wake up the Obamanuts, hopefully Russia's new declaration will. Nuclear weapons in the right hands bring peace, in the wrong hands: total war. So we should keep ours and stop the loons in Iran and North Korea from getting theirs, lest we face a global nuclear nightmare. And anyone with ANY vision can clearly see that once Iran develops their own nuclear weapons, they will hand it over to their terrorist allies and an American city like New York or Washington DC will be destroyed by these madmen. This has to be stopped at all costs.

3)Destroying the USA: For some bizarre reason the Obama-idiots seem intent on destroying the USA. Take for example their intended take-over of the health care system. Obama and the Democrat Congress seem hell-bent on taking over the entire health care system, when simple oversight a few changes in the law is needed. Since the USA is seriously over-stretched financially, it is beyond irresponsible to take on a new multi-trillion dollar program at this time. The only reason to do so is to bring this nation into a full-fledged monetary crisis or as a power-mad grab over the individual lives of people across this country. Can you imagine that everyone's medical files will be open and available to the government?! Talk about a major intrusion on doctor-patient confidentiality. As for "death panels", people on the east cost and deep south obviously haven't heard of Barbara Wagner, the Oregon woman who was forced to die because the state wouldn't pay for her medicine to keep her alive. They offered to pay for her assisted suicide however, which cost only $50. Every citizen should read about this terrible situation before advocating state-run health care.

Abortion Fanatics Kill Pro-Life Guy

Slain Pro-Life Advocate Jim Pouillon Known as the Peaceful Abortion Sign Guy

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
September 11, 2009

Owosso, MI (LifeNews.com) -- Jim Pouillon was known as the sign guy by resident of this otherwise sleepy local community 45 minutes northeast of Lansing, Michigan. But Pouillon was shot Friday morning as he did what he did best -- hold his pro-life sign outside of a local high school letting students and teaching know some of their peers are missing.

Cal Zastrow, a longtime pro-life advocate in Michigan knew Pouillon well, calling him a "close friend" and said he "got his martyr's crown this morning" after suffering multiple gunshots and claimed his life.

"I talked to him on the phone this week and prayed with him before he went out to Owosso High School to minister," he said.

While Pouillon was active in protesting abortion -- and his death will bring up the issue of abortion and violence again in the wake of the shooting of late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller -- he always condemned violence as a solution to the violence of abortion.

"Jim was completely non-violent and he condemned violence," Zastrow said.

Judy Climer, president of Flint Right to Life, described Pouillon to the Flint Journal newspaper as "just a nice, elderly gentleman who was disabled, used an oxygen tank and wore leg braces."

Climber said he would regularly visit abortion businesses in Flint and Saginaw to pray and hold pro-life signs.

"I knew him very well. He told me one time God put in his heart a passion for the little babies that have the right to be born and they were being denied that right," said Climer. "He even told me once he'd be willing to die for that belief. That's what I hear him saying right now."

Pouillon was involved in a pro-life free speech case several years ago that saw him sue local police after he was arrested for “refusing a lawful police order” to move from city hall steps and for “obstructing passage to a public building."

His attorneys filed a lawsuit on his behalf saying police violated his rights to freedom of speech, religion, and assembly.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, under presiding Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, denied his motion for summary judgment and, after a jury found against him, his renewed motion for judgment.

Pouillon appealed the decision and an appeals court held that the steps of the city hall were a public place and Pouillon was within his First Amendment rights to protest abortion there.

The court eventually upheld a portion of the decision and overturned parts of it.

Steven H. Aden, the senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, represented Pouillon in the case.

“Jim Pouillon was a courageous friend of both unborn children and the First Amendment right to speak up on their behalf, and he will be sorely missed," Aden told LifeNews.com today.

"I hope his loss, and his example, will inspire many others – particularly young people – to take up the cross he bore and defend the right of all of God’s children to live, and to live in peace," he said.

In the legal documents in the case, his attorneys described Pouillon this way: "James Pouillon is a dedicated anti-abortion protester whose non-working life is largely devoted to activism in that cause."

"He was a familiar figure on the streets of Owosso, where he staged abortion protests for a portion of each day almost every weekday for over ten years," they said.

