THE DAILY OUTRAGE: Bailing out bad management
By: Daily Outrage
Examiner Editorial Feature
September 15, 2009 WHO: Fannie Mae
WHAT: Ever since the federal government took this failed quasigovernmental enterprise into conservatorship last year, taxpayers are now on the hook for legal fees to defend the shady actions of three former top executives.
WHY IT'S AN OUTRAGE: In the first 10 months since the government takeover, taxpayers have been billed more than $6 million defending Franklin Raines and two others allegedly involved in Fannie's $6.3 billion accounting discrepancy.
WHERE TO VENT: Fannie Mae inspector general, 202-408-2544
see org at...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/daily-outrage/Bailing-out-bad-management-8242786.html
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Tea Party Express in Washington on 9/12/09
Washington, D.C. is the 34th, and last, stop on the Tea Party Express national bus tour with our caravan arriving at the 09.12.09 Taxpayer March on D.C.
Date/Time: Saturday, September 12th
9:00am - Crowd gathers at Freedom Plaza
10:00am - March begins down Pennsylvania Avenue
1:00pm - March ends and rally begins at West Front of the U.S. Capitol
Rally Location:
West Front of the U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C.
http://teapartyexpress.org/tour/dc.html
http://teapartyexpress.org
link to the official Tea Party Express
Date/Time: Saturday, September 12th
9:00am - Crowd gathers at Freedom Plaza
10:00am - March begins down Pennsylvania Avenue
1:00pm - March ends and rally begins at West Front of the U.S. Capitol
Rally Location:
West Front of the U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C.
http://teapartyexpress.org/tour/dc.html
http://teapartyexpress.org
link to the official Tea Party Express
Obama invites Rep Joe Wilson to appear before his death panel ?
Obama invites Rep Joe Wilson to appear before his death panel ?
compliments of conan
compliments of conan
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Federal Court Upholds E-Verify Federal Contractor Rule
Federal Court Upholds E-Verify Federal Contractor Rule
The amnesty lobby suffered a significant setback last week as a federal court upheld a regulation that will require most federal contractors to use E-Verify — the online, electronically operated employment verification system that allows employers to quickly and easily check the work authorization status of their new hires. (The New York Times, August 27, 2009).
The ruling came more than eight months after a coalition of special interest groups — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.; the Society for Human Resource Management; the American Council on International Personnel; and the HR Policy Association - sued to block the rule from taking effect on its original targeted implementation date of January 15, 2009. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, January 5, 2009).
The push to require federal contractors to use E-Verify has had a long history. On June 6, 2008, then-President George W. Bush signed Executive Order (EO) 13,456, which amended EO 12,989 to require federal contractors to use an electronic employment eligibility verification system to verify the work authorization status of their employees. EO 13,456 also required the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to choose the verification system to be used. (EO 13,456, June 9, 2008). On June 9, 2008, former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff designated E-Verify as the system to be used by federal contractors under the EO. (DHS Press Release, June 9, 2008). The Final Rule implementing President Bush's EO was issued in mid-November 2008. (Final Rule, November 14, 2008).
On December 23, 2008, a coalition of special interests filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Maryland alleging that the Final Rule was unlawful because it violated the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The plaintiffs argued that Secretary Chertoff had violated Section 402(a) of IIRIRA, which states that "the Secretary of Homeland Security may not require any person or other entity to participate in a pilot program [of employment eligibility confirmation]." In designating E-Verify as the electronic employment eligibility verification system to be used by federal contractors under President Bush's EO, the plaintiffs alleged that Chertoff had violated this statutory prohibition. The complaint contained several other allegations, including a claim that the Final Rule violated a separate IIRIRA statutory prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. (Complaint, December 23, 2008).
In last week's decision, Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. rejected the claims made by the coalition of special interest groups. Judge Williams noted that "[t]he decision to be a government contractor is voluntary and…no one has a right to be a government contractor." Williams added that, even though the Final Rule requires federal contractors to enroll in E-Verify, "[p]otential government contractors have the option not to contract with the government," so Secretary Chertoff hadn't actually required anyone or any entity to use E-Verify. Judge Williams also went on to reject the coalition's claims that the E-Verify contractor rule violated an IIRIRA prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. According to Williams: "Nothing in IIRIRA explicitly prohibits the Executive Branch from using E-Verify for current employees." (Decision, August 25, 2009).
The Obama Administration has indicated that it intends to implement the final rule on September 8, 2009 — after having delayed the regulation on three separate occasions. (See The Washington Post, January 30, 2009 and FAIR's Legislative Updates from April 20, 2009; June 8, 2009 and July 13, 2009).However, the E-Verify program itself is set to expire on September 30, 2009. While many immigration reformers have been insisting that the program be permanently reauthorized, the Administration has avoided adopting such a position. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) successfully attached a related E-Verify amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security spending bill that would (1) permanently reauthorize E-Verify and (2) require all federal contractors to use E-Verify to check the work authorization status on all of their new hires, plus existing employees who are assigned to affected federal contracts. The fate of the Sessions Amendment is uncertain, however. The Homeland Security spending bill is scheduled to move to a House-Senate conference sometime in September. Since the House version of the bill does not contain the Sessions Amendment, the Conference Report — which would likely become law - may include or drop this language. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, July 13, 2009).
The amnesty lobby suffered a significant setback last week as a federal court upheld a regulation that will require most federal contractors to use E-Verify — the online, electronically operated employment verification system that allows employers to quickly and easily check the work authorization status of their new hires. (The New York Times, August 27, 2009).
The ruling came more than eight months after a coalition of special interest groups — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.; the Society for Human Resource Management; the American Council on International Personnel; and the HR Policy Association - sued to block the rule from taking effect on its original targeted implementation date of January 15, 2009. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, January 5, 2009).
The push to require federal contractors to use E-Verify has had a long history. On June 6, 2008, then-President George W. Bush signed Executive Order (EO) 13,456, which amended EO 12,989 to require federal contractors to use an electronic employment eligibility verification system to verify the work authorization status of their employees. EO 13,456 also required the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to choose the verification system to be used. (EO 13,456, June 9, 2008). On June 9, 2008, former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff designated E-Verify as the system to be used by federal contractors under the EO. (DHS Press Release, June 9, 2008). The Final Rule implementing President Bush's EO was issued in mid-November 2008. (Final Rule, November 14, 2008).
On December 23, 2008, a coalition of special interests filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Maryland alleging that the Final Rule was unlawful because it violated the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The plaintiffs argued that Secretary Chertoff had violated Section 402(a) of IIRIRA, which states that "the Secretary of Homeland Security may not require any person or other entity to participate in a pilot program [of employment eligibility confirmation]." In designating E-Verify as the electronic employment eligibility verification system to be used by federal contractors under President Bush's EO, the plaintiffs alleged that Chertoff had violated this statutory prohibition. The complaint contained several other allegations, including a claim that the Final Rule violated a separate IIRIRA statutory prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. (Complaint, December 23, 2008).
In last week's decision, Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. rejected the claims made by the coalition of special interest groups. Judge Williams noted that "[t]he decision to be a government contractor is voluntary and…no one has a right to be a government contractor." Williams added that, even though the Final Rule requires federal contractors to enroll in E-Verify, "[p]otential government contractors have the option not to contract with the government," so Secretary Chertoff hadn't actually required anyone or any entity to use E-Verify. Judge Williams also went on to reject the coalition's claims that the E-Verify contractor rule violated an IIRIRA prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. According to Williams: "Nothing in IIRIRA explicitly prohibits the Executive Branch from using E-Verify for current employees." (Decision, August 25, 2009).
The Obama Administration has indicated that it intends to implement the final rule on September 8, 2009 — after having delayed the regulation on three separate occasions. (See The Washington Post, January 30, 2009 and FAIR's Legislative Updates from April 20, 2009; June 8, 2009 and July 13, 2009).However, the E-Verify program itself is set to expire on September 30, 2009. While many immigration reformers have been insisting that the program be permanently reauthorized, the Administration has avoided adopting such a position. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) successfully attached a related E-Verify amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security spending bill that would (1) permanently reauthorize E-Verify and (2) require all federal contractors to use E-Verify to check the work authorization status on all of their new hires, plus existing employees who are assigned to affected federal contracts. The fate of the Sessions Amendment is uncertain, however. The Homeland Security spending bill is scheduled to move to a House-Senate conference sometime in September. Since the House version of the bill does not contain the Sessions Amendment, the Conference Report — which would likely become law - may include or drop this language. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, July 13, 2009).
Illegal Aliens Will Get Health Benefits Under House Bill
Congressional Research Agency Confirms Illegal Aliens Will Get Health Benefits Under House Bill
Last Tuesday, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which is the non-partisan "research arm" of the United States Congress, issued a report that concludes that illegal aliens will be able to receive benefits under the House health care bill (H.R. 3200) through two major loopholes. (See CRS Report and FAIR Press Release, August 26, 2009).
According to its own website, CRS is a legislative branch agency that provides Congress with "policy and legal analysis" that is authoritative, objective and accurate. (CRS website). The latest CRS report validates what FAIR has been saying for the past month and a half — that illegal aliens will be able to receive taxpayer-funded health benefits under the House health care bill. (See FAIR's Legislative Updates, July 20, 2009; July 27, 2009 and August 3, 2009).
The House bill creates an "exchange" and "all individuals," which would include illegal aliens, are eligible to participate in the exchange. Anyone who participates in the exchange, and does not otherwise have health insurance, can either enroll in the public option plan created by the House bill or enroll in a private insurance plan. Accordingly, the first loophole that provides illegal aliens with health insurance is the ability for illegal aliens to freely enroll in the taxpayer-subsidized public option. According to CRS, "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens — whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently — from participating in the Exchange." (CRS Report). Accordingly, illegal aliens can enroll in the public option, courtesy of the American taxpayers, to meet their health insurance needs. (See CNN.com, August 2009).
The second major loophole is the failure to require any meaningful verification procedure for taxpayer-subsidized insurance credits. Under the House bill, individuals who buy private insurance through the Exchange may receive an affordability credit to offset the cost of insurance. This credit is ostensibly limited to individuals lawfully present in the U.S., but CRS (like FAIR) notes the complete absence of any provision in the House bill that requires verification of eligibility for the affordability credits. Without such a mechanism, there is nothing in the bill that will prevent illegal aliens from receiving this taxpayer subsidy to buy private health insurance.
These conclusions by CRS should eliminate any remaining doubt about whether illegal aliens will receive health benefits under the bill. As a result of this report, President Obama can no longer characterize the concerns about the illegal alien health care loophole under the bill as "misinformation." (See FAIR's Legislative Update, August 24, 2009 and FAIR's Health Care Podcast, August 24, 2009). In addition, Members of Congress can no longer claim the bill prevents coverage for illegal aliens, and the media can no longer suggest this concern is a "myth." (See FAIR's House bill summary and Townhall.com, August 27, 2009).
Federal Court Upholds E-Verify Federal Contractor Rule
The amnesty lobby suffered
Last Tuesday, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which is the non-partisan "research arm" of the United States Congress, issued a report that concludes that illegal aliens will be able to receive benefits under the House health care bill (H.R. 3200) through two major loopholes. (See CRS Report and FAIR Press Release, August 26, 2009).
According to its own website, CRS is a legislative branch agency that provides Congress with "policy and legal analysis" that is authoritative, objective and accurate. (CRS website). The latest CRS report validates what FAIR has been saying for the past month and a half — that illegal aliens will be able to receive taxpayer-funded health benefits under the House health care bill. (See FAIR's Legislative Updates, July 20, 2009; July 27, 2009 and August 3, 2009).
The House bill creates an "exchange" and "all individuals," which would include illegal aliens, are eligible to participate in the exchange. Anyone who participates in the exchange, and does not otherwise have health insurance, can either enroll in the public option plan created by the House bill or enroll in a private insurance plan. Accordingly, the first loophole that provides illegal aliens with health insurance is the ability for illegal aliens to freely enroll in the taxpayer-subsidized public option. According to CRS, "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens — whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently — from participating in the Exchange." (CRS Report). Accordingly, illegal aliens can enroll in the public option, courtesy of the American taxpayers, to meet their health insurance needs. (See CNN.com, August 2009).
The second major loophole is the failure to require any meaningful verification procedure for taxpayer-subsidized insurance credits. Under the House bill, individuals who buy private insurance through the Exchange may receive an affordability credit to offset the cost of insurance. This credit is ostensibly limited to individuals lawfully present in the U.S., but CRS (like FAIR) notes the complete absence of any provision in the House bill that requires verification of eligibility for the affordability credits. Without such a mechanism, there is nothing in the bill that will prevent illegal aliens from receiving this taxpayer subsidy to buy private health insurance.
These conclusions by CRS should eliminate any remaining doubt about whether illegal aliens will receive health benefits under the bill. As a result of this report, President Obama can no longer characterize the concerns about the illegal alien health care loophole under the bill as "misinformation." (See FAIR's Legislative Update, August 24, 2009 and FAIR's Health Care Podcast, August 24, 2009). In addition, Members of Congress can no longer claim the bill prevents coverage for illegal aliens, and the media can no longer suggest this concern is a "myth." (See FAIR's House bill summary and Townhall.com, August 27, 2009).
Federal Court Upholds E-Verify Federal Contractor Rule
The amnesty lobby suffered
DOCTOR SHORTAGE WILL WORSEN HEALTH BILL IMPACT
DOCTOR SHORTAGE WILL WORSEN HEALTH BILL IMPACT
The fundamental question that the Obama Administration has never answered is a simple one: How can they treat 50 million new patients with no extra doctors?
A new report from the American Association of Medical Colleges underscores the urgency of this concern. The Association notes that the United States now suffers from a shortage of 15,000 doctors - a shortfall that is expected to grow to 125,000 in fifteen years. And, the Association reports, if universal health insurance is passed, the shortage will grow to over 150,000 by 2025.
While the number of elderly people in the U.S. is expected to grow by 60% over the next decade and a half, the number of doctors will increase by only about 6%. (Total U.S. population will rise by about 17% over the same period).
This shortage of doctors will, inevitably, lead to the rationing of medical care, more quickly and drastically if the Obama plan is passed. In Massachusetts, where universal health coverage was enacted under Governor Mitt Romney in 2006, the Medical Society found that the number of patients who reported difficulty in getting care has already risen by 50% up to a quarter of the patient population. The New York Times reports that "a main reason for the logjam was long waiting times for appointments."
In 1949, when President Harry Truman first proposed mandatory health insurance, he coupled his initiative with an expansion of federal aid to medical schools. But Obama makes no provision for an expansion of the pool of doctors, even as he grows the population of patients by up to 50 million.
Indeed, by cutting medical fees by dropping the reimbursement rates under Medicare, he likely will hasten the retirement of many medical professionals worsening the underlying shortage. The Times quotes medical experts as predicting that the three years specified in the House bill as the time by which universal health insurance coverage will take effect "is not nearly enough time to build the supply of doctors needed to care for the additional tens of million of people who would become newly insured."
Because there will not be enough doctors, nurses, and medical equipment for the massive influx of patients under the Obama plan, there will be rationing, more draconian year after year. As in Canada, it is this fundamental discrepancy between the number of patients and the population of doctors that will lead to rationing. From there, the inevitable consequence will be cutbacks in care for the elderly. Optional procedures, vital to quality life but not to survival, are likely to be limited. Hip replacements, new knees, hearing aids, and such are less and less likely to be approved. And, medical administrators will be less likely to OK surgery or expensive medical treatments for the elderly who they perceive to be at the end of their "quality" years.
It is the shortage of doctors, not any specific language in the text of the legislation, that makes rationing and the so-called "death panels" cited by Sarah Palin inevitable.
We all agree that everybody should have health insurance, but let us precede this step by expanding the number of doctors and nurses so that we can cover everyone without sacrificing the care for anyone. Otherwise, we are not giving 50 million new people medical care. We are consigning 300 million, and particularly the elderly among them, to long waiting lists.
By DICK MORRIS / EILEEN MCGANN
White House Secrets Revealed as Never Before - Click here!