"On the date he was arrested, he had decided to move his protest from his customary post on the sidewalk to a position on a small plaza separating upper and lower short flights of steps to city hall, or on the steps themselves," they added.

"On the sidewalk, he had often been the target of verbal abuse as well as assorted missiles, and had once been almost run down by a motorist who swerved onto the sidewalk and drove straight at him," they concluded.

Nobama and Van Jones

Beck: American People Stood Up to Bring Down Van Jones

Sunday, September 6, 2009 8:43 PM

Fox News host Glenn Beck, who led the charge calling for the resignation of President Barack Obama’s “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones said Sunday that Jones is only the first of many radicals in the administration who should be facing questions.

“The American people stood up and demanded answers," Beck wrote in a statement. “Instead of providing them, the Administration had Jones resign under cover of darkness. I continue to be amazed by the power of everyday Americans to initiate change in our government through honest questioning, and judging by the other radicals in the administration, I expect that questioning to continue for the foreseeable future."

Jones resigned late Saturday following mounting criticism over his past statements and associations. The tipping point came when it was discovered that he signed a petition in 2004 supporting the "9/11 truther" movement, which believes the Bush administration may have been complicit in the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

“Much of the credit for Jones resigning should go to Fox's Glenn Beck, who as HuffPo's Ryan Grim notes, has his "first scalp,” Politico reported Sunday.

Beck’s victory was being lauded by conservative columnists and grudgingly acknowledged by liberals across the country Sunday.

“Face it, Glenn Beck won a big victory for conservative America with the resignation of Van Jones,” wrote Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist.

“Beck kept up the pressure, and the mainstream media reported on it. As a result, Jones couldn't really muster any effective counter-attack. He had made mistakes, tried to apologize for them but was too late,” Abouhalkah added.

“As scary as this may sound… Glenn Beck might actually have more power than anybody else representing the Republican Party,” the Web site Political Lore.com wrote Sunday. “As the Republican Party seemingly has no leader in their ranks, at least one that can represent the voice of the people. Even though Glenn Beck is an independent, he represents more Republicans than the Republican party.”

“The resignation of Van Jones signals that Glenn Beck’s words do not fall on deaf ears. The view’s of Glenn Beck have been labeled “extreme” from just about everyone on the left. Van Jones views are arguably just as extreme, if not more so,” the article continued.

It was Beck who repeatedly called attention to a series of statements by Jones that suggested Republicans were incompetent and bad in their opposition to Obama’s liberal agenda. Among other things, Jones called GOP members racists and a**holes.

Jones was also the co-founder of ColorOfChange, the African-American activist group that attempted to lead a boycott against Beck. But the boycott had the opposite of the intended effect – many advertisers denied they were boycotting Beck and his grassroots support surged. In the traditionally weak, non-prime time slot at 5 p.m., Beck is now drawing more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined get in their prime time hours.

Even before the attempted boycott, Beck mentioned Jones twice on his radio show and twice on television. The boycott started after Beck called Obama "a racist" on Fox & Friends, but the comment occurred in the context of the racial controversy surrounding the arrest of Obama friend Henry Louis Gates by a white Cambridge police officer.

Beck mentioned Jones on 14 episodes, according to the Washington Independent's Dave Weigel, while also railing against him on "The O'Reilly Factor."

Beck also succeeded in keeping the national debate focused on the far left tendencies embodied in many of Obama’s policies and nominees, Politico pointed out. Now Obama is going into a key health reform speech before Congress on Wednesday with the taint of the Van Jones scandal marring his agenda.

“Between Cambridge cops; whether administration officials are or are not for the public option; right wing mobbing at town halls; and the back to school welcome contretemps, the White House has been forced to play defense and loose-ball control over [the summer],” former Clinton White House aide Chris Lehane told Politico. He noted that a “very important week” could have been consumed by “ a discussion related to an obscure staffer who no one has ever really heard of.”

But even before his resignation, critics said the controversy surrounding Jones was indicative of the fundamental problem with the administration's reliance on such advisers.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the first lawmaker to call for Jones' resignation, told Fox News that in light of the controversy Obama should suspend the appointment of additional "czars" until Congress has a chance to examine the background and responsibilities of such individuals, as well as determine the constitutionality of such appointments.

Now that Jones is out of the way, Republicans are turning their fire on czars in general.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, called the czars "an affront to the Constitution" since they are not approved by Congress.

"I don't think (Jones is) the issue. I think the czars are the issue," Alexander, R-Tenn., said on "FOX News Sunday." "We have about two dozen so-called czars -- the pay czar, the car czar, all these czars in the White House."

Republican strategist Ed Rollins said the administration needs to focus on bringing people on board who are competent and not controversial.

"(Jones) got out of there, but the more fundamental thing is there are 31 czars in that White House," he said.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

OBAMA JOINT SESSION

Okay, so anyone watching the joint session of Congress which Obama called for to discuss his health care plan would be flabbergasted at all the misinformation and lies that Obama spewed during the 45 minute "info-mercial". Where he is going to come up with $900 billion dollars to fund it is crazy. And the lie that it won't cover illegal aliens destroyed Obama's crediblity utterly. He also stood there and berated the Republicans for "lying" about many health care issues that have sprung up. I had to laugh when Congressmen Wilson from South Carolina finally couldn't take being called a liar anymore and stood up, sayin, "You lie!" What is good for the goose is good for the gander, Mr. Nobama.

SARAH PALIN'S RESPONSE

Response to the President's Health Care Speech

After all the rhetoric is put aside, one principle ran through President Obama’s speech tonight: that increased government involvement in health care can solve its problems.

Many Americans fundamentally disagree with this idea. We know from long experience that the creation of a massive new bureaucracy will not provide us with “more stability and security,” but just the opposite. It's hard to believe the President when he says that this time he and his team of bureaucrats have finally figured out how to do things right if only we’ll take them at their word.

Our objections to the Democrats’ health care proposals are not mere “bickering” or “games.” They are not an attempt to “score short term political points.” And it’s hard to listen to the President lecture us not to use “scare tactics” when in the next breath he says that “more will die” if his proposals do not pass.

In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I’ve raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters. He called these concerns “bogus,” “irresponsible,” and “a lie” -- so much for civility. After all the name-calling, though, what he did not do is respond to the arguments we’ve made, arguments even some of his own supporters have agreed have merit.

In fact, after promising to “make sure that no government bureaucrat .... gets between you and the health care you need,” the President repeated his call for an Independent Medicare Advisory Council -- an unelected, largely unaccountable group of bureaucrats charged with containing Medicare costs. He did not disavow his own statement that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost ... the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives....” He did not disavow the statements of his health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and continuing to pay his salary with taxpayer dollars proves a commitment to his beliefs. The President can keep making unsupported assertions, but until he directly responds to the arguments I’ve made, I’m going to call him out too.

It was heartening to hear the President finally recognize that tort reform is an important part of any solution. But this concession shouldn’t lead us to take our eye off the ball: the Democrats’ proposals will not reduce costs, and they will not deliver better health care. It’s this kind of “healthy skepticism of government” that truly reflects a “concern and regard for the plight of others.” We can’t wait to hear the details on that; we look forward to working with you on tort reform.

Finally, President Obama delivered an offhand applause line tonight about the cost of the War on Terror. As we approach the anniversary of the September 11th attacks and honor those who died that day and those who have died since in the War on Terror, in order to secure our freedoms, we need to remember their sacrifices and not demonize them as having had too high a price tag.

Remember, Mr. President, elected officials work for the people. Forcing a conclusion in order to claim a “victory” is not healthy for our country. We hear you say government isn’t always the answer; now hear us -- that’s what we’ve been saying all along.

- Sarah Palin

Drop Dead Ted

Several years ago tens of thousands of people celebrated, no rejoiced, in the death of one of America's greatest Presidents. Left-wing haters had stored a bottle of champagne in their refrigerators for years, some as long as a decade, waiting for this event. Most were gay men, who hated Ronald Reagan with a passion and stated into their daily blogs and livejournals that they only wished he had suffered more from his Alzheimer's before he died (and that Nancy Reagan would continue to suffer). Any normal person of course would be aghast at this sort of hatred and this sort of vicious prejudice should be condemned by all normal thinking Americans.