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/aug09.cfm?PROMO_CODE=8824-1
Do You Really Want Sarah Palin in 2012?
http://news1.newsmax.com/palin/?PROMO_CODE=8825-1
The fundamental question that the Obama Administration has never answered is a simple one: How can they treat 50 million new patients with no extra doctors?
A new report from the American Association of Medical Colleges underscores the urgency of this concern. The Association notes that the United States now suffers from a shortage of 15,000 doctors - a shortfall that is expected to grow to 125,000 in fifteen years. And, the Association reports, if universal health insurance is passed, the shortage will grow to over 150,000 by 2025.
While the number of elderly people in the U.S. is expected to grow by 60% over the next decade and a half, the number of doctors will increase by only about 6%. (Total U.S. population will rise by about 17% over the same period).
This shortage of doctors will, inevitably, lead to the rationing of medical care, more quickly and drastically if the Obama plan is passed. In Massachusetts, where universal health coverage was enacted under Governor Mitt Romney in 2006, the Medical Society found that the number of patients who reported difficulty in getting care has already risen by 50% up to a quarter of the patient population. The New York Times reports that "a main reason for the logjam was long waiting times for appointments."
In 1949, when President Harry Truman first proposed mandatory health insurance, he coupled his initiative with an expansion of federal aid to medical schools. But Obama makes no provision for an expansion of the pool of doctors, even as he grows the population of patients by up to 50 million.
Indeed, by cutting medical fees by dropping the reimbursement rates under Medicare, he likely will hasten the retirement of many medical professionals worsening the underlying shortage. The Times quotes medical experts as predicting that the three years specified in the House bill as the time by which universal health insurance coverage will take effect "is not nearly enough time to build the supply of doctors needed to care for the additional tens of million of people who would become newly insured."
Because there will not be enough doctors, nurses, and medical equipment for the massive influx of patients under the Obama plan, there will be rationing, more draconian year after year. As in Canada, it is this fundamental discrepancy between the number of patients and the population of doctors that will lead to rationing. From there, the inevitable consequence will be cutbacks in care for the elderly. Optional procedures, vital to quality life but not to survival, are likely to be limited. Hip replacements, new knees, hearing aids, and such are less and less likely to be approved. And, medical administrators will be less likely to OK surgery or expensive medical treatments for the elderly who they perceive to be at the end of their "quality" years.
It is the shortage of doctors, not any specific language in the text of the legislation, that makes rationing and the so-called "death panels" cited by Sarah Palin inevitable.
We all agree that everybody should have health insurance, but let us precede this step by expanding the number of doctors and nurses so that we can cover everyone without sacrificing the care for anyone. Otherwise, we are not giving 50 million new people medical care. We are consigning 300 million, and particularly the elderly among them, to long waiting lists.
By DICK MORRIS / EILEEN MCGANN
White House Secrets Revealed as Never Before - Click here!
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/aug09.cfm?PROMO_CODE=8824-1
Do You Really Want Sarah Palin in 2012?
http://news1.newsmax.com/palin/?PROMO_CODE=8825-1
is Obama actually aiding and abetting Medicare fraud and waste?
is Obama actually aiding and abetting Medicare fraud and waste?
If President Obama is aware of any fraud and waste in Medicare,
and doesn't do anything about it, isn't he guilty of mismanagement ?
If President Obama is aware of any fraud and waste in Medicare,
and doesn't do anything about it, isn't he guilty of mismanagement ?
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Show me the money ! smooth talking obama
Show me the money ! smooth talking obama
Show me the money ! smooth talking obama, more bullshit.
He does deserve points as smooth salesman.
Show me the money ! smooth talking obama, more bullshit.
He does deserve points as smooth salesman.
Obama see millions in Medicare waste and fraud? what the fuck ?
Obama see millions in Medicare waste and fraud? what the fuck ?
Pres Obama has been talking on the millions he would save on medicare fraud and abuse, if he is aware of this why doesn't he fix it immediately and fire / jail the people responsible ?
Pres Obama has been talking on the millions he would save on medicare fraud and abuse, if he is aware of this why doesn't he fix it immediately and fire / jail the people responsible ?
say no to CASS SUNSTEIN
another radical shithead from Obama Cass Sunstein
As he makes a real impact in pushing conservative fringe attacks on Obama administration officials into the mainstream, Glenn Beck’s Twitter feed has become a must-read. In a message from last night, Beck told his followers to “FIND EVERYTHING YOU CAN ON CASS SUNSTEIN, MARK LLOYD AND CAROL BROWNER.”
As he makes a real impact in pushing conservative fringe attacks on Obama administration officials into the mainstream, Glenn Beck’s Twitter feed has become a must-read. In a message from last night, Beck told his followers to “FIND EVERYTHING YOU CAN ON CASS SUNSTEIN, MARK LLOYD AND CAROL BROWNER.”
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
where was NBC ABC CBS on the Van Jones czar issue?
where was NBC ABC CBS on the Van Jones czar issue?
the reporting was started by Fox news on the Glenn beck show early in the week,were glenn beck showed the video clip of Van Jones as a self proclaimed communist. showing Jones had signed the petition that Bush knew of the 911 attack. Called Pres Bush a crackhead.
It was only Van Jones resigned on Saturday night around midnight over a holiday weekend, that the non cable news media picked up the story.
see latest news at www.glennbeck.com
the reporting was started by Fox news on the Glenn beck show early in the week,were glenn beck showed the video clip of Van Jones as a self proclaimed communist. showing Jones had signed the petition that Bush knew of the 911 attack. Called Pres Bush a crackhead.
It was only Van Jones resigned on Saturday night around midnight over a holiday weekend, that the non cable news media picked up the story.
see latest news at www.glennbeck.com
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Obama as a sacred cow ?
Obama as a sacred cow ?
why is president Obama treated like a sort of sacred cow by NBC and ABC?
why is president Obama treated like a sort of sacred cow by NBC and ABC?
How much does a Obama czar cost ? including staff etc?
How much does a Obama czar cost ? including staff office space etc?
He now has 37 czars ?
what happened to cabinet level jobs ?
Is this another tier of goverment that Obama needs?
He now has 37 czars ?
what happened to cabinet level jobs ?
Is this another tier of goverment that Obama needs?
1 less commie Czar in the White House : Van Jones quits
1 less commie Czar in the White House: Van Jones quits
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's environmental adviser Van Jones, has resigned his White House job after what he calls a "vicious smear campaign against me."
The resignation, disclosed without advance notice by the White House in an e-mail minutes into Sunday on a holiday weekend, came as Obama is working to regain his footing in the contentious health care debate.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's environmental adviser Van Jones, has resigned his White House job after what he calls a "vicious smear campaign against me."
The resignation, disclosed without advance notice by the White House in an e-mail minutes into Sunday on a holiday weekend, came as Obama is working to regain his footing in the contentious health care debate.
Friday, September 04, 2009
AP finally picks up "Czar" Van Jones story
AP finally picks up "Czar" Van Jones story
but they had tinted it with thier Obama love, anti GOP color.
Republicans who have spent months criticizing the proliferation of “czars” in the Obama White House have finally landed a major punch.
Over the past few weeks, White House green jobs czar Van Jones has been accused of being a communist, an old lecture video showed him calling Republicans a—holes, and he’s been connected to a Sept. 11 conspiracy group.
With that type of paper trail, Jones would have trouble surviving a Senate confirmation.
But his czar status allowed him to skip this step: Many of the high-level White House policy advisers don’t require Senate confirmation for their posts. And while liberals have hailed Jones as a pioneer in the green jobs movement, critics have labeled him a radical — and he’s become a liability for a White House that doesn’t need another distraction.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26781.html#ixzz0QBRDhbnN
but they had tinted it with thier Obama love, anti GOP color.
Republicans who have spent months criticizing the proliferation of “czars” in the Obama White House have finally landed a major punch.
Over the past few weeks, White House green jobs czar Van Jones has been accused of being a communist, an old lecture video showed him calling Republicans a—holes, and he’s been connected to a Sept. 11 conspiracy group.
With that type of paper trail, Jones would have trouble surviving a Senate confirmation.
But his czar status allowed him to skip this step: Many of the high-level White House policy advisers don’t require Senate confirmation for their posts. And while liberals have hailed Jones as a pioneer in the green jobs movement, critics have labeled him a radical — and he’s become a liability for a White House that doesn’t need another distraction.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26781.html#ixzz0QBRDhbnN
did Valerie Garrett ,Chicago democrat , vet Van Jones for Obama ?
did Valerie Garrett ,Chicago Democrat , vet Van Jones for Obama ?
Van Jones is the radical "czar" that Obama appointed into his 2nd tier of goverment. Van Jones did sign and promote a investigation into the 911 conspiracy that Bush knew of the Sept 11 attach.
see more on this 2nd tier of the 37 radicals that Obama as employed
in the White House.
Van Jones is the radical "czar" that Obama appointed into his 2nd tier of goverment. Van Jones did sign and promote a investigation into the 911 conspiracy that Bush knew of the Sept 11 attach.
see more on this 2nd tier of the 37 radicals that Obama as employed
in the White House.
David Horowitz will be on Glenn Beck
David Horowitz will be on Glenn Beck TODAY discussing Saul Alinsky
How to Defeat the Left
By: David Horowitz / NewsReal
Conservatives should never confront leftists without
www.frontpagemag.com
How to Defeat the Left
By: David Horowitz / NewsReal
Conservatives should never confront leftists without
www.frontpagemag.com
Obama's Van Jones thinks the governemnt was behind Sept 11
For President Obama's green jobs advisor, Van Jones, Labor Day can't come soon enough.
The Washington Independent has turned up a six-year-old petition Jones signed alleging government complicity in the September 11 terror attacks. This comes just one day after The Hill reported the existence of a video clip recorded in February in which Jones referred to Republicans - and himself - as "a**holes."
Jones joined the Obama administration in May. He was the founder of a green jobs advocacy organization based in Oakland, Ca.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/03/blogs/coopscorner/entry5286699.shtml
The Washington Independent has turned up a six-year-old petition Jones signed alleging government complicity in the September 11 terror attacks. This comes just one day after The Hill reported the existence of a video clip recorded in February in which Jones referred to Republicans - and himself - as "a**holes."
Jones joined the Obama administration in May. He was the founder of a green jobs advocacy organization based in Oakland, Ca.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/03/blogs/coopscorner/entry5286699.shtml
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Rep. Chuck Rangel in deep ethics shit again ?
Rep. Chuck Rangel in deep ethics shit again ?
Will Ethics Problems Hurt Pelosi and the House Democrats in 2010?
Do House Democrats have a double standard when it comes to ethics? Word broke earlier this week that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to allow Rep. Chuck Rangel to keep his chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee despite continuing ethics problems. The latest revelation: he failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets on his financial-disclosure forms over the past several years. According to amended forms recently filed with the House, Rangel failed to disclose at least $800,000 in assets and income since 2002. The latest dustup comes amid an ongoing House ethics investigation into other questionable acts by the New York congressman, including his failure to report income from and pay taxes on a villa in the Dominican Republic and his ties to a real-estate developer who leased him four rent-stabilized apartments in New York. The panel is also looking into Rangel’s fundraising and whether he improperly used his office to raise money for a public policy center in his name at the City University of New York.
For his part, Rangel has denied any wrongdoing and tallied it all up to accounting mistakes and simple oversights. But Republicans, no doubt happy to be on the other side of an ethics issue after years of problems with Tom DeLay and others, are demanding Rangel give up his chairmanship and provide proof that he accurately reported his income and assets to the IRS. For now, Pelosi is sticking with Rangel, according to aides who say she won’t ask him to resign his post unless the ethics committee censures him. “Due process,” a House Democratic aide, who declined to be named discussing the situation, tells the Gaggle.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/09/03/ethics-pelosi-house-democrats-2010.aspx
Will Ethics Problems Hurt Pelosi and the House Democrats in 2010?
Do House Democrats have a double standard when it comes to ethics? Word broke earlier this week that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to allow Rep. Chuck Rangel to keep his chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee despite continuing ethics problems. The latest revelation: he failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets on his financial-disclosure forms over the past several years. According to amended forms recently filed with the House, Rangel failed to disclose at least $800,000 in assets and income since 2002. The latest dustup comes amid an ongoing House ethics investigation into other questionable acts by the New York congressman, including his failure to report income from and pay taxes on a villa in the Dominican Republic and his ties to a real-estate developer who leased him four rent-stabilized apartments in New York. The panel is also looking into Rangel’s fundraising and whether he improperly used his office to raise money for a public policy center in his name at the City University of New York.
For his part, Rangel has denied any wrongdoing and tallied it all up to accounting mistakes and simple oversights. But Republicans, no doubt happy to be on the other side of an ethics issue after years of problems with Tom DeLay and others, are demanding Rangel give up his chairmanship and provide proof that he accurately reported his income and assets to the IRS. For now, Pelosi is sticking with Rangel, according to aides who say she won’t ask him to resign his post unless the ethics committee censures him. “Due process,” a House Democratic aide, who declined to be named discussing the situation, tells the Gaggle.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/09/03/ethics-pelosi-house-democrats-2010.aspx
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Obama puts commies on the White House staff?
Commies in the White House ?
who is the Obama green czar Van Jones ? a left wing commie ?
hear the audio info at
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29967/
GLENN: From high above Times Square, this is the third most listened
to show in all of America. Hello, you sick twisted freak. I want to
take another look with some new audio now that I swear to you I
cannot believe that there is no one in this country that is willing
to take on this audio, that is willing to ask the tough questions.
I cannot believe that I am alone. I know you are there, too. You must feel the same way.
Where is everyone? I want you to hear some new audio from the green jobs czar, specific adviser to the president for green jobs, or whatever they want to call him. What I want you to do is give me ten minutes. I need you to take a good hard look at who Van Jones is.
I told you, well, for the last couple of months that this guy
is an avowed, self avowed radical revolutionary communist.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29967/see more info on Van Jones
Illegal Aliens Will Get Health Benefits Under House Bill ?
Congressional Research Agency Confirms Illegal Aliens Will Get Health Benefits Under House Bill
Last Tuesday, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which is the non-partisan "research arm" of the United States Congress, issued a report that concludes that illegal aliens will be able to receive benefits under the House health care bill (H.R. 3200) through two major loopholes. (See CRS Report and FAIR Press Release, August 26, 2009).
According to its own website, CRS is a legislative branch agency that provides Congress with "policy and legal analysis" that is authoritative, objective and accurate. (CRS website). The latest CRS report validates what FAIR has been saying for the past month and a half — that illegal aliens will be able to receive taxpayer-funded health benefits under the House health care bill. (See FAIR's Legislative Updates, July 20, 2009; July 27, 2009 and August 3, 2009).
The House bill creates an "exchange" and "all individuals," which would include illegal aliens, are eligible to participate in the exchange. Anyone who participates in the exchange, and does not otherwise have health insurance, can either enroll in the public option plan created by the House bill or enroll in a private insurance plan. Accordingly, the first loophole that provides illegal aliens with health insurance is the ability for illegal aliens to freely enroll in the taxpayer-subsidized public option. According to CRS, "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens — whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently — from participating in the Exchange." (CRS Report). Accordingly, illegal aliens can enroll in the public option, courtesy of the American taxpayers, to meet their health insurance needs. (See CNN.com, August 2009).
The second major loophole is the failure to require any meaningful verification procedure for taxpayer-subsidized insurance credits. Under the House bill, individuals who buy private insurance through the Exchange may receive an affordability credit to offset the cost of insurance. This credit is ostensibly limited to individuals lawfully present in the U.S., but CRS (like FAIR) notes the complete absence of any provision in the House bill that requires verification of eligibility for the affordability credits. Without such a mechanism, there is nothing in the bill that will prevent illegal aliens from receiving this taxpayer subsidy to buy private health insurance.
These conclusions by CRS should eliminate any remaining doubt about whether illegal aliens will receive health benefits under the bill. As a result of this report, President Obama can no longer characterize the concerns about the illegal alien health care loophole under the bill as "misinformation." (See FAIR's Legislative Update, August 24, 2009 and FAIR's Health Care Podcast, August 24, 2009). In addition, Members of Congress can no longer claim the bill prevents coverage for illegal aliens, and the media can no longer suggest this concern is a "myth." (See FAIR's House bill summary and Townhall.com, August 27, 2009).
Federal Court Upholds E-Verify Federal Contractor Rule
The amnesty lobby suffered a significant setback last week as a federal court upheld a regulation that will require most federal contractors to use E-Verify — the online, electronically operated employment verification system that allows employers to quickly and easily check the work authorization status of their new hires. (The New York Times, August 27, 2009).
The ruling came more than eight months after a coalition of special interest groups — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.; the Society for Human Resource Management; the American Council on International Personnel; and the HR Policy Association - sued to block the rule from taking effect on its original targeted implementation date of January 15, 2009. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, January 5, 2009).
The push to require federal contractors to use E-Verify has had a long history. On June 6, 2008, then-President George W. Bush signed Executive Order (EO) 13,456, which amended EO 12,989 to require federal contractors to use an electronic employment eligibility verification system to verify the work authorization status of their employees. EO 13,456 also required the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to choose the verification system to be used. (EO 13,456, June 9, 2008). On June 9, 2008, former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff designated E-Verify as the system to be used by federal contractors under the EO. (DHS Press Release, June 9, 2008). The Final Rule implementing President Bush's EO was issued in mid-November 2008. (Final Rule, November 14, 2008).
On December 23, 2008, a coalition of special interests filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Maryland alleging that the Final Rule was unlawful because it violated the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The plaintiffs argued that Secretary Chertoff had violated Section 402(a) of IIRIRA, which states that "the Secretary of Homeland Security may not require any person or other entity to participate in a pilot program [of employment eligibility confirmation]." In designating E-Verify as the electronic employment eligibility verification system to be used by federal contractors under President Bush's EO, the plaintiffs alleged that Chertoff had violated this statutory prohibition. The complaint contained several other allegations, including a claim that the Final Rule violated a separate IIRIRA statutory prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. (Complaint, December 23, 2008).
In last week's decision, Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. rejected the claims made by the coalition of special interest groups. Judge Williams noted that "[t]he decision to be a government contractor is voluntary and…no one has a right to be a government contractor." Williams added that, even though the Final Rule requires federal contractors to enroll in E-Verify, "[p]otential government contractors have the option not to contract with the government," so Secretary Chertoff hadn't actually required anyone or any entity to use E-Verify. Judge Williams also went on to reject the coalition's claims that the E-Verify contractor rule violated an IIRIRA prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. According to Williams: "Nothing in IIRIRA explicitly prohibits the Executive Branch from using E-Verify for current employees." (Decision, August 25, 2009).
The Obama Administration has indicated that it intends to implement the final rule on September 8, 2009 — after having delayed the regulation on three separate occasions. (See The Washington Post, January 30, 2009 and FAIR's Legislative Updates from April 20, 2009; June 8, 2009 and July 13, 2009).However, the E-Verify program itself is set to expire on September 30, 2009. While many immigration reformers have been insisting that the program be permanently reauthorized, the Administration has avoided adopting such a position. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) successfully attached a related E-Verify amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security spending bill that would (1) permanently reauthorize E-Verify and (2) require all federal contractors to use E-Verify to check the work authorization status on all of their new hires, plus existing employees who are assigned to affected federal contracts. The fate of the Sessions Amendment is uncertain, however. The Homeland Security spending bill is scheduled to move to a House-Senate conference sometime in September. Since the House version of the bill does not contain the Sessions Amendment, the Conference Report — which would likely become law - may include or drop this language. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, July 13, 2009).
Illegal Alien Faces Death Penalty for 2008 Murder of High School Football Star
The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office announced last week that it will seek the death penalty for Pedro Espinoza — an illegal alien member of the 18th Street Gang who allegedly murdered 17-year old high school football star Jamiel Shaw, Jr. in cold blood last year. (CBS News, August 27, 2009; KPCC, August 26, 2009; KTLA, August 26, 2009; and The New York Times, August 26, 2009). Shaw's murder on March 2, 2008 touched off an explosive debate over Special Order 40 — the Los Angeles sanctuary ordinance which does not require police officers to check the immigration status of suspects who have been arrested. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, April 14, 2008).
According to Los Angeles police, Shaw was about three blocks from his house, talking on his cell phone with his girlfriend on the night of his murder. Two men in a car pulled up to Shaw, jumped out, and asked Shaw if he belonged to a gang. When Shaw did not respond, Espinoza allegedly shot him to death. Shaw's father, Jamiel, Sr., was on the phone when he heard the shots and raced outside to find his son lying on the sidewalk, bleeding. His mother, Army Sergeant Anita Shaw, was serving her second tour of duty in Iraq at the time Jamiel was killed. (The Los Angeles Times, March 4, 2008).
Following the murder, it came to light that the illegal alien who had allegedly killed Jamiel, Jr. had been released from jail on a firearms charge just one day before Shaw was killed. This prompted Shaw's parents to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department on the grounds that the illegal alien should have been turned over to federal authorities instead of being freed. (CBS News, August 27, 2009). Additionally, Shaw's parents unsuccessfully petitioned for Jamiel's Law, legislation that would have altered the sanctuary provisions in Special Order 40 by requiring authorities to check the immigration status of gang members who were under arrest or investigation. (KTLA, August 26, 2009). FAIR Media Director Ira Mehlman commented last week about the release of the illegal alien who has been charged with murdering Shaw: "The local police never took the trouble to find out he was an illegal alien and remand him to federal authorities. If they had done that, they would not have put him back out on the streets. He would have been remanded to federal custody and never had the opportunity to murder Jamiel Shaw." (OneNewsNow, August 28, 2009).
Parents Jamiel, Sr. and Anita Shaw were proud of their son. Jamiel, Jr. aspired to play college football and wanted to become a sports agent after graduating college. Jamiel's mother compared the gang violence that had led to her son's death to the violence that she had seen in Iraq: "The only thing is we don't have sand and dirt flying all around. But we have the bullets." In the days following Jamiel's murder, Jamiel, Sr. said of his son: "He was set. He was going to college…he was my hero." (CBS News, August 27, 2009).
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21337&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#1
Last Tuesday, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which is the non-partisan "research arm" of the United States Congress, issued a report that concludes that illegal aliens will be able to receive benefits under the House health care bill (H.R. 3200) through two major loopholes. (See CRS Report and FAIR Press Release, August 26, 2009).
According to its own website, CRS is a legislative branch agency that provides Congress with "policy and legal analysis" that is authoritative, objective and accurate. (CRS website). The latest CRS report validates what FAIR has been saying for the past month and a half — that illegal aliens will be able to receive taxpayer-funded health benefits under the House health care bill. (See FAIR's Legislative Updates, July 20, 2009; July 27, 2009 and August 3, 2009).
The House bill creates an "exchange" and "all individuals," which would include illegal aliens, are eligible to participate in the exchange. Anyone who participates in the exchange, and does not otherwise have health insurance, can either enroll in the public option plan created by the House bill or enroll in a private insurance plan. Accordingly, the first loophole that provides illegal aliens with health insurance is the ability for illegal aliens to freely enroll in the taxpayer-subsidized public option. According to CRS, "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens — whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently — from participating in the Exchange." (CRS Report). Accordingly, illegal aliens can enroll in the public option, courtesy of the American taxpayers, to meet their health insurance needs. (See CNN.com, August 2009).
The second major loophole is the failure to require any meaningful verification procedure for taxpayer-subsidized insurance credits. Under the House bill, individuals who buy private insurance through the Exchange may receive an affordability credit to offset the cost of insurance. This credit is ostensibly limited to individuals lawfully present in the U.S., but CRS (like FAIR) notes the complete absence of any provision in the House bill that requires verification of eligibility for the affordability credits. Without such a mechanism, there is nothing in the bill that will prevent illegal aliens from receiving this taxpayer subsidy to buy private health insurance.
These conclusions by CRS should eliminate any remaining doubt about whether illegal aliens will receive health benefits under the bill. As a result of this report, President Obama can no longer characterize the concerns about the illegal alien health care loophole under the bill as "misinformation." (See FAIR's Legislative Update, August 24, 2009 and FAIR's Health Care Podcast, August 24, 2009). In addition, Members of Congress can no longer claim the bill prevents coverage for illegal aliens, and the media can no longer suggest this concern is a "myth." (See FAIR's House bill summary and Townhall.com, August 27, 2009).
Federal Court Upholds E-Verify Federal Contractor Rule
The amnesty lobby suffered a significant setback last week as a federal court upheld a regulation that will require most federal contractors to use E-Verify — the online, electronically operated employment verification system that allows employers to quickly and easily check the work authorization status of their new hires. (The New York Times, August 27, 2009).
The ruling came more than eight months after a coalition of special interest groups — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.; the Society for Human Resource Management; the American Council on International Personnel; and the HR Policy Association - sued to block the rule from taking effect on its original targeted implementation date of January 15, 2009. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, January 5, 2009).
The push to require federal contractors to use E-Verify has had a long history. On June 6, 2008, then-President George W. Bush signed Executive Order (EO) 13,456, which amended EO 12,989 to require federal contractors to use an electronic employment eligibility verification system to verify the work authorization status of their employees. EO 13,456 also required the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to choose the verification system to be used. (EO 13,456, June 9, 2008). On June 9, 2008, former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff designated E-Verify as the system to be used by federal contractors under the EO. (DHS Press Release, June 9, 2008). The Final Rule implementing President Bush's EO was issued in mid-November 2008. (Final Rule, November 14, 2008).
On December 23, 2008, a coalition of special interests filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Maryland alleging that the Final Rule was unlawful because it violated the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The plaintiffs argued that Secretary Chertoff had violated Section 402(a) of IIRIRA, which states that "the Secretary of Homeland Security may not require any person or other entity to participate in a pilot program [of employment eligibility confirmation]." In designating E-Verify as the electronic employment eligibility verification system to be used by federal contractors under President Bush's EO, the plaintiffs alleged that Chertoff had violated this statutory prohibition. The complaint contained several other allegations, including a claim that the Final Rule violated a separate IIRIRA statutory prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. (Complaint, December 23, 2008).
In last week's decision, Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. rejected the claims made by the coalition of special interest groups. Judge Williams noted that "[t]he decision to be a government contractor is voluntary and…no one has a right to be a government contractor." Williams added that, even though the Final Rule requires federal contractors to enroll in E-Verify, "[p]otential government contractors have the option not to contract with the government," so Secretary Chertoff hadn't actually required anyone or any entity to use E-Verify. Judge Williams also went on to reject the coalition's claims that the E-Verify contractor rule violated an IIRIRA prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. According to Williams: "Nothing in IIRIRA explicitly prohibits the Executive Branch from using E-Verify for current employees." (Decision, August 25, 2009).
The Obama Administration has indicated that it intends to implement the final rule on September 8, 2009 — after having delayed the regulation on three separate occasions. (See The Washington Post, January 30, 2009 and FAIR's Legislative Updates from April 20, 2009; June 8, 2009 and July 13, 2009).However, the E-Verify program itself is set to expire on September 30, 2009. While many immigration reformers have been insisting that the program be permanently reauthorized, the Administration has avoided adopting such a position. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) successfully attached a related E-Verify amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security spending bill that would (1) permanently reauthorize E-Verify and (2) require all federal contractors to use E-Verify to check the work authorization status on all of their new hires, plus existing employees who are assigned to affected federal contracts. The fate of the Sessions Amendment is uncertain, however. The Homeland Security spending bill is scheduled to move to a House-Senate conference sometime in September. Since the House version of the bill does not contain the Sessions Amendment, the Conference Report — which would likely become law - may include or drop this language. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, July 13, 2009).
Illegal Alien Faces Death Penalty for 2008 Murder of High School Football Star
The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office announced last week that it will seek the death penalty for Pedro Espinoza — an illegal alien member of the 18th Street Gang who allegedly murdered 17-year old high school football star Jamiel Shaw, Jr. in cold blood last year. (CBS News, August 27, 2009; KPCC, August 26, 2009; KTLA, August 26, 2009; and The New York Times, August 26, 2009). Shaw's murder on March 2, 2008 touched off an explosive debate over Special Order 40 — the Los Angeles sanctuary ordinance which does not require police officers to check the immigration status of suspects who have been arrested. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, April 14, 2008).
According to Los Angeles police, Shaw was about three blocks from his house, talking on his cell phone with his girlfriend on the night of his murder. Two men in a car pulled up to Shaw, jumped out, and asked Shaw if he belonged to a gang. When Shaw did not respond, Espinoza allegedly shot him to death. Shaw's father, Jamiel, Sr., was on the phone when he heard the shots and raced outside to find his son lying on the sidewalk, bleeding. His mother, Army Sergeant Anita Shaw, was serving her second tour of duty in Iraq at the time Jamiel was killed. (The Los Angeles Times, March 4, 2008).
Following the murder, it came to light that the illegal alien who had allegedly killed Jamiel, Jr. had been released from jail on a firearms charge just one day before Shaw was killed. This prompted Shaw's parents to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department on the grounds that the illegal alien should have been turned over to federal authorities instead of being freed. (CBS News, August 27, 2009). Additionally, Shaw's parents unsuccessfully petitioned for Jamiel's Law, legislation that would have altered the sanctuary provisions in Special Order 40 by requiring authorities to check the immigration status of gang members who were under arrest or investigation. (KTLA, August 26, 2009). FAIR Media Director Ira Mehlman commented last week about the release of the illegal alien who has been charged with murdering Shaw: "The local police never took the trouble to find out he was an illegal alien and remand him to federal authorities. If they had done that, they would not have put him back out on the streets. He would have been remanded to federal custody and never had the opportunity to murder Jamiel Shaw." (OneNewsNow, August 28, 2009).
Parents Jamiel, Sr. and Anita Shaw were proud of their son. Jamiel, Jr. aspired to play college football and wanted to become a sports agent after graduating college. Jamiel's mother compared the gang violence that had led to her son's death to the violence that she had seen in Iraq: "The only thing is we don't have sand and dirt flying all around. But we have the bullets." In the days following Jamiel's murder, Jamiel, Sr. said of his son: "He was set. He was going to college…he was my hero." (CBS News, August 27, 2009).
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21337&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#1
Monday, August 31, 2009
is Mark LLoyd a Marxist in the FCC ?
is Mark LLoyd a Marxist in the FCC ?
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29920/
who is this Marxist as a new FCC Diversity Czar from Obama ?
This guy is getting Glenn Beck upset.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Tea Party Rally Heading to Sacramento,CA
Tea Party Rally Heading to Sacramento,CA
Fed up and fighting back -- thousands of Valley residents are heading to Sacramento to protest tax hikes.
Some of the organizers are the same ones behind similar Tea Party protests held earlier this year.They say they're angry about higher taxes and environmental regulations that have hurt the Valley's water supply.
The Fresno Tea Party was held at the Save Mart Center on Tax day and organizers are looking to build on that successful event.
http://www.cbs47.tv/content/special_features/story/Tea-Party-Rally-Heading-to-Sacramento/KPLunIgRpEO8e2U33Ifwvg.cspx
Fed up and fighting back -- thousands of Valley residents are heading to Sacramento to protest tax hikes.
Some of the organizers are the same ones behind similar Tea Party protests held earlier this year.They say they're angry about higher taxes and environmental regulations that have hurt the Valley's water supply.
The Fresno Tea Party was held at the Save Mart Center on Tax day and organizers are looking to build on that successful event.
http://www.cbs47.tv/content/special_features/story/Tea-Party-Rally-Heading-to-Sacramento/KPLunIgRpEO8e2U33Ifwvg.cspx
Obama's "Shadow Government"
Shadow Government: What Obama Doesn't Want You To Know About His Czars
Edited by Scott Wheeler and Peter Leitner
Get the book Obama doesn't want you to read. All 35 Czars covered. Take to your town hall meetings and have all the information you need and can demand answers.