However, at the death of Edward Kennedy this week, people should be reminded that he wasn't this great senator that you hear about so much in the media, he was a habitual drunk who killed a woman while he was driving, and thus was a murderer as well. He also continually supported government-funded abortion in the USA at every step in his political career and thus should be held responsible for the deaths of 45 million babies that have been aborted since Roe vs. Wade became law. (That alone should have gotten him banned from the Catholic church forever).

He was also a well-known philanderer, from a family of serial philanderers. It is hard to ignore that his father built the Kennedy family money from bribes when he was an ambassador, or that his brothers both cheated on their wives, or that his nephew (Michael Skakel) was a murderer and a rapist; I guess that is what you can expect from a family of wealthy and politically connected sexual predators. Skakel even boasted that he was a Kennedy to his friends and thus would be found innocent of the rape and murder of Martha Moxley; he was found guilty in a court of law in 2002. Sadly, despite the best of intentions nearly everything this monstrous family has done has been touched by evil. Ted Kennedy himself was driving drunk and killed the woman he was driving with, Mary Jo Kopeckny. He didn't try to save her and waited nearly 12 hours to report her death because he was drunk at the time. Mary Jo Kopeckny's family has never forgiven Ted Kennedy for her death, and Ted himself never apologized for it. She was pregnant, he was married. Anyone else would have gone to jail for a long time, but not dear ole Ted.

Moreover, the Kennedys as a family have done more harm to the United States and to the average American via their political agenda than any other family in our history; from taking money from hard earning people (the producers) and giving it to the poor (the parasites) to lining their own pocketbooks with dirty cash and being accountable for the numerous (and very real) the crimes they have committed. I feel very little pity for a family that has done so much evil to so many people. Finally, I have watched CSPAN for years and seen his Ted Kennedy vilify and castigate his opponents and average hard working Americans. With that in mind, he himself deserves very little respect or kindness since he gave very little to anyone else, unless they had the last name of "Kennedy".

All I can say is good riddance to Ted Kennedy, we won't miss you and hopefully we won't hear any more from your despicable and self-righteous family who once arrogantly thought themselves to be "the royalty of America".





Human Life International's Statement on the Passing of Senator Edward Kennedy
We must, as a matter of precept, pray for the salvation of heretical Catholics like Senator Edward Kennedy, but we do not have to praise him let alone extol him with the full honors of a public Catholic funeral and all the adulation that attends such an event. There was very little about Ted Kennedy's life that deserves admiration from a spiritual or moral point of view. He was probably the worst example of a Catholic statesman that one can think of. When all is said and done, he has distorted the concept of what it means to be a Catholic in public life more than anyone else in leadership today.

Obviously we don't know the state of Senator Edward Kennedy's soul upon death. We don't pretend to. We are told by the family that he had the opportunity to confess his sins before a priest, and his priest has said publicly he was "at peace" when he died. For that we are grateful. But it is one thing to confess one's sins and for these matters to be kept, rightfully, private. It is another thing entirely for one who so consistently and publicly advocated for the destruction of unborn human beings to depart the stage without a public repudiation of these views, a public confession, as it were.

It is up to God to judge Senator Kennedy's soul. We, as rational persons, must judge his actions, and his actions were not at all in line with one who values and carefully applies Church teaching on weighty matters. Ted Kennedy's positions on a variety of issues have been a grave scandal for decades, and to honor this "catholic" champion of the culture of death with a Catholic funeral is unjust to those who have actually paid the price of fidelity. We now find out that President Obama will eulogize the Senator at his funeral, an indignity which, following on the heels of the Notre Dame fiasco, leaves faithful Catholics feeling sullied, desecrated and dehumanized by men who seem to look for opportunities to slap the Church in the face and do so with impunity simply because they have positions of power.