Order now and receive free shipping. Sign up with your email address and receive updates on the activities of the Czars free for six months.
http://nationalrepublicantrust.com/
Edited by Scott Wheeler and Peter Leitner
Get the book Obama doesn't want you to read. All 35 Czars covered. Take to your town hall meetings and have all the information you need and can demand answers.
Order now and receive free shipping. Sign up with your email address and receive updates on the activities of the Czars free for six months.
http://nationalrepublicantrust.com/
Thursday, August 27, 2009
NBC abd ABC won't run this ad critical of Obama
The refusal by ABC and NBC to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan is raising questions from the group behind the spot -- particularly in light of ABC's health care special aired in prime time last June and hosted at the White House.
The 33-second ad by the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine, began airing two weeks ago on local affiliates of ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS. On a national level, however, ABC and NBC have refused to run the spot in its present form.
"It's a powerful ad," said Bob Adams, executive director of the League of American Voters, a national nonprofit group with 15,000 members who advocate individual liberty and government accountability. "It tells the truth and it really highlights one of the biggest vulnerabilities and problems with this proposed legislation, which is it rations health care and disproportionately will decimate the quality of health care for seniors."
click to see this 30 second ad
The 33-second ad by the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine, began airing two weeks ago on local affiliates of ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS. On a national level, however, ABC and NBC have refused to run the spot in its present form.
"It's a powerful ad," said Bob Adams, executive director of the League of American Voters, a national nonprofit group with 15,000 members who advocate individual liberty and government accountability. "It tells the truth and it really highlights one of the biggest vulnerabilities and problems with this proposed legislation, which is it rations health care and disproportionately will decimate the quality of health care for seniors."
click to see this 30 second ad
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
see Obama red ink, how can we take back his federal Mastercard?
see Obama red ink, how can we take back his federal Mastercard?
Most red ink ever: $9 trillion over next decade
Most red ink ever: $9 trillion over next decade
more bullshit from Obama, just got out of town in time
more bullshit from Obama, just got out of town in time
he is a smooth talker.
bad forecasts numbers, cia investigation,
ben bernke appointment
looks like he had to duck out of town.
he is a smooth talker.
bad forecasts numbers, cia investigation,
ben bernke appointment
looks like he had to duck out of town.
special thanks for the excellent work done by the CIA, turn up those drill revs
special thanks for the excellent work done by the CIA, turn up those drill revs
Monday, August 24, 2009
how did Rahm Emanuel make $16 million in 1 years
how did Rahm Emanuel make $16 million in 1 year ?
Obama's "bag man"
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=8157698&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/glennbeck/index.html
Obama's "bag man"
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=8157698&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/glennbeck/index.html
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Lieberman says many health care changes can wait
Lieberman says many health care changes can wait
WASHINGTON – An independent senator counted on by Democrats in the health care debate showed signs of wavering Sunday when he urged President Barack Obama to postpone many of his initiatives because of the economic downturn.
"I'm afraid we've got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy's out of recession," said Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman. "There's no reason we have to do it all now, but we do have to get started. And I think the place to start is cost health delivery reform and insurance market reforms."
The Senate requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and advance a measure to an up-or-down vote. Senators from both parties said that Democrats might use a voting tactic to overcome GOP opposition, abandoning the White House's goal of bipartisan support for its chief domestic priority.
Democrats control 60 votes, including those of two independents, but illness has sidelined Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. The party's leaders also cannot be assured that their moderate members will support every health care proposal.
"I think it's a real mistake to try to jam through the total health insurance reform, health care reform plan that the public is either opposed to or of very, very passionate mixed minds about," Lieberman said.
Talk about resorting to this maneuver comes as Republicans dig in against the idea of a government-run insurance program as an option for consumers and a requirement that employers provide health insurance to their workers.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Republicans would like to start over "with a genuine bipartisan approach."
"The American people will be very troubled by a single political party's 'my way or the highway' attitude to overhauling their health care, especially when it means government-run health care, new taxes on small businesses, and Medicare cuts for seniors," McConnell, R-Ky., said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would consider the voting tactic, known as reconciliation, if necessary to pass a bill by year's end if Republicans won't work toward a bipartisan solution.
To Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, "that would be an abuse of the process."
Even Sen. Kent Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman, acknowledged that "it's an option, but it's not a very good one." He has warned that nonbudget items in health care legislation would be challenged under the rules allowing reconciliation.
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., also suggested that a fresh start was needed.
"Bringing up of the health care situation in the midst of recession, the unemployment problems ... was a mistake," Lugar said. "For the moment, let's clear the deck and try it again next year or in subsequent times."
Kennedy, one of the major proponents of health care reform, has missed most of the recent debate because of cancer. Both Hatch and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Kennedy's absence has taken a toll on the process.
"He had a unique way of sitting down with the parties at a table and making the right concessions, which really are the essence of successful negotiations," McCain said.
Lieberman and Lugar appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" while Hatch and Schumer appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press." Conrad spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation" and McCain on ABC's "This Week."
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer Douglass K. Daniel, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – An independent senator counted on by Democrats in the health care debate showed signs of wavering Sunday when he urged President Barack Obama to postpone many of his initiatives because of the economic downturn.
"I'm afraid we've got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy's out of recession," said Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman. "There's no reason we have to do it all now, but we do have to get started. And I think the place to start is cost health delivery reform and insurance market reforms."
The Senate requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and advance a measure to an up-or-down vote. Senators from both parties said that Democrats might use a voting tactic to overcome GOP opposition, abandoning the White House's goal of bipartisan support for its chief domestic priority.
Democrats control 60 votes, including those of two independents, but illness has sidelined Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. The party's leaders also cannot be assured that their moderate members will support every health care proposal.
"I think it's a real mistake to try to jam through the total health insurance reform, health care reform plan that the public is either opposed to or of very, very passionate mixed minds about," Lieberman said.
Talk about resorting to this maneuver comes as Republicans dig in against the idea of a government-run insurance program as an option for consumers and a requirement that employers provide health insurance to their workers.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Republicans would like to start over "with a genuine bipartisan approach."
"The American people will be very troubled by a single political party's 'my way or the highway' attitude to overhauling their health care, especially when it means government-run health care, new taxes on small businesses, and Medicare cuts for seniors," McConnell, R-Ky., said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would consider the voting tactic, known as reconciliation, if necessary to pass a bill by year's end if Republicans won't work toward a bipartisan solution.
To Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, "that would be an abuse of the process."
Even Sen. Kent Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman, acknowledged that "it's an option, but it's not a very good one." He has warned that nonbudget items in health care legislation would be challenged under the rules allowing reconciliation.
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., also suggested that a fresh start was needed.
"Bringing up of the health care situation in the midst of recession, the unemployment problems ... was a mistake," Lugar said. "For the moment, let's clear the deck and try it again next year or in subsequent times."
Kennedy, one of the major proponents of health care reform, has missed most of the recent debate because of cancer. Both Hatch and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Kennedy's absence has taken a toll on the process.
"He had a unique way of sitting down with the parties at a table and making the right concessions, which really are the essence of successful negotiations," McCain said.
Lieberman and Lugar appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" while Hatch and Schumer appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press." Conrad spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation" and McCain on ABC's "This Week."
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer Douglass K. Daniel, Associated Press Writer
Monday, August 17, 2009
While in Mexico, President Obama Promises Amnesty Next Year
While in Mexico, President Obama Promises Amnesty Next Year
Last week, while meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon in Guadalajara, Mexico, President Barack Obama predicted Congress would pass an amnesty bill next year to legalize more than 12 million illegal aliens who are presently in the United States. (ABC News, August 11, 2009 and The Los Angeles Times, August 11, 2009).
While in Mexico, President Obama stated: "Secretary Napolitano is coordinating these discussions, and I would anticipate that before the year is out we will have draft legislation along with sponsors potentially in the House and the Senate who are ready to move this forward, and when we come back next year, that we should be in a position to start acting." The President also conceded that overcoming the opposition of the American people to an amnesty bill would be difficult, saying: "Am I going to be able to snap my fingers and get this done? No. This is going to be difficult." (ABC News, August 11, 2009). The Los Angeles Times even suggested that passing the bill would "prove [to be] a major political test."
Mexican government officials were upset with this timing. According to media reports, Mexican Senator Carlos Navarrete of the "leftist Democratic Revolution Party" responded to Obama's announcement by saying: "This is not good news," and also stated "we can hope that Latino Congress members who have taken on this initiative [of immigration reform] will maintain their activism in this matter." (The Los Angeles Times, August 11, 2009).
The people who should be the most upset by this announcement, however, are the American people, particularly those who are out of work. America has a real shortage of jobs, and the idea that Congress would consider amnesty legislation, thereby giving illegal aliens the ability to openly compete for scarce jobs, is not in the best interest of the American worker. (See FAIR's Report Amnesty & Joblessness, July 2009). In fact, earlier this year, Vice President Joe Biden even suggested that America's economic situation is at odds with President Obama's goal of signing amnesty legislation. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, April 6, 2009).
More recently, The New York Times opinion page expressed just how dire America's job situation is. Op-Ed columnist Bob Herbert wrote that "the American economy does not seem able to provide enough jobs — and nowhere near enough good jobs — to maintain the standard of living that most Americans have come to expect." Herbert's column states that the U.S. economy has lost 6.7 million jobs since December 2007 and that the economy has fewer jobs today than it did in 2000, despite the fact that the "labor force has grown by around 12 million workers since then." Coincidentally, nearly 12 million illegal aliens are in the United States, with nearly 8.3 million in the workforce. Herbert also stated that "[n]o one is predicting a recovery in the foreseeable future powerful enough to replace the millions of jobs that have vanished," further calling into question the wisdom of any amnesty legislation and undercutting any calls for a "guest worker" program as part of any immigration bill. (The New York Times, August 10, 2009).
DHS April Report Attacking True Immigration Reformers as "Extremists" Further Discredited
The "intelligence assessment" on "Rightwing Extremism" issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in April was further discredited last week, this time by information provided by DHS. (DHS Report, April 7, 2009). The April assessment painted millions of American citizens, including many of America's "returning veterans" as "extremists," and categorized Americans concerned with unchecked illegal immigration as a threat. (FOXNews, April 17, 2009; See also FAIR's Legislative Update, April 27, 2009).
The American public, including organizations that represent generations of America's veterans like the American Legion, were outraged by the DHS assessment. (FOXNews, April 24, 2009). Democrats on Capitol Hill also said they were "dumbfounded" by the DHS report, and others questioned the reliability and sources behind the report. Despite questions about the reliability of the report, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano stood behind it. (The Washington Times, April 16, 2009).
This past week, DHS responded to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by Americans for Limited Government (ALG), and their response reveals that DHS's "assessment" was not based on actual intelligence. (Americans for Limited Government, August 13, 2009). Instead, DHS's disclosure reveals that they relied not on primary sources or investigations to draft the report, but exclusively on secondary sources, including some that are highly questionable. (DHS Interim Response to FOIA Request, August 5, 2009).
The FOIA request submitted by ALG asked DHS for federal records related to the extremism report, including "all data and all studies, reports, or other documents regarding data created or reviewed by the Department in general to draft the report." (ALG FOIA Request, April 17, 2009). In response, DHS provided ALG with a list of "website links for…217 pages of publicly responsive material." The list shows that DHS relied on spurious sources — including heavy use of materials from the Southern Poverty Law Center and "WhatDoesItMean.com" — in issuing its "Rightwing Extremism" report. (DHS Interim Response to FOIA Request, August 5, 2009).
The SPLC is well-known for slanderously attacking groups and individuals who advocate for the enforcement of immigration laws. The SPLC neither has definitions for the labels it freely slaps on organizations, nor provides any sources or footnotes to support the conclusions made in its "reports." Prior to a House Judiciary Committee hearing on "the Public Safety and Civil Rights
Implications of State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws" (See FAIR's Legislative Update, April 6, 2009), the SPLC submitted a letter to Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) that provided erroneous information about FAIR. At the actual hearing, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) read parts of the SPLC letter into the record. FAIR President Dan Stein responded by sending a letter to Chairman Conyers and Subcommittee Chairwoman Lofgren pointing out the obvious falsehoods in the SPLC's letter. Two days after Mr. Stein's letter was sent to Mr. Conyers and Ms. Lofgren, the SPLC was forced to correct a number of the claims they made in their original letter. (For more information on the SPLC, see FAIR's Inquiry into the Methods and Tactics Employed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and FAIR's Journalist Alert.)
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21223&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#2
Last week, while meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon in Guadalajara, Mexico, President Barack Obama predicted Congress would pass an amnesty bill next year to legalize more than 12 million illegal aliens who are presently in the United States. (ABC News, August 11, 2009 and The Los Angeles Times, August 11, 2009).
While in Mexico, President Obama stated: "Secretary Napolitano is coordinating these discussions, and I would anticipate that before the year is out we will have draft legislation along with sponsors potentially in the House and the Senate who are ready to move this forward, and when we come back next year, that we should be in a position to start acting." The President also conceded that overcoming the opposition of the American people to an amnesty bill would be difficult, saying: "Am I going to be able to snap my fingers and get this done? No. This is going to be difficult." (ABC News, August 11, 2009). The Los Angeles Times even suggested that passing the bill would "prove [to be] a major political test."
Mexican government officials were upset with this timing. According to media reports, Mexican Senator Carlos Navarrete of the "leftist Democratic Revolution Party" responded to Obama's announcement by saying: "This is not good news," and also stated "we can hope that Latino Congress members who have taken on this initiative [of immigration reform] will maintain their activism in this matter." (The Los Angeles Times, August 11, 2009).
The people who should be the most upset by this announcement, however, are the American people, particularly those who are out of work. America has a real shortage of jobs, and the idea that Congress would consider amnesty legislation, thereby giving illegal aliens the ability to openly compete for scarce jobs, is not in the best interest of the American worker. (See FAIR's Report Amnesty & Joblessness, July 2009). In fact, earlier this year, Vice President Joe Biden even suggested that America's economic situation is at odds with President Obama's goal of signing amnesty legislation. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, April 6, 2009).
More recently, The New York Times opinion page expressed just how dire America's job situation is. Op-Ed columnist Bob Herbert wrote that "the American economy does not seem able to provide enough jobs — and nowhere near enough good jobs — to maintain the standard of living that most Americans have come to expect." Herbert's column states that the U.S. economy has lost 6.7 million jobs since December 2007 and that the economy has fewer jobs today than it did in 2000, despite the fact that the "labor force has grown by around 12 million workers since then." Coincidentally, nearly 12 million illegal aliens are in the United States, with nearly 8.3 million in the workforce. Herbert also stated that "[n]o one is predicting a recovery in the foreseeable future powerful enough to replace the millions of jobs that have vanished," further calling into question the wisdom of any amnesty legislation and undercutting any calls for a "guest worker" program as part of any immigration bill. (The New York Times, August 10, 2009).
DHS April Report Attacking True Immigration Reformers as "Extremists" Further Discredited
The "intelligence assessment" on "Rightwing Extremism" issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in April was further discredited last week, this time by information provided by DHS. (DHS Report, April 7, 2009). The April assessment painted millions of American citizens, including many of America's "returning veterans" as "extremists," and categorized Americans concerned with unchecked illegal immigration as a threat. (FOXNews, April 17, 2009; See also FAIR's Legislative Update, April 27, 2009).
The American public, including organizations that represent generations of America's veterans like the American Legion, were outraged by the DHS assessment. (FOXNews, April 24, 2009). Democrats on Capitol Hill also said they were "dumbfounded" by the DHS report, and others questioned the reliability and sources behind the report. Despite questions about the reliability of the report, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano stood behind it. (The Washington Times, April 16, 2009).
This past week, DHS responded to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by Americans for Limited Government (ALG), and their response reveals that DHS's "assessment" was not based on actual intelligence. (Americans for Limited Government, August 13, 2009). Instead, DHS's disclosure reveals that they relied not on primary sources or investigations to draft the report, but exclusively on secondary sources, including some that are highly questionable. (DHS Interim Response to FOIA Request, August 5, 2009).
The FOIA request submitted by ALG asked DHS for federal records related to the extremism report, including "all data and all studies, reports, or other documents regarding data created or reviewed by the Department in general to draft the report." (ALG FOIA Request, April 17, 2009). In response, DHS provided ALG with a list of "website links for…217 pages of publicly responsive material." The list shows that DHS relied on spurious sources — including heavy use of materials from the Southern Poverty Law Center and "WhatDoesItMean.com" — in issuing its "Rightwing Extremism" report. (DHS Interim Response to FOIA Request, August 5, 2009).
The SPLC is well-known for slanderously attacking groups and individuals who advocate for the enforcement of immigration laws. The SPLC neither has definitions for the labels it freely slaps on organizations, nor provides any sources or footnotes to support the conclusions made in its "reports." Prior to a House Judiciary Committee hearing on "the Public Safety and Civil Rights
Implications of State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws" (See FAIR's Legislative Update, April 6, 2009), the SPLC submitted a letter to Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) that provided erroneous information about FAIR. At the actual hearing, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) read parts of the SPLC letter into the record. FAIR President Dan Stein responded by sending a letter to Chairman Conyers and Subcommittee Chairwoman Lofgren pointing out the obvious falsehoods in the SPLC's letter. Two days after Mr. Stein's letter was sent to Mr. Conyers and Ms. Lofgren, the SPLC was forced to correct a number of the claims they made in their original letter. (For more information on the SPLC, see FAIR's Inquiry into the Methods and Tactics Employed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and FAIR's Journalist Alert.)
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21223&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#2
Saturday, August 15, 2009
creation of the Dump Reid PAC
With the creation of the Dump Reid PAC, we’re moving the Dump Reid blog to a new location until the new Dump Reid website is completely designed and developed.
So please change your Dump Reid blog bookmark to
http://www.dumpharry.com.
So please change your Dump Reid blog bookmark to
http://www.dumpharry.com.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Congress buys 3 private jets for themselves ?
Congress buys 3 private jets for themselves ?
what is this bullshit in Washington ?
By Michael Schwanke and Chris Durden (WICHITA, Kan.)
Less than a year after lawmakers in Congress criticized automakers,
the House approves nearly $200 million for Gulfstream jets to fly government officials and members of Congress.
"I don't know how I go back to my constituents and say the auto industry has changed. If they own
private jets which are not only expensive to own expensive to operate and
expensive to fly here rather than to have flown commercial." Congressman Brad Sherman
(D-CA) said back in November.
Now, members of Congress may be the ones on the "hot seat" after the House of Representatives
overwhelmingly approved the purchase of three, $65 million Gulfstream 550 jets.
They are top of the line and two of them will be used by members of Congress,
military brass and top government officials.
"I thought this is supremely hypocritical for them to do that," says Wichita resident
Robert Gruenloh who contacted us after reading the story.
"I just basically hit the ceiling because our industry around here
is hurting because in part what some of the remarks members of congress made about corporate aircraft."
The jets are part of a Defense Appropriation Bill for the Air Force.
Officials with the Air Force say it only needed one jet.
It's reported the funding for the jets was pushed by two members of the Appropriations Committee,
Democrat Sanford Bishop and Republican Jack Kingston.
Both are from Georgia, where the Gulfstream is made.
"The corporate guys were doing it with shareholder money and Congress is doing it with taxpayer money and that doesn't seem right to me," says Gruenloh.
Eyewitness News contacted Congressman Todd Tiahrt who is on the Appropriations Committee.
He was with family and unavailable for an interview, but he has strongly opposed
comments by members of Congress about corporate jet usage.
http://www.kansascw.com/Global/story.asp?S=10855866
what is this bullshit in Washington ?
By Michael Schwanke and Chris Durden (WICHITA, Kan.)
Less than a year after lawmakers in Congress criticized automakers,
the House approves nearly $200 million for Gulfstream jets to fly government officials and members of Congress.
"I don't know how I go back to my constituents and say the auto industry has changed. If they own
private jets which are not only expensive to own expensive to operate and
expensive to fly here rather than to have flown commercial." Congressman Brad Sherman
(D-CA) said back in November.
Now, members of Congress may be the ones on the "hot seat" after the House of Representatives
overwhelmingly approved the purchase of three, $65 million Gulfstream 550 jets.
They are top of the line and two of them will be used by members of Congress,
military brass and top government officials.
"I thought this is supremely hypocritical for them to do that," says Wichita resident
Robert Gruenloh who contacted us after reading the story.
"I just basically hit the ceiling because our industry around here
is hurting because in part what some of the remarks members of congress made about corporate aircraft."
The jets are part of a Defense Appropriation Bill for the Air Force.
Officials with the Air Force say it only needed one jet.
It's reported the funding for the jets was pushed by two members of the Appropriations Committee,
Democrat Sanford Bishop and Republican Jack Kingston.
Both are from Georgia, where the Gulfstream is made.
"The corporate guys were doing it with shareholder money and Congress is doing it with taxpayer money and that doesn't seem right to me," says Gruenloh.
Eyewitness News contacted Congressman Todd Tiahrt who is on the Appropriations Committee.
He was with family and unavailable for an interview, but he has strongly opposed
comments by members of Congress about corporate jet usage.
http://www.kansascw.com/Global/story.asp?S=10855866
Friday, July 31, 2009
Rep Waxman: Congress win not have to join government healthcare !
Rep Waxman: Congress win not have to join government Obama health care !
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
ObamaCare for Seniors: Sorry, You're Just Not Worth It
ObamaCare for Seniors: Sorry, You're Just Not Worth It
Posted By Bobby Eberle On July 29, 2009 at 7:32 am
The debate over Barack Obama's health care plan continues. Senators are trying to cut deals and members of the House of Representatives are doing the same. Democrats are trying to push through a massive government plan that will cost Americans billions and billions of dollars all because Obama wants to take power away from the people and put it in the hands of government.
Throughout this debate, the voices of seniors have been strangely and disturbingly silent. Do they not know the details of ObamaCare? Are they so enamored with this "nice, young man" that they don't even look at what the plan has to offer? ObamaCare has a strong message for seniors, and it is one they shouldn't ignore: If you are old in America, then don't get sick... you're not worth the cost.
In a recent update by The Heritage Foundation, seniors can read for themselves some of the results of ObamaCare on their daily lives.
First, seniors would face an increasing risk of losing their doctor. With cuts to Medicare reimbursements, more and more physicians are no longer taking Medicare patients. ObamaCare makes it worse: "Obama plans to pay for up to a third of his plan by cutting $313 billion in Medicare reimbursements to health care providers over the next 10 years. This will only force more doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients."
Obama's plan also places a disincentive on people to become physicians as his "public" option "could decrease the annual net income of hospitals by $36 billion, while the annual net income of physicians could drop by $33.1 billion."
Then there is the worry that seniors will lose their coverage. As noted in The Heritage Foundation's report, "22% of all Medicare patients, which translates to 10.5 million seniors, are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. These health plans cover all of the traditional Medicare benefits and much more, including coordinated care and care-management programs for enrollees with chronic conditions as well as additional hospitalization and skilled nursing facility stays. President Obama has proposed killing this program entirely."
And, of course, there is the issue that Obama and the liberal Democrats want seniors and all Americans to ignore: the rationing of health care. Under Obama's plan, there will be a new government bureaucracy known as a "federal health board." The purpose of this board is to determine whether various procedures and tests are deemed necessary in the eyes of the federal government. That notion is truly scary.
Obama supporter and infanticide advocate Peter Singer made the case for rationing health care recently in the New York Times, writing: "The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for the resources they have been allocated." Conservatives in Congress have given Obamacare supporters every opportunity to disavow government-rationed health care, but Obamacare supporters have voted down every anti-rationing amendment proposed. Make no mistake, Obama plans to pay for expanded coverage for the young and healthy by denying treatments to the old and sick.
As noted in a story by the Associated Press, a group of senators is actually working to squeeze more money out of Medicare. "Under the plan, an independent commission would be empowered to recommend changes in Medicare annually, to take effect automatically unless Congress enacted an alternative."
http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/wp-print.php?p=1776
Posted By Bobby Eberle On July 29, 2009 at 7:32 am
The debate over Barack Obama's health care plan continues. Senators are trying to cut deals and members of the House of Representatives are doing the same. Democrats are trying to push through a massive government plan that will cost Americans billions and billions of dollars all because Obama wants to take power away from the people and put it in the hands of government.
Throughout this debate, the voices of seniors have been strangely and disturbingly silent. Do they not know the details of ObamaCare? Are they so enamored with this "nice, young man" that they don't even look at what the plan has to offer? ObamaCare has a strong message for seniors, and it is one they shouldn't ignore: If you are old in America, then don't get sick... you're not worth the cost.
In a recent update by The Heritage Foundation, seniors can read for themselves some of the results of ObamaCare on their daily lives.
First, seniors would face an increasing risk of losing their doctor. With cuts to Medicare reimbursements, more and more physicians are no longer taking Medicare patients. ObamaCare makes it worse: "Obama plans to pay for up to a third of his plan by cutting $313 billion in Medicare reimbursements to health care providers over the next 10 years. This will only force more doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients."
Obama's plan also places a disincentive on people to become physicians as his "public" option "could decrease the annual net income of hospitals by $36 billion, while the annual net income of physicians could drop by $33.1 billion."
Then there is the worry that seniors will lose their coverage. As noted in The Heritage Foundation's report, "22% of all Medicare patients, which translates to 10.5 million seniors, are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. These health plans cover all of the traditional Medicare benefits and much more, including coordinated care and care-management programs for enrollees with chronic conditions as well as additional hospitalization and skilled nursing facility stays. President Obama has proposed killing this program entirely."
And, of course, there is the issue that Obama and the liberal Democrats want seniors and all Americans to ignore: the rationing of health care. Under Obama's plan, there will be a new government bureaucracy known as a "federal health board." The purpose of this board is to determine whether various procedures and tests are deemed necessary in the eyes of the federal government. That notion is truly scary.
Obama supporter and infanticide advocate Peter Singer made the case for rationing health care recently in the New York Times, writing: "The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for the resources they have been allocated." Conservatives in Congress have given Obamacare supporters every opportunity to disavow government-rationed health care, but Obamacare supporters have voted down every anti-rationing amendment proposed. Make no mistake, Obama plans to pay for expanded coverage for the young and healthy by denying treatments to the old and sick.
As noted in a story by the Associated Press, a group of senators is actually working to squeeze more money out of Medicare. "Under the plan, an independent commission would be empowered to recommend changes in Medicare annually, to take effect automatically unless Congress enacted an alternative."
http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/wp-print.php?p=1776
how about using one state as a pilot for any federal healthcare program ?
how about using one state as a pilot for any federal healthcare program ?
note not Massachussetts senatorKennedy's home state.(bad example, what not to do).
state could selected by a lottery, then fine tune program after the first
year
www.mccainalert.blogspot.com
note not Massachussetts senatorKennedy's home state.(bad example, what not to do).
state could selected by a lottery, then fine tune program after the first
year
www.mccainalert.blogspot.com
Look to Massachusetts state healthcare as a prototype
Look to Massachusetts state healthcare as a prototype, Senator Kennedy home state, quality is declining, costs are rising ?
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
how about medical malpractice reform or do the trial lawyers own Obama?
how about medical malpractice reform or do the trial lawyers own Obama?
this could reduce healthcare costs and reduce the defensive medical that this
generates.
This could be a simple bill, not a overwhelming 100-2000 page document.
www.mccainalert.blogspot.com
this could reduce healthcare costs and reduce the defensive medical that this
generates.
This could be a simple bill, not a overwhelming 100-2000 page document.
www.mccainalert.blogspot.com
URGENT ACTION NEEDED ON HEALTH CARE
URGENT ACTION NEEDED ON HEALTH CARE
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on July 17, 2009
In two weeks, Obama's health care plan is likely to become law, ending medicine as we know it in the United States! Unless we can stop him, our own personal access to medical care will be attenuated (no matter if we can pay for it ourselves) and we will all be subject to bureaucratic rationing.
Seeing his popularity draining away rapidly, President Obama has cynically decided to ram through the complex health care legislation in two weeks, without debate or amendment. He is going to give up the attempt to win sixty votes in the Senate and will use the budget reconciliation procedure - which is only used for budget bills - to push it through with fifty votes.
His plan would:
• Force employers either to offer health insurance to their employees or pay a tax of 8% of their payrolls. This would apply to all with payrolls of $250,000 a year or more (basically every business)
• Reduce medical fees to the Medicare Schedule Plus 5%, driving doctors out of the profession and increasing the need for rationing.
• Raise taxes on all making more than $250,000 a year ($350,000 for a couple) with a surcharge. Rates will go as high as 45%.
• Set up a government owned health care plan to compete with private plans. Getting a subsidy, it will soon put the private plans out of business and we will have a single payer Canadian style system.
In Catastrophe, we enumerate the disaster of the Canadian health care system. A cancer death rate 16% higher than in the US. A colon cancer rate 25% higher due to waits for colonoscopies and a death rate once afflicted that is 41% as opposed to 32% in the US. An eight week wait for cancer radiation therapy.
We are organizing a media campaign to target swing state Senators to delay or kill the Obama bill. We will concentrate on:
Montana - Baucus and Tester
North Dakota - Dorgan and Conrad
South Dakota - Johnson
Nebraska - Nelson
Arkansas - Pryor and Lincoln
Louisiana - Landrieu
North Carolina - Hagan
Indiana - Bayh
Connecticut - Lieberman
Maine - Snow and Collins
The text of the ad will be:
"How can Obama care for fifty million new people without more doctors? By cutting access to care for the elderly. End Medicare as we know it. The government decides who gets hip, knee, or heart surgery. Eight month wait for colonoscopies. In Canada, an eight week wait for cancer radiation. Say no to Obama's plan. Write Senator Evan Bayh today so you can still see your doctor tomorrow."
On Monday or Tuesday, we will e mail you info on how to donate to our campaign. We need to raise $4 million in one week to impact this vote. With those funds, we can saturate these states and send the moderate Democrats scurrying for cover. But we need your quick response.
The stakes have never been higher.
Thank you.
Milton Friedman: Obama Policies Will Destroy Our Nation
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/free_mischief.cfm?PROMO_CODE=82C4-1
Is Obama a Socialist?
http://news1.newsmax.com/obama_socialist2/?PROMO_CODE=82C6-1
Take Action; Be Prepared. Go Here for Your FREE Emergency Radio
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/radio_free.cfm?PROMO_CODE=82C5-1
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on July 17, 2009
In two weeks, Obama's health care plan is likely to become law, ending medicine as we know it in the United States! Unless we can stop him, our own personal access to medical care will be attenuated (no matter if we can pay for it ourselves) and we will all be subject to bureaucratic rationing.
Seeing his popularity draining away rapidly, President Obama has cynically decided to ram through the complex health care legislation in two weeks, without debate or amendment. He is going to give up the attempt to win sixty votes in the Senate and will use the budget reconciliation procedure - which is only used for budget bills - to push it through with fifty votes.
His plan would:
• Force employers either to offer health insurance to their employees or pay a tax of 8% of their payrolls. This would apply to all with payrolls of $250,000 a year or more (basically every business)
• Reduce medical fees to the Medicare Schedule Plus 5%, driving doctors out of the profession and increasing the need for rationing.
• Raise taxes on all making more than $250,000 a year ($350,000 for a couple) with a surcharge. Rates will go as high as 45%.
• Set up a government owned health care plan to compete with private plans. Getting a subsidy, it will soon put the private plans out of business and we will have a single payer Canadian style system.
In Catastrophe, we enumerate the disaster of the Canadian health care system. A cancer death rate 16% higher than in the US. A colon cancer rate 25% higher due to waits for colonoscopies and a death rate once afflicted that is 41% as opposed to 32% in the US. An eight week wait for cancer radiation therapy.
We are organizing a media campaign to target swing state Senators to delay or kill the Obama bill. We will concentrate on:
Montana - Baucus and Tester
North Dakota - Dorgan and Conrad
South Dakota - Johnson
Nebraska - Nelson
Arkansas - Pryor and Lincoln
Louisiana - Landrieu
North Carolina - Hagan
Indiana - Bayh
Connecticut - Lieberman
Maine - Snow and Collins
The text of the ad will be:
"How can Obama care for fifty million new people without more doctors? By cutting access to care for the elderly. End Medicare as we know it. The government decides who gets hip, knee, or heart surgery. Eight month wait for colonoscopies. In Canada, an eight week wait for cancer radiation. Say no to Obama's plan. Write Senator Evan Bayh today so you can still see your doctor tomorrow."