It is not enough for Kennedy to have been a "great guy behind the scenes" as we have seen him referred to even by his political opponents. It is also not praiseworthy to put a Catholic rhetorical veneer on his leftist politics that did nothing to advance true justice as the Church sees it or to advance the peace of Christ in this world. Every indication of Senator Kennedy's career, every public appearance, every sound bite showed an acerbic, divisive and partisan political hack for whom party politics were much more infallible than Church doctrines. Whatever one's political affiliation, if one is only "Catholic" to the extent that his faith rhymes with his party line, then his Catholicism is a fraud.

As the Scriptures remind us, there is a time for everything under the sun. This, now, is the time for honesty about our Faith and about those who are called to express it in the public forum. If we do not remind ourselves of the necessity of public confession for public sins such as Senator Kennedy was guilty of, then we are negligent in our embrace of the Faith and we are part of the problem. As Pope Benedict has reminded us recently, charity without truth can easily become mere sentimentality, and we must not fall into that error. A Catholic show of charity for the family must not eclipse the truth that is required of all with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Senator Kennedy needs to be sent to the afterlife with a private, family-only funeral and the prayers of the Church for the salvation of his immortal soul. He will not be missed by the unborn who he betrayed time and time again, nor by the rest of us who are laboring to undo the scandalous example of Catholicism that he gave to three generations of Americans.

Sincerely,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer,
President, Human Life International



SWEDEN SLAMS ISRAEL, LIES
A Swedish newspaper admitted that, a story it published, where it's reporter in the Palestinian territories passed on an old Palestinian libel, that Israeli troops regularly killed Palestinians to steal their organs for transplants, was false. When the article was published a week earlier, there was outrage in Israel, and jubilation in the Arab world. The Israelis demanded proof, and the Arabs didn't care (and never did when it came to stories like this). The Swedes found that there was no proof, and the editor of the newspaper apologized. But Europeans are becoming more tolerant of these anti-Semitic slurs. Many Israelis see the pattern of violent anti-Semitism, which last peaked during World War II, building again, as Europeans become more tolerant of violence against Israel, and Jews in general.

The Taliban, DeathCare, and Political Freedom

THE TALIBAN IN NIGERIA
There has been another outbreak of pro-Taliban violence in the Moslem north. It all began with a group of "Nigerian Taliban" attacked a police station, apparently with the intention of stealing weapons and police equipment. The police defeated that attack, leaving 42 dead. More attacks against government buildings and Christians (churches and businesses), followed. The Islamic radicals belong to a group called Boko Haram (translates as "Western education is sinfull"), which is following in the footsteps of an earlier group called Al Sunna wal Jamma. But many young Nigerians, angry at the corruption and resulting economic malaise (and unemployment) have joined in the violence, and some light looting.

All this has happened before. The pro-Taliban Al Sunna wal Jamma group was founded five years ago by Moslem university students, apparently with some foreign money. But it was mostly just another expression of the Islamic radicalism that was becoming popular up north. This movement pushed the imposition of Sharia (Islamic) law in the north, as a means of dealing with the corruption in government, and society in general. Many northern states actually switched to Sharia law, but the corruption remained, now cloaked in Islamic rectitude. Thus the Islamic radical movements survived, but were unable to muster the armed strength to take on the police or army. The last flare up was in late 2007. Earlier that year, a northern newspaper editor had been caught taking $300,000 in payments from Sudanese sources, to publish pro-Islamic radical material. There have been few attempts by Islamic radicals to move into Nigeria, and all have failed so far. The government has generally ignored the religious activities of the "Nigerian Taliban", and their efforts to get people to live a righteous, austere, Moslem lifestyle. That don't really fly in Nigeria, much to the frustration of local Islamic radicals. An armed uprising in 2004 left several hundred dead, and the Nigerian Taliban broken, but not entirely destroyed. The current violence is their attempt at a comeback.

Updated
The fighting against the pro-Taliban radicals in the north continues, with over a hundred dead and many more wounded and arrested. Thousands of civilians, mainly Christians, have fled the violence. The Islamic radicals have been a constant, but not particularly threatening, problem in the north for years. To date, the biggest problem caused by the Islamic radicals was their halting of the polio eradication campaign several years ago (by spreading the rumor that the polio vaccine was actually part of a Western conspiracy to sterilize Moslem children.) This caused the polio to spread again in Nigeria, and several other countries. Thousands of additional Nigerian children got the disease, and hundreds were crippled or killed. Most parents figured out what was going on, and the vaccinations were allowed to continue. Although discredited by this, the Islamic radicals were undeterred, and have now gambled big on establishing an Islamic state by force.