On Monday or Tuesday, we will e mail you info on how to donate to our campaign. We need to raise $4 million in one week to impact this vote. With those funds, we can saturate these states and send the moderate Democrats scurrying for cover. But we need your quick response.
The stakes have never been higher.
Thank you.
Milton Friedman: Obama Policies Will Destroy Our Nation
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/free_mischief.cfm?PROMO_CODE=82C4-1
Is Obama a Socialist?
http://news1.newsmax.com/obama_socialist2/?PROMO_CODE=82C6-1
Take Action; Be Prepared. Go Here for Your FREE Emergency Radio
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/radio_free.cfm?PROMO_CODE=82C5-1
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
House Democrats now want healthcare for illegals ?
House Democrats now want healthcare for illegals ?
House Committee Rejects Closing Health Coverage Loophole for Illegal Aliens
During consideration of the health care reform bill (H.R. 3200), the House Ways & Means Committee rejected an amendment that would have helped ensure illegal aliens would not receive taxpayer-funded health care benefits.
The amendment, offered by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV), would have required the government to verify that enrollees in the "public plan" and applicants for "affordability credits" are not illegal aliens.
Eligibility verification would have been determined by using existing databases — the Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system.
(Congressional Quarterly, July 16, 2009; See also FAIR's Press Release, July 22, 2009). The Heller amendment would have addressed many of the same concerns that FAIR raised last week about whether illegal aliens would be able to receive taxpayer-funded health care benefits. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, July 20, 2009).
Speaking in support of his amendment, Congressman Heller stated: "Requiring citizenship
verification for enrollment would ensure only citizens and legal residents receive taxpayer funded healthcare." (Representative Heller's Press Release, July 16, 2009).
Opponents suggested that Heller's amendment was unnecessary because Section 246 of the bill
states: "Nothing … shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." (Legislative Text, Section 246).
Critics of this language correctly point out that:
(1) Section 246 only applies to affordability credits, which are the subsidies to
help people pay for enrolling in a private health insurance plan, but will not prevent
illegal aliens from enrolling in the government-run, taxpayer financed public option health plan; and (2)
with respect to enrollment in private health insurance plans, Section 246 does not contain any meaningful verification procedures to ensure that illegal aliens do not receive subsidies paid for by American taxpayers. Accordingly, although the bill contains a provision limiting eligibility for
the affordability credit to those legally present, it is limited in scope and
virtually meaningless in effect. Unfortunately, despite the merits of the Heller Amendment, the House Ways and Means Committee rejected it on a party-line vote, with 15 Republicans supporting
and 26 Democrats opposing the amendment. (For a list of the members opposing the Heller Amendment, see FAIR's Action Alert).
This may be exactly what the illegal alien lobby is looking for.
In late June, the National Council of La Raza issued a statement demanding that Congress give illegal aliens taxpayer-funded health care under this bill. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, June 22, 2009). This week, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) also urged Speaker Pelosi to ensure that illegal aliens
are covered by the health care reform bill. (Roll Call, July 24, 2009). According to a CHC member, the organization's leaders are not asking Speaker Pelosi to "specifically spell something out"
in the bill, but instead to seek to ensure that the bill does not actually prohibit illegal
aliens from receiving benefits. "We're pushing to include everyone in the health care bill. Everyone," the CHC member who asked not to be identified said. "Sometimes if you don't say something, something happens." (Id.).
The health care legislation is now expected to move to the House Energy and Commerce
Committee before it moves to the full House of Representatives.
www.fairus.org
see more news at
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21085&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#1
House Committee Rejects Closing Health Coverage Loophole for Illegal Aliens
During consideration of the health care reform bill (H.R. 3200), the House Ways & Means Committee rejected an amendment that would have helped ensure illegal aliens would not receive taxpayer-funded health care benefits.
The amendment, offered by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV), would have required the government to verify that enrollees in the "public plan" and applicants for "affordability credits" are not illegal aliens.
Eligibility verification would have been determined by using existing databases — the Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system.
(Congressional Quarterly, July 16, 2009; See also FAIR's Press Release, July 22, 2009). The Heller amendment would have addressed many of the same concerns that FAIR raised last week about whether illegal aliens would be able to receive taxpayer-funded health care benefits. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, July 20, 2009).
Speaking in support of his amendment, Congressman Heller stated: "Requiring citizenship
verification for enrollment would ensure only citizens and legal residents receive taxpayer funded healthcare." (Representative Heller's Press Release, July 16, 2009).
Opponents suggested that Heller's amendment was unnecessary because Section 246 of the bill
states: "Nothing … shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." (Legislative Text, Section 246).
Critics of this language correctly point out that:
(1) Section 246 only applies to affordability credits, which are the subsidies to
help people pay for enrolling in a private health insurance plan, but will not prevent
illegal aliens from enrolling in the government-run, taxpayer financed public option health plan; and (2)
with respect to enrollment in private health insurance plans, Section 246 does not contain any meaningful verification procedures to ensure that illegal aliens do not receive subsidies paid for by American taxpayers. Accordingly, although the bill contains a provision limiting eligibility for
the affordability credit to those legally present, it is limited in scope and
virtually meaningless in effect. Unfortunately, despite the merits of the Heller Amendment, the House Ways and Means Committee rejected it on a party-line vote, with 15 Republicans supporting
and 26 Democrats opposing the amendment. (For a list of the members opposing the Heller Amendment, see FAIR's Action Alert).
This may be exactly what the illegal alien lobby is looking for.
In late June, the National Council of La Raza issued a statement demanding that Congress give illegal aliens taxpayer-funded health care under this bill. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, June 22, 2009). This week, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) also urged Speaker Pelosi to ensure that illegal aliens
are covered by the health care reform bill. (Roll Call, July 24, 2009). According to a CHC member, the organization's leaders are not asking Speaker Pelosi to "specifically spell something out"
in the bill, but instead to seek to ensure that the bill does not actually prohibit illegal
aliens from receiving benefits. "We're pushing to include everyone in the health care bill. Everyone," the CHC member who asked not to be identified said. "Sometimes if you don't say something, something happens." (Id.).
The health care legislation is now expected to move to the House Energy and Commerce
Committee before it moves to the full House of Representatives.
www.fairus.org
see more news at
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21085&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#1
Monday, July 27, 2009
Senator Chris Dodd did get sweetheart VIP mortgage discounts
Senator Dodd did get sweetheart VIP mortgage discounts
He is now rewriting your your healthcare program
Dodd was told deals were sweetened.
WASHINGTON – Despite their denials, influential Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd were
told from the start they were getting VIP mortgage discounts from one of the nation's
largest lenders, the official who handled their loans has told Congress in secret testimony.
Both senators have said that at the time the mortgages were being written they didn't know they were
getting unique deals from Countrywide Financial Corp., the company that went on to lose billions
of dollars on home loans to credit-strapped borrowers. Dodd still maintains he got
no preferential treatment.
Dodd got two Countrywide mortgages in 2003, refinancing his home in Connecticut and
another residence in Washington. Conrad's two Countrywide mortgages in 2004 were
for a beach house in Delaware and an eight-unit apartment building in Bismarck in his home state of North Dakota.
Robert Feinberg, who worked in Countrywide's VIP section, told congressional investigators
last month that the two senators were made aware that "who you know is basically
how you're coming in here."
"You don't say 'no' to the VIP," Feinberg told Republican investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, according to a transcript obtained by The Associated Press.
The next day, Feinberg testified before the Senate Ethics Committee, an indication the panel
is actively investigating two of the chamber's more powerful members:
• Dodd heads the Banking Committee and is a major player in two big areas: solving the housing foreclosure and financial crises and putting together an overhaul of the U.S. health care system. A five-term senator, he is in a tough fight for re-election in 2010, partly because of the controversy over his mortgages.
• Conrad chairs the Budget Committee. He, too, shares an important role in the health care debate, as well as on legislation to curb global warming.
Both senators were VIP borrowers in the program known as "friends of Angelo."
Angelo Mozilo was chief executive of Countrywide, which played a big part in the foreclosure
crisis triggered by defaults on subprime loans. The Calabasas, Calif.-based company was bought
last July by Bank of America Corp. for about $2.5 billion.
Mozilo has been charged with civil fraud and illegal insider trading by the Securities and
Exchange Commission. He denies any wrongdoing.
Asked by a House Oversight investigator if Conrad, the North Dakota senator, "was aware that he was getting preferential treatment?" Feinberg answered: "Yes, he was aware."
Referring to Dodd, the investigator asked:
"And do you know if during the course of your communications" with the senator or his wife
"that you ever had an opportunity to share with them if they were getting special VIP treatment?"
"Yes, yes," Feinberg replied.
Bryan DeAngelis, Dodd's spokesman, said Feinberg has repeatedly made allegations of special treatment
that were not true.
"As the Dodds have said from the beginning, they did not seek or expect any special rates or terms
on their loans and they never received any. They were never offered special or sweetheart deals
and if anyone had made such an offer, they would have severed that relationship immediately."
DeAngelis also repeated Dodd's statements from last February that an independent report
showed the terms received by the senator and his wife were widely available at the time.
Conrad's spokesman, Chris Gaddie, said Monday that the senator "never asked for, expected
or was aware of loans on any preferential terms" and has "worked overtime to set the record straight."
"He went with Countrywide simply because they already had his financial information," Gaddie
said. He added that a Countrywide official had told Conrad that "it is not unusual for them
to make exceptions for good customers if they could sell the loan in the secondary market.
We now know that they did sell the apartment building loan in the secondary market."
The ethics committee determines whether senators violated standards of conduct. The outcome
of the investigation could hinge on whether the mortgage violated strict limits on gifts to
lawmakers or ran afoul of other Senate rules. The committee typically just issues a report.
It could recommend a censure vote by the Senate, but that is rare.
Feinberg could face criminal prosecution if shown to have made false statements. He was questioned
closely by three of the ethics committee's six senators: Democratic Chairman Barbara Boxer of California; the panel's senior Republican, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, and Republican Jim Risch of Idaho, according to Elana Goldstein, one of Feinberg's attorneys who accompanied him to both closed-door committee appearances.
The ethics questioning was intense at times, and Boxer asked the bulk of the questions,
Goldstein said. When Feinberg described a conversation he had with Dodd, Boxer demanded
to know how he remembered it. Feinberg said he recalled Dodd saying he had to leave to make a speech.
Boxer asked whether Dodd and Conrad received VIP treatment because they were senators. Feinberg said that was not the case; they received breaks as other influential people in Countrywide's "friends of Angelo" VIP program.
Isakson, a one-time real estate executive, asked more detailed questions about the mortgage agreements' terms.
Countrywide VIPs, Feinberg told the committees, received discounts on rates, fees and points. Dodd received a break when Countrywide counted both his Connecticut and Washington homes as primary owner-occupied residences — a fiction, according to Feinberg. Conrad received a type of commercial loan that he was told Countrywide didn't offer.
"The simple fact that Angelo Mozilo and other high-ranking executives at Countrywide were personally making sure Mr. Feinberg handled their loans right, is proof in itself that the senators knew they were getting sweetheart deals," said Feinberg's principal attorney, Anthony Salerno.
Two internal Countrywide documents in Dodd's case and one in Conrad's appear to contradict their statements about what they knew about their VIP loans.
At his Feb. 2 news conference, Dodd said he knew he was in a VIP program but insisted he was told by Countrywide, "It was nothing more than enhanced customer service ... being able to get a person on the phone instead of an automated operator."
He insisted he didn't receive special treatment. However, the assertion was at odds with two Countrywide documents entitled "Loan Policy Analysis" that Dodd allowed reporters to review the same day.
The documents had separate columns: one showing points "actl chrgd" Dodd — zero; and a second column showing "policy" was to charge .250 points on one loan and .375 points on the other. Another heading on the documents said "reasons for override." A notation under that heading identified a Countrywide section that approved the policy change for Dodd.
Mortgage points, sometimes called loan origination fees, are upfront fees based on a percentage of the loan. Each point is equal to 1 percent of the loan. The higher the points the lower the interest rate.
Dodd said he obtained the Countrywide documents in 2008, to learn details of his mortgages.
In Conrad's case, an e-mail from Feinberg to Mozilo indicates Feinberg informed Conrad that Countrywide had a residential loan limit of a four-unit building. Conrad sought to finance an eight-unit apartment building in Bismarck that he had bought from his brothers.
"I did advise him I would check with you first since our maximum is 4 units," Feinberg said in an April 23, 2004, internal e-mail to Mozilo.
Mozilo responded the same day that Feinberg should speak to another Countrywide executive and "see if he can make an exception due to the fact that the borrower is a senator."
Feinberg said in his deposition with House Oversight investigators last month that exceptions for the type of loan Conrad received were not allowed for borrowers outside the VIP system.
"If there was a regular customer calling, and of course you say, 'No, we're a residential lender. We cannot provide you with that service,'" Feinberg said.
Feinberg also told House investigators that Countrywide counted both of Dodd's homes as primary residences.
"He was allowed to do both of those as owner-occupied, which is not allowed. You can only have one owner-occupied property. You can't live in two properties at the same time," he said.
Normally, Feinberg said, a second home could require more equity and could have a higher mortgage rate.
Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the senior Republican on the House Oversight Committee, had his investigators question Feinberg as part of a broader investigation into Countrywide's VIP program.
Other names that have surfaced as "friends" of Mozilo include James Johnson, a former head of Fannie Mae who later stepped down as an adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, and Franklin Raines, who also headed Fannie Mae. Still other "friends" included retired athletes, a judge, a congressional aide and a newspaper executive.
Conrad initially said in June 2008, "If they did me a favor, they did it without my knowledge and without my requesting it."
The next day, Conrad changed course after reviewing documents showing he got special treatment, and said he was donating $10,500 to charity and refinancing the loan on the apartment building with another lender. He also said then it appeared Countrywide had waived 1 point at closing on the beach house.
Gaddie said Feinberg has previously made statements to the news media that Countrywide waived 1 point without the senator's knowledge.
Feinberg testified that VIPs usually were not told exactly how many points were being waived, but it was made clear to them that they were getting discounts.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090728/ap_on_go_co/us_senators_mortgages
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer Larry Margasak, Associated Press Writer
He is now rewriting your your healthcare program
Dodd was told deals were sweetened.
WASHINGTON – Despite their denials, influential Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd were
told from the start they were getting VIP mortgage discounts from one of the nation's
largest lenders, the official who handled their loans has told Congress in secret testimony.
Both senators have said that at the time the mortgages were being written they didn't know they were
getting unique deals from Countrywide Financial Corp., the company that went on to lose billions
of dollars on home loans to credit-strapped borrowers. Dodd still maintains he got
no preferential treatment.
Dodd got two Countrywide mortgages in 2003, refinancing his home in Connecticut and
another residence in Washington. Conrad's two Countrywide mortgages in 2004 were
for a beach house in Delaware and an eight-unit apartment building in Bismarck in his home state of North Dakota.
Robert Feinberg, who worked in Countrywide's VIP section, told congressional investigators
last month that the two senators were made aware that "who you know is basically
how you're coming in here."
"You don't say 'no' to the VIP," Feinberg told Republican investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, according to a transcript obtained by The Associated Press.
The next day, Feinberg testified before the Senate Ethics Committee, an indication the panel
is actively investigating two of the chamber's more powerful members:
• Dodd heads the Banking Committee and is a major player in two big areas: solving the housing foreclosure and financial crises and putting together an overhaul of the U.S. health care system. A five-term senator, he is in a tough fight for re-election in 2010, partly because of the controversy over his mortgages.
• Conrad chairs the Budget Committee. He, too, shares an important role in the health care debate, as well as on legislation to curb global warming.
Both senators were VIP borrowers in the program known as "friends of Angelo."
Angelo Mozilo was chief executive of Countrywide, which played a big part in the foreclosure
crisis triggered by defaults on subprime loans. The Calabasas, Calif.-based company was bought
last July by Bank of America Corp. for about $2.5 billion.
Mozilo has been charged with civil fraud and illegal insider trading by the Securities and
Exchange Commission. He denies any wrongdoing.
Asked by a House Oversight investigator if Conrad, the North Dakota senator, "was aware that he was getting preferential treatment?" Feinberg answered: "Yes, he was aware."
Referring to Dodd, the investigator asked:
"And do you know if during the course of your communications" with the senator or his wife
"that you ever had an opportunity to share with them if they were getting special VIP treatment?"
"Yes, yes," Feinberg replied.
Bryan DeAngelis, Dodd's spokesman, said Feinberg has repeatedly made allegations of special treatment
that were not true.
"As the Dodds have said from the beginning, they did not seek or expect any special rates or terms
on their loans and they never received any. They were never offered special or sweetheart deals
and if anyone had made such an offer, they would have severed that relationship immediately."
DeAngelis also repeated Dodd's statements from last February that an independent report
showed the terms received by the senator and his wife were widely available at the time.
Conrad's spokesman, Chris Gaddie, said Monday that the senator "never asked for, expected
or was aware of loans on any preferential terms" and has "worked overtime to set the record straight."
"He went with Countrywide simply because they already had his financial information," Gaddie
said. He added that a Countrywide official had told Conrad that "it is not unusual for them
to make exceptions for good customers if they could sell the loan in the secondary market.
We now know that they did sell the apartment building loan in the secondary market."
The ethics committee determines whether senators violated standards of conduct. The outcome
of the investigation could hinge on whether the mortgage violated strict limits on gifts to
lawmakers or ran afoul of other Senate rules. The committee typically just issues a report.
It could recommend a censure vote by the Senate, but that is rare.
Feinberg could face criminal prosecution if shown to have made false statements. He was questioned
closely by three of the ethics committee's six senators: Democratic Chairman Barbara Boxer of California; the panel's senior Republican, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, and Republican Jim Risch of Idaho, according to Elana Goldstein, one of Feinberg's attorneys who accompanied him to both closed-door committee appearances.
The ethics questioning was intense at times, and Boxer asked the bulk of the questions,
Goldstein said. When Feinberg described a conversation he had with Dodd, Boxer demanded
to know how he remembered it. Feinberg said he recalled Dodd saying he had to leave to make a speech.
Boxer asked whether Dodd and Conrad received VIP treatment because they were senators. Feinberg said that was not the case; they received breaks as other influential people in Countrywide's "friends of Angelo" VIP program.
Isakson, a one-time real estate executive, asked more detailed questions about the mortgage agreements' terms.
Countrywide VIPs, Feinberg told the committees, received discounts on rates, fees and points. Dodd received a break when Countrywide counted both his Connecticut and Washington homes as primary owner-occupied residences — a fiction, according to Feinberg. Conrad received a type of commercial loan that he was told Countrywide didn't offer.
"The simple fact that Angelo Mozilo and other high-ranking executives at Countrywide were personally making sure Mr. Feinberg handled their loans right, is proof in itself that the senators knew they were getting sweetheart deals," said Feinberg's principal attorney, Anthony Salerno.
Two internal Countrywide documents in Dodd's case and one in Conrad's appear to contradict their statements about what they knew about their VIP loans.
At his Feb. 2 news conference, Dodd said he knew he was in a VIP program but insisted he was told by Countrywide, "It was nothing more than enhanced customer service ... being able to get a person on the phone instead of an automated operator."
He insisted he didn't receive special treatment. However, the assertion was at odds with two Countrywide documents entitled "Loan Policy Analysis" that Dodd allowed reporters to review the same day.
The documents had separate columns: one showing points "actl chrgd" Dodd — zero; and a second column showing "policy" was to charge .250 points on one loan and .375 points on the other. Another heading on the documents said "reasons for override." A notation under that heading identified a Countrywide section that approved the policy change for Dodd.
Mortgage points, sometimes called loan origination fees, are upfront fees based on a percentage of the loan. Each point is equal to 1 percent of the loan. The higher the points the lower the interest rate.
Dodd said he obtained the Countrywide documents in 2008, to learn details of his mortgages.
In Conrad's case, an e-mail from Feinberg to Mozilo indicates Feinberg informed Conrad that Countrywide had a residential loan limit of a four-unit building. Conrad sought to finance an eight-unit apartment building in Bismarck that he had bought from his brothers.
"I did advise him I would check with you first since our maximum is 4 units," Feinberg said in an April 23, 2004, internal e-mail to Mozilo.
Mozilo responded the same day that Feinberg should speak to another Countrywide executive and "see if he can make an exception due to the fact that the borrower is a senator."
Feinberg said in his deposition with House Oversight investigators last month that exceptions for the type of loan Conrad received were not allowed for borrowers outside the VIP system.
"If there was a regular customer calling, and of course you say, 'No, we're a residential lender. We cannot provide you with that service,'" Feinberg said.
Feinberg also told House investigators that Countrywide counted both of Dodd's homes as primary residences.
"He was allowed to do both of those as owner-occupied, which is not allowed. You can only have one owner-occupied property. You can't live in two properties at the same time," he said.
Normally, Feinberg said, a second home could require more equity and could have a higher mortgage rate.
Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the senior Republican on the House Oversight Committee, had his investigators question Feinberg as part of a broader investigation into Countrywide's VIP program.
Other names that have surfaced as "friends" of Mozilo include James Johnson, a former head of Fannie Mae who later stepped down as an adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, and Franklin Raines, who also headed Fannie Mae. Still other "friends" included retired athletes, a judge, a congressional aide and a newspaper executive.
Conrad initially said in June 2008, "If they did me a favor, they did it without my knowledge and without my requesting it."
The next day, Conrad changed course after reviewing documents showing he got special treatment, and said he was donating $10,500 to charity and refinancing the loan on the apartment building with another lender. He also said then it appeared Countrywide had waived 1 point at closing on the beach house.
Gaddie said Feinberg has previously made statements to the news media that Countrywide waived 1 point without the senator's knowledge.
Feinberg testified that VIPs usually were not told exactly how many points were being waived, but it was made clear to them that they were getting discounts.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090728/ap_on_go_co/us_senators_mortgages
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer Larry Margasak, Associated Press Writer
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Glenn Beck's 'Common Sense' No. 1 on
Glenn Beck's 'Common Sense' No. 1 on
NY Times Best-Seller List
We are pleased to announce that Glenn Beck's new book "Common Sense," out this summer, has become a hit sensation — even hitting the #1 spot on the New York Times Bestseller list!
In "Common Sense" Glenn Beck is firing the first shot in the movement to take America back from the out-of-control liberals in Washington.
This is a must-read as Obama moves to radically transform the country.
NY Times Best-Seller List
We are pleased to announce that Glenn Beck's new book "Common Sense," out this summer, has become a hit sensation — even hitting the #1 spot on the New York Times Bestseller list!
In "Common Sense" Glenn Beck is firing the first shot in the movement to take America back from the out-of-control liberals in Washington.
This is a must-read as Obama moves to radically transform the country.
Taxpayer-Subsidized Health Care for Illegal Aliens ?
House Committee Vote Will Lead to Taxpayer-Subsidized Health Care for Illegal Aliens
Help FAIR Stop Congress from giving YOUR Tax Dollars to Illegal Aliens!
Last week, Democratic Leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives unveiled their 1,018 page health care reform bill, entitled the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" (H.R. 3200). While Congressional Leaders have repeatedly claimed that this Obama-backed health care bill will not cover illegal aliens, FAIR's analysis has shown that the legislation actually contains several loopholes that would give taxpayer-funded health insurance to illegal aliens and give illegal aliens handouts - in the form of so-called "affordability credits" to pay for health insurance!
Help FAIR Stop Congress from giving YOUR Tax Dollars to Illegal Aliens!
Last week, Democratic Leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives unveiled their 1,018 page health care reform bill, entitled the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" (H.R. 3200). While Congressional Leaders have repeatedly claimed that this Obama-backed health care bill will not cover illegal aliens, FAIR's analysis has shown that the legislation actually contains several loopholes that would give taxpayer-funded health insurance to illegal aliens and give illegal aliens handouts - in the form of so-called "affordability credits" to pay for health insurance!
can Professor Gates be charged with racial profiling ?
can Professor Gates be charged with racial profiling ?
he can be sued for his racial profiling claims ?
3 cops responsed to the call, 1 black, Latino, and one white guy.
did Gates really moon the officiers?
he can be sued for his racial profiling claims ?
3 cops responsed to the call, 1 black, Latino, and one white guy.
did Gates really moon the officiers?
Harvard law professor Gates moons police ?
Harvard law professor Gates mooned police ?
just watching Fox news with a panel of lawyers discussing the
Gates /police story.
It slipped out that Gates may have mooned the police officers,
still waiting on the audio 911 audio.
just watching Fox news with a panel of lawyers discussing the
Gates /police story.
It slipped out that Gates may have mooned the police officers,
still waiting on the audio 911 audio.
dump Harvard law professor Henry Gates ?
should Gates Harvard law professor be censured and kicked off faculty for his behavior?
Do we want this behavior from any college professor, let alone a teacher of law?
still waiting on the actual 911 tapes, rumor has it Gates was shouting about the police officer's mother, in not nice terms.
Dump Henry Louis Gates from staff ?
Do we want this behavior from any college professor, let alone a teacher of law?
still waiting on the actual 911 tapes, rumor has it Gates was shouting about the police officer's mother, in not nice terms.
Dump Henry Louis Gates from staff ?
Friday, July 24, 2009
U.S. Border Patrol agent killed Mexican border
Border agent killed in unusual violence within US
By GILLIAN FLACCUS, Associated Press Writer Gillian Flaccus, Associated Press Writer
48 mins ago
CHULA VISTA, Calif. – Federal investigators scrambled Friday to find whoever shot a U.S. Border Patrol agent in the head in an unusually violent attack within the U.S. that has left a baffling trail of evidence.
Agent Robert Rosas, a 30-year-old, married father of two young children, was killed shortly after 9 p.m. Thursday while responding alone to a suspected border incursion near Campo, a town in rugged, arid terrain in southeastern San Diego County.
He was shot in the head and multiple times in his body and was dead when backup agents arrived, said Keith Slotter, special agent in charge of the FBI's San Diego bureau.
Rosas was found outside his patrol vehicle near the border fence, with blood evidence indicating at least one suspect and possibly more had serious injuries, perhaps by gunfire.
Investigators don't yet know how many shots were fired, if Rosas fired any shots himself and how many guns were used.
"It's all possible. I can't definitively say X number of people fired or Agent Rosas got off shots or didn't. I mean, it's too early in the investigation to say that with any certainty," Slotter said.
Federal officials have expressed growing concerns that the drug cartel battles plaguing Mexico could spill into the United States with the targeting of U.S. law enforcement officials.
Slotter said there was no indication that Rosas had been specifically targeted or that he had been trying to seize drugs from the suspects when he was killed.
However, he said investigators aren't ruling out the possibility that Rosas was slain by drug smugglers or even human smugglers.
"My thoughts and condolences are with Agent Rosas' family and his fellow agents at this difficult time," said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a statement.
"His death is a vivid reminder that we are engaged in a serious effort to secure our border and that thousands of Border Patrol agents and other DHS employees risk their lives every single day to protect and defend our nation."
The FBI is offering a $100,000 reward for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of a suspect or suspects.
By GILLIAN FLACCUS, Associated Press Writer Gillian Flaccus, Associated Press Writer
48 mins ago
CHULA VISTA, Calif. – Federal investigators scrambled Friday to find whoever shot a U.S. Border Patrol agent in the head in an unusually violent attack within the U.S. that has left a baffling trail of evidence.
Agent Robert Rosas, a 30-year-old, married father of two young children, was killed shortly after 9 p.m. Thursday while responding alone to a suspected border incursion near Campo, a town in rugged, arid terrain in southeastern San Diego County.
He was shot in the head and multiple times in his body and was dead when backup agents arrived, said Keith Slotter, special agent in charge of the FBI's San Diego bureau.
Rosas was found outside his patrol vehicle near the border fence, with blood evidence indicating at least one suspect and possibly more had serious injuries, perhaps by gunfire.
Investigators don't yet know how many shots were fired, if Rosas fired any shots himself and how many guns were used.
"It's all possible. I can't definitively say X number of people fired or Agent Rosas got off shots or didn't. I mean, it's too early in the investigation to say that with any certainty," Slotter said.
Federal officials have expressed growing concerns that the drug cartel battles plaguing Mexico could spill into the United States with the targeting of U.S. law enforcement officials.
Slotter said there was no indication that Rosas had been specifically targeted or that he had been trying to seize drugs from the suspects when he was killed.
However, he said investigators aren't ruling out the possibility that Rosas was slain by drug smugglers or even human smugglers.
"My thoughts and condolences are with Agent Rosas' family and his fellow agents at this difficult time," said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a statement.
"His death is a vivid reminder that we are engaged in a serious effort to secure our border and that thousands of Border Patrol agents and other DHS employees risk their lives every single day to protect and defend our nation."
The FBI is offering a $100,000 reward for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of a suspect or suspects.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Obama blows smoke for an hour on healthcare?
Obama blows smoke for an TV hour on healthcare?
he is a smooth talker,
where's the beef?
he is a smooth talker,
where's the beef?
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
HOW OBAMA'S CAP AND TRADE WILL DESTROY AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS
here a very interesting video from Dick Morris.......
HOW OBAMA'S CAP AND TRADE WILL DESTROY AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS
click here for the video
HOW OBAMA'S CAP AND TRADE WILL DESTROY AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS
click here for the video
Monday, July 20, 2009
a "Show me the money Obama rally" ?
a "Show me the money Obama rally" ?
interesting ideal
he is a smooth talking professional politician,
interesting ideal
he is a smooth talking professional politician,
Friday, July 17, 2009
did Obama missed his calling as a used car salesman ?
did Obama missed his calling as a used car salesman ?
who whispering those numbers in his ears ?
he is a smooth talker.
who whispering those numbers in his ears ?
he is a smooth talker.
Democrats exempt themselves from the government-run health care ?
Democrats exempt themselves from the government-run health care option, what's this shit?
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
see more on this exemption
Rep. John Fleming (R-LA)
http://fleming.house.gov/
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
see more on this exemption
Rep. John Fleming (R-LA)
http://fleming.house.gov/
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Government-Run Health Care? senators first?
Government-Run Health Care? You First!
The health care debate rages on, with Barack Obama and Democrats continuing to push for a government-run health care plan. Forget the good, old days when you could say, "It's a free country, isn't it?" Now, if the Democrats have their way, not only will the government be more involved in our private health decisions, but Americans will be FORCED to purchase health insurance.
What was apparent, however, from Obama's response during his health care presentation was that if his family needed urgent medical care, he would do everything he could even if it meant using health care resources not available in the plans that he wants to push on American families. Apparently, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, and one congressman wants to see that changed...
As reported at CNSNews.com, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) has introduced a resolution that "urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others."
What a novel idea! Politicians being forced to follow the same rules that the "common folk" have to follow.
According to the resolution which is available at Fleming's web site, the "resolved" section would read: That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.
On his web site, Fleming (who is a physician) states:
Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration's proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
So... the Democrats are pushing hard to force Americans into a left-wing form of socialized medicine, yet they are exempt from the plan. Does that seem fair? If this plan is so important, if the health care system is in such a crisis, why aren't these politicians rushing to sign up for it? Why are they exempt?
The left-wing elite love to propose grand government solutions. The government is the key to everything, right? Apparently not. When it comes to health care, the Democrats know that there are better options, and they want to keep those for themselves.
http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/wp-print.php?p=1717
The health care debate rages on, with Barack Obama and Democrats continuing to push for a government-run health care plan. Forget the good, old days when you could say, "It's a free country, isn't it?" Now, if the Democrats have their way, not only will the government be more involved in our private health decisions, but Americans will be FORCED to purchase health insurance.