FIVE FREEDOMS YOU WILL LOOSE IN HEALTH CARE "REFORM"
If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear.

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeatedly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced through reform.

A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.

If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.

In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.

Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under Obamacare:

1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan
The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.
0:00 /2:07Health reform and you

Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" -- and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.

The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs, mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.

2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating. Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or medical condition.

Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.

Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would pay no more than $5,000.

Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents.

3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market, and health care needs more of it, not less.

Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5 million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority of their care.

The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deductibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they could do it after the bills are passed."

4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the territory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.

The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance. Those are the GEs (GE, Fortune 500) and Time Warners (TWX, Fortune 500) and most other big companies.

The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are "grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive states.

But read on.

The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.

The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.

The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.

5. Freedom to choose your doctors
The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.

Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.

The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as options to be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans -- if they exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly patients more than young and healthy ones. So patients would be inclined to game the system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy and switching to fee-for-service when they become seriously ill. "That would kill fee-for-service in a hurry," says Goodman.

In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.

Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait a couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's likely that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate health-care costs, especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to keep the tax under control in the righteous name of job creation.

The best solution is to move to a let-freedom-ring regime of high deductibles, no community rating, no standard benefits, and cross-state shopping for bargains (another market-based reform that's strictly taboo in the bills). I'll propose my own solution in another piece soon on Fortune.com. For now, we suffer with a flawed health-care system, but we still have our Five Freedoms. Call them the Five Endangered Freedoms.



WHY I DON'T LIKE OBAMA
Increased military in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of reduction, partial birth abortion, increased foreclosures, increased jobless, increased homeless, increased deficit, apologies to Europe for our brave who died fighting for them, bowing to the Saudi king, total disregard for the constitution, no child left behind... left behind, too many czars, job creation only in government and not one single job for those who PAY the way for said government, 300,000 plus photo shoot, billions of bailout into the pockets of the wealthy who ended up declaring chapter 11 and pocketing OUR cash, deciding to close Gitmo and bring terrorists onto American soil (blasphemy) to further corrupt our dangerous inmates who may one day be released with a new mission in life, Pelosi calling our CIA lairs while she knew about waterboarding also putting our military at risk, hiring tax theives, not producing birth cert. proposing ending veterans health care, government control of corporations and banks.

Also, I was thinking of exercising my freedom of speech and political rights yesterday, considering buying a bumper sticker. Then I realized that if I actually put an "Impeach Obama" bumper sticker on my car, I would get shot or my car vandalized. If I wear an anti-Obama tee-shirt, I will be subjecting myself and whoever is with me, to danger. Here in Washington state, the Republicans citizens have to be quiet or be attacked. Whoever dares raise their voice and express an opinion against this president or the Democrats in general, will do so at their own peril. I remember a time when America was a free country. I remember when we were allowed to voice our opinions freely and do so with safety. We ALL had a right to free speech. That freedom now is reserved only for the Democrats. ONE opinion is allowed and All others will be attacked and destroyed. America is free falling into what China and Russia have been all these years. We have a dictatorship - The Democrat SOCIALIST Party.

The REAL Dr. Evil

Although I normally do not blame individuals for many of the worlds' problems, nor do I blame Jews (whom I love) for these problems like so many anti-Semites do, I have discovered a real-life Dr. Evil; someone who is trying to remake the world in his own image. Here he is:




Mr. Soros is an evil industrialist billionaire who uses his vast amounts of money to cook up insane schemes to control the United States and the world, through dirty politics and "foundations" like MoveOn.org. He is extraordinarily wealthy but he still reaches for as much power as he can get, just for the thrill of it. Flat out, Soros is one of the most evil individuals in the world, seeking to meddle in the affairs of government and control the "little people" for whom he has no small amount of disdain. A few examples of his own personal goals are listed below:

*Reduction of the Earth's population to "sustainable levels" (through global genocide if necessary) and especially through government-funded abortions at the highest rates possible,

*Total domination of the "little man" by global government organizations like the United Nations (no individual rights, only group rights will be allowed),

*Promotion of widespread homosexuality,

*Decriminalization of drug use (regardless of the consequences to others),

A more detailed example of how Mr. Soros is an agent of evil (and suffering) is his promotion of legalized drugs, from the "low end" marijuana to hard-core herion, he would like to see them all made legal. However, anyone who has a family member that has a history of drug abuse can tell you of the misery and fear involved with drugs, and how awful it really is. Even if the person "only does it to themselves" (as the argument goes) the fallout into other people's lives is just too gross, and unfair. People who want the decriminalization of drugs always lie about the intended effects of ending the laws against drug use. For example, when heroin use was legalized in the United Kingdom in the 1970s, its use skyrocketed (exactly the opposite of what its promoters said would happen) and the government had to recriminalize it a few years later to stop the drug epidemic from expanding beyond control and causing nation-wide chaos and disruption. Its availability allowed the use of heroin in the UK to expand dramatically, even though the "provider" was the government. In the end such experiments always end in disaster; from Switzerland to the Netherlands, legalizing drugs has been tried and it failed utterly.


Evil financier George Soros has also used the globalized economy tro wreak havoc on dozens of nations including:

ENGLAND
Soros has also made a fortune by high-stakes gambles such as currency speculation in the world economy. In 1992, for example, he wagered $10 billion that by concerted attack he could devalue the British Pound. He won, pocketed at least $1.1 billion profit in a single day, and ever since has been called “the man who broke the Bank of England.”

In the process of destroying the purchasing power of the British Pound, Soros dealt a political blow to the government of British Prime Minister John Major from which the Tory Party has yet to recover. This is the same kind of damage he hopes to inflict in 2004 on America’s Republican Party.


FRANCE
In 1988, he was asked to join a takeover attempt of the French bank Société Générale. He declined to participate in the bid but did later buy a number of shares in the company. French authorities began an investigation in 1989, and in 2002 a French court ruled that it was insider trading, a felony conviction as defined under French securities laws and fined him $2.3 million, which was the amount that he made using the insider information. Punitive damages were not sought because of the delay in bringing the case to trial. Soros denied any wrongdoing and said news of the takeover was public knowledge. His insider trading conviction was upheld by the highest court in France on June 14, 2006 and he was banned from financial trading by the European Union, including his destructive currency speculation practices.


MYANMAR AND EAST ASIA
In 1997, during the Asian financial crisis, then Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad accused Soros of using the wealth under his control to punish ASEAN for welcoming Myanmar as a member.


RUSSIA
The Russians claim Soros is a financial terrorist after he tried to destroy the Russian ruble (and the Russian economy), causing a near-50 percent devaluation of the ruble in 1998.



By far, the largest group Soros and his allies has infiltrated and taken over is the Democratic Party of the United States. It now totally adheres to a corporatist line and has purged from its leadership Dr. Howard Dean and replaced him with Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, a Democratic Leadership Council adherent. The Soros faction and its allies has also seen to it that Bill Richardson, Caroline Kennedy, and others who represent the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” have been shut out of the Obama administration. For Soros, his political operations in America are much the same as they are in places like Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Romania, and other countries: divide, confuse the political sides, and conquer. In the case of alternative journalism operations, Soros’ operatives launch attacks, some of them highly personal, against bona fide independent journalists and question their sources and investigations. Soros’ agents of disinformation and influence have moved in to “manage” the stories about jailed Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman, the 2004 vote fraud in Ohio, the Turkish and Israeli intelligence penetration of the highest echelons of the U.S. government, the presence of Israeli spies among the accused 9/11 hijackers in the months prior to the terrorist attacks in 2001, and Russian-Israeli “Kosher Nostra” criminal activity from London to Kyiv and New York to Moscow. Overall, Soros’ operations are primarily focused on controlling the left through the use of censors and online gatekeepers in the media operations he funds. Recipients of Soros’ money are found running web sites, some of them well known; hosting TV and radio programs; and writing regularly for major periodicals. Soros has ingratiated himself to many on the Left but that was his goal. However, there are a number of progressives who are wise to Soros’ operations and will continue to expose them regardless of how many more billions he amasses from shorting stocks, speculating on national currencies, and destroying jobs.