What was apparent, however, from Obama's response during his health care presentation was that if his family needed urgent medical care, he would do everything he could even if it meant using health care resources not available in the plans that he wants to push on American families. Apparently, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, and one congressman wants to see that changed...
As reported at CNSNews.com, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) has introduced a resolution that "urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others."
What a novel idea! Politicians being forced to follow the same rules that the "common folk" have to follow.
According to the resolution which is available at Fleming's web site, the "resolved" section would read: That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.
On his web site, Fleming (who is a physician) states:
Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration's proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
So... the Democrats are pushing hard to force Americans into a left-wing form of socialized medicine, yet they are exempt from the plan. Does that seem fair? If this plan is so important, if the health care system is in such a crisis, why aren't these politicians rushing to sign up for it? Why are they exempt?
The left-wing elite love to propose grand government solutions. The government is the key to everything, right? Apparently not. When it comes to health care, the Democrats know that there are better options, and they want to keep those for themselves.
http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/wp-print.php?p=1717
Government-Run Health Care? You First!
Government-Run Health Care? You First!
The health care debate rages on, with Barack Obama and Democrats continuing to push for a government-run health care plan. Forget the good, old days when you could say, "It's a free country, isn't it?" Now, if the Democrats have their way, not only will the government be more involved in our private health decisions, but Americans will be FORCED to purchase health insurance.
What was apparent, however, from Obama's response during his health care presentation was that if his family needed urgent medical care, he would do everything he could even if it meant using health care resources not available in the plans that he wants to push on American families. Apparently, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, and one congressman wants to see that changed...
As reported at CNSNews.com, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) has introduced a resolution that "urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others."
What a novel idea! Politicians being forced to follow the same rules that the "common folk" have to follow.
According to the resolution which is available at Fleming's web site, the "resolved" section would read: That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.
On his web site, Fleming (who is a physician) states:
Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration's proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
So... the Democrats are pushing hard to force Americans into a left-wing form of socialized medicine, yet they are exempt from the plan. Does that seem fair? If this plan is so important, if the health care system is in such a crisis, why aren't these politicians rushing to sign up for it? Why are they exempt?
The left-wing elite love to propose grand government solutions. The government is the key to everything, right? Apparently not. When it comes to health care, the Democrats know that there are better options, and they want to keep those for themselves.
Posted By Bobby Eberle On July 9, 2009 at 7:10 am
The health care debate rages on, with Barack Obama and Democrats continuing to push for a government-run health care plan. Forget the good, old days when you could say, "It's a free country, isn't it?" Now, if the Democrats have their way, not only will the government be more involved in our private health decisions, but Americans will be FORCED to purchase health insurance.
What was apparent, however, from Obama's response during his health care presentation was that if his family needed urgent medical care, he would do everything he could even if it meant using health care resources not available in the plans that he wants to push on American families. Apparently, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, and one congressman wants to see that changed...
As reported at CNSNews.com, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) has introduced a resolution that "urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others."
What a novel idea! Politicians being forced to follow the same rules that the "common folk" have to follow.
According to the resolution which is available at Fleming's web site, the "resolved" section would read: That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.
On his web site, Fleming (who is a physician) states:
Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration's proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
So... the Democrats are pushing hard to force Americans into a left-wing form of socialized medicine, yet they are exempt from the plan. Does that seem fair? If this plan is so important, if the health care system is in such a crisis, why aren't these politicians rushing to sign up for it? Why are they exempt?
The left-wing elite love to propose grand government solutions. The government is the key to everything, right? Apparently not. When it comes to health care, the Democrats know that there are better options, and they want to keep those for themselves.
Posted By Bobby Eberle On July 9, 2009 at 7:10 am
La Raza Demands Government Health Care For Illegals
La Raza Demands Government Health Care For IllegalsFrom: Grassfire.org (alert@grassfire.net)
We've just learned that The National Council of La Raza hasissued a strong, but transparent plea to lawmakers thatuniversal health care should include illegal aliens. From their site, they are "strongly urg[ing] PresidentObama and Congress to make every effort to ensurethat health care reform reaches all communities." They also added that they aren't the slightest bit interestedin any citizenship or eligibility testing. After reading this obscene statement, I almost fell out of mychair. The audacity of this organization knows no bounds. Buteven more outrageous is the fact that unless you and I fightback against the government takeover of our health care,La Raza may actually succeed in getting their wish! That's why I want to appeal to you right now, ed. With Obama poised to take over your personal and private healthdecisions, and now La Raza standing at the ready to acceptgovernment health care for illegal aliens we must take immediateaction to ensure this kind of outrageous grab doesn't happen. Please take a moment right now to join with me and more than144,582 citizens who are staunchly opposed togovernment-run health care by clicking below and signingour petition: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556 Just today, we delivered three sets of petitions to Capitol Hill,and I've already alerted my staff that I want to take 250,000more as soon as possible. Take a moment right now to sign this important petition andhelp me keep La Raza from lobbying and potentially winninghealth care for illegals. Click here to be included in our next delivery: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556 Because time is so short, I'm asking ALL members of ourteam who sign this important petition to help spread theword about what is happening by forwarding this messageto 30-40 friends right now and urge sign our petitionby clicking here: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556 With your help, I believe we can surpass 250,000 citizen signermark and move back to Capitol Hill next week! Thank you for standing with Grassfire. Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org P.S: Say "No" to La Raza and Obamacare by alerting 30-40friends and directing them to sign our national petitionby clicking here:
http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556
Three Gifts for You! When you make a monthly gift to Grassfire.org by credit card,we'll send you three special gifts to show our thanks forbecoming one of the core supporters of everything we do.
Go here to find out more: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=20232&RID=16048556
We've just learned that The National Council of La Raza hasissued a strong, but transparent plea to lawmakers thatuniversal health care should include illegal aliens. From their site, they are "strongly urg[ing] PresidentObama and Congress to make every effort to ensurethat health care reform reaches all communities." They also added that they aren't the slightest bit interestedin any citizenship or eligibility testing. After reading this obscene statement, I almost fell out of mychair. The audacity of this organization knows no bounds. Buteven more outrageous is the fact that unless you and I fightback against the government takeover of our health care,La Raza may actually succeed in getting their wish! That's why I want to appeal to you right now, ed. With Obama poised to take over your personal and private healthdecisions, and now La Raza standing at the ready to acceptgovernment health care for illegal aliens we must take immediateaction to ensure this kind of outrageous grab doesn't happen. Please take a moment right now to join with me and more than144,582 citizens who are staunchly opposed togovernment-run health care by clicking below and signingour petition: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556 Just today, we delivered three sets of petitions to Capitol Hill,and I've already alerted my staff that I want to take 250,000more as soon as possible. Take a moment right now to sign this important petition andhelp me keep La Raza from lobbying and potentially winninghealth care for illegals. Click here to be included in our next delivery: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556 Because time is so short, I'm asking ALL members of ourteam who sign this important petition to help spread theword about what is happening by forwarding this messageto 30-40 friends right now and urge sign our petitionby clicking here: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556 With your help, I believe we can surpass 250,000 citizen signermark and move back to Capitol Hill next week! Thank you for standing with Grassfire. Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org P.S: Say "No" to La Raza and Obamacare by alerting 30-40friends and directing them to sign our national petitionby clicking here:
http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556
Three Gifts for You! When you make a monthly gift to Grassfire.org by credit card,we'll send you three special gifts to show our thanks forbecoming one of the core supporters of everything we do.
Go here to find out more: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=20232&RID=16048556
OBAMA'S SHIFTY ECONOMICS
OBAMA'S SHIFTY ECONOMICS
By DICK MORRIS
Now President Obama says in The Washington Post that he never envisioned that his stimulus package would afford quick relief to the American economy, but would do so only after it had run its two-year course. But when it was passed, Obama sang a different tune, urgently demanding its enactment to speed relief to a sagging economy. He claimed it would "create or save" 600,000 jobs. Now, even as the economy loses 450,000 jobs each month, he pretends that it is a matter of time until the stimulus kicks in.
He now justifies the stimulus package by saying it was adopted to prevent the "collapse" of the economy and the banking systems. But it was really the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), first passed under President Bush, that stopped the banks from going under. At the time of the enactment of the stimulus package, Obama never mentioned that he was counting on it to save the banks.
All these shifting justifications are designed to explain why the stimulus package has totally failed to accomplish anything. Not only has it done no good. It has done significant harm by ballooning the deficit, driving up interest rates, creating doubts about the U.S. currency and fanning inflationary fears.
But Obama has paid and will continue to pay dearly for betting on his stimulus package. Because of it, the Bush recession is becoming the Obama recession much faster than it would have had he adopted a more gradual approach to solving economic problems. By jumping in immediately, as he did, in order to increase government spending and pass eight years of Democratic dreams in one day, he made the public expect a solution.
At first, a sick patient looks forward to seeing the doctor. But when the medicine his physician gives him fails to make him better, he is likely to turn on his doctor. And then, gradually, when it dawns on him that the cure is making the disease last longer and get worse, he will really get mad at the physician. This is Obama's fate.
The stimulus package used up all the wiggle room he had to increase the budget deficit. He probably could have passed the healthcare program without a tax increase had he not already sent the deficit soaring with his massive spending. (Hillary and Bill pretended that there was no need to raise taxes to pay for their 1993 reform package and few questioned their presumption.) But now that the deficit has soared to 12 percent of the gross domestic product, everyone realizes that taxes must go up to pass healthcare "reform," making its adoption even less likely. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) has passed $550 billion of tax increases, but everyone knows that at least $1 trillion is required. And, in the current environment, Congress will not vote to add the balance to the deficit, even if Charlie wants to "charge it."
Finally, Obama has laid a trap for himself. Just as the economy is coming out of its recession -- in 2010 and 2011 -- and he begins to run for reelection, he is going to face massive inflation. The money supply has more than tripled since October of 2008 and is going up each week as the Fed buys Treasury bills and other securities to "monetize the debt" (i.e., give other people money so they can lend it back to the government and charge it interest for doing so). With each new infusion of cash, the problem of avoiding inflation becomes particularly severe. Obama could well lose the elections of 2012 because of the inflation his deficit has created.
Of course, we all know that the only way to put the inflation virus back in the test tube is to trigger a new recession, this time caused by massive increases in interest rates, as Fed Chairman Paul Volcker did in 1979. If the recession doesn't doom Obama to a single term, the inflation will. And if the inflation doesn't get him, the subsequent recession will.
The deeper he gets into his term, the more it is apparent that he threw it all away when he first took office and demanded over $1 trillion in stimulus and supplemental appropriation spending. He was doomed to lose the game right after he received the first kickoff.
OBAMA'S SHIFTY ECONOMICS
http://www.vote.com/mmp_printerfriendly.php?id=1548
By DICK MORRIS
Now President Obama says in The Washington Post that he never envisioned that his stimulus package would afford quick relief to the American economy, but would do so only after it had run its two-year course. But when it was passed, Obama sang a different tune, urgently demanding its enactment to speed relief to a sagging economy. He claimed it would "create or save" 600,000 jobs. Now, even as the economy loses 450,000 jobs each month, he pretends that it is a matter of time until the stimulus kicks in.
He now justifies the stimulus package by saying it was adopted to prevent the "collapse" of the economy and the banking systems. But it was really the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), first passed under President Bush, that stopped the banks from going under. At the time of the enactment of the stimulus package, Obama never mentioned that he was counting on it to save the banks.
All these shifting justifications are designed to explain why the stimulus package has totally failed to accomplish anything. Not only has it done no good. It has done significant harm by ballooning the deficit, driving up interest rates, creating doubts about the U.S. currency and fanning inflationary fears.
But Obama has paid and will continue to pay dearly for betting on his stimulus package. Because of it, the Bush recession is becoming the Obama recession much faster than it would have had he adopted a more gradual approach to solving economic problems. By jumping in immediately, as he did, in order to increase government spending and pass eight years of Democratic dreams in one day, he made the public expect a solution.
At first, a sick patient looks forward to seeing the doctor. But when the medicine his physician gives him fails to make him better, he is likely to turn on his doctor. And then, gradually, when it dawns on him that the cure is making the disease last longer and get worse, he will really get mad at the physician. This is Obama's fate.
The stimulus package used up all the wiggle room he had to increase the budget deficit. He probably could have passed the healthcare program without a tax increase had he not already sent the deficit soaring with his massive spending. (Hillary and Bill pretended that there was no need to raise taxes to pay for their 1993 reform package and few questioned their presumption.) But now that the deficit has soared to 12 percent of the gross domestic product, everyone realizes that taxes must go up to pass healthcare "reform," making its adoption even less likely. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) has passed $550 billion of tax increases, but everyone knows that at least $1 trillion is required. And, in the current environment, Congress will not vote to add the balance to the deficit, even if Charlie wants to "charge it."
Finally, Obama has laid a trap for himself. Just as the economy is coming out of its recession -- in 2010 and 2011 -- and he begins to run for reelection, he is going to face massive inflation. The money supply has more than tripled since October of 2008 and is going up each week as the Fed buys Treasury bills and other securities to "monetize the debt" (i.e., give other people money so they can lend it back to the government and charge it interest for doing so). With each new infusion of cash, the problem of avoiding inflation becomes particularly severe. Obama could well lose the elections of 2012 because of the inflation his deficit has created.
Of course, we all know that the only way to put the inflation virus back in the test tube is to trigger a new recession, this time caused by massive increases in interest rates, as Fed Chairman Paul Volcker did in 1979. If the recession doesn't doom Obama to a single term, the inflation will. And if the inflation doesn't get him, the subsequent recession will.
The deeper he gets into his term, the more it is apparent that he threw it all away when he first took office and demanded over $1 trillion in stimulus and supplemental appropriation spending. He was doomed to lose the game right after he received the first kickoff.
OBAMA'S SHIFTY ECONOMICS
http://www.vote.com/mmp_printerfriendly.php?id=1548
The Ten Commandments According to Obama ?
The Ten Commandments According to Obama
After observing Obama on the campaign trail and during his first six months in office, we have concluded that our President lives and governs according to his own set of “Ten Commandments.” They’re certainly NOT the Ten Commandments you learned in Sunday School. In fact, many are the direct opposite! To prove that our conclusions are correct, you will find a link to source documentation for each commandment on the Patriot Update web site.
I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.) SOURCE
II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore. SOURCE
III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain (or in public). Only I can say Barack Hussein Obama. SOURCE
IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy. SOURCE
V. Honour thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money. SOURCE
VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby. SOURCE
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are conservative or a Republican. Liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed. SOURCE
VIII. Thou shalt not steal, until you've been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those who do not have the motivation to better their own lives. SOURCE
IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against thy neighbor unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian. SOURCE
X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet. SOURCE
© 2009 The Patriot Update. Feel free to circulate this article, but please link / give credit to The Patriot Update.
http://patriotupdate.com/home/exclusive/13
After observing Obama on the campaign trail and during his first six months in office, we have concluded that our President lives and governs according to his own set of “Ten Commandments.” They’re certainly NOT the Ten Commandments you learned in Sunday School. In fact, many are the direct opposite! To prove that our conclusions are correct, you will find a link to source documentation for each commandment on the Patriot Update web site.
I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.) SOURCE
II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore. SOURCE
III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain (or in public). Only I can say Barack Hussein Obama. SOURCE
IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy. SOURCE
V. Honour thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money. SOURCE
VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby. SOURCE
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are conservative or a Republican. Liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed. SOURCE
VIII. Thou shalt not steal, until you've been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those who do not have the motivation to better their own lives. SOURCE
IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against thy neighbor unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian. SOURCE
X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet. SOURCE
© 2009 The Patriot Update. Feel free to circulate this article, but please link / give credit to The Patriot Update.
http://patriotupdate.com/home/exclusive/13
should congress and staff be required to join any Obama health plan?
should congress and staff be required to join any Obama health plan?
they would be required to give up thier existing plans and then
join the "reformed" Obama health plan?
they would be required to give up thier existing plans and then
join the "reformed" Obama health plan?
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
1st step on health reform ?
1st step on health reform ?
Health reform is overwhelming, how about breaking it into smaller pieces, 