SOROS' STRANGE WORLDVIEW
Here is a quote from former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, "George Soros has made his mark as an enormously successful speculator, wise enough to largely withdraw when still way ahead of the game. The bulk of his enormous winnings is now devoted to encouraging transitional and emerging nations to become 'open societies,' open not only in the sense of freedom of commerce but—more important—tolerant of new ideas and different modes of thinking and behavior."



JEWISH
Even though he is Jewish, Soros promotes Palestinian nationalism and does not support the state of Israel. Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, called it “absolutely obscene” that Soros blames Israel and Jews for anti-Semitism and used the rhetoric of anti-Semites in doing so.

Most recently, Soros worked on the Euro, pushing the U.S. dollar down to a near all-time low. Soros has, in other words, caused you to pay more for every imported product you buy.



ASSASSINATE GEORGE BUSH
In an interview with The Washington Post on November 11, 2003,[29] Soros said that removing President George W. Bush from office was the "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death." He said he would sacrifice his entire fortune to defeat President Bush, "if someone guaranteed it." That sounds like an assassination plot to me....


SUPPORTING TERRORIST LAWYERS
According to National Review the Open Society Institute gave $20,000 in September 2002 to the Defense Committee of Lynne Stewart, the lawyer who has defended alleged terrorists in court and was sentenced to 2? years in prison for "providing material support for a terrorist conspiracy" via a press conference for a client. Lynee Stewart was caught on camera giving aid and support to her terrorist client, including screaming and speaking loudly so the interview room camera mikes couldn't pick up what her terrorist client wa saying on the cellphone she allowed him to use, which was illegal. She did this several times over several weeks before she was arrested.


Finally, After Bush's reelection in 2004, Soros and other wealthy liberal political donors backed a new political fundraising group called Democracy Alliance which aims to support the goals of the U.S. Democratic Party. His aim is to destroy the Republican Party and Christians in America since they oppose his pro-drug and pro-death agenda. George Soros truly is a modern-day Dr. Evil. He works to disband the American family system. He would like to see America brought down. To this end he works hand-in-glove with the ACLU. Soros made billions (yes, billions) conspiring with some giant banks to cause a severe recession in East Asia, an unholy endeavor in which they succeeded, throwing millions of Asians into poverty including, of course, millions of Catholic Filipinos. That to me is evil, pure and simple....






UPCOMING MILITARY ROBOTS COULD FEED ON DEAD BODIES
Wednesday, July 15, 2009

It could be a combination of 19th-century mechanics, 21st-century technology — and a 20th-century horror movie.

A Maryland company under contract to the Pentagon is working on a steam-powered robot that would fuel itself by gobbling up whatever organic material it can find — grass, wood, old furniture, even dead bodies.

Robotic Technology Inc.'s Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot — that's right, "EATR" — "can find, ingest, and extract energy from biomass in the environment (and other organically-based energy sources), as well as use conventional and alternative fuels (such as gasoline, heavy fuel, kerosene, diesel, propane, coal, cooking oil, and solar) when suitable," reads the company's Web site.

That "biomass" and "other organically-based energy sources" wouldn't necessarily be limited to plant material — animal and human corpses contain plenty of energy, and they'd be plentiful in a war zone.

EATR will be powered by the Waste Heat Engine developed by Cyclone Power Technology of Pompano Beach, Fla., which uses an "external combustion chamber" burning up fuel to heat up water in a closed loop, generating electricity.

The advantages to the military are that the robot would be extremely flexible in fuel sources and could roam on its own for months, even years, without having to be refueled or serviced.

Upon the EATR platform, the Pentagon could build all sorts of things — a transport, an ambulance, a communications center, even a mobile gunship.

In press materials, Robotic Technology presents EATR as an essentially benign artificial creature that fills its belly through "foraging," despite the obvious military purpose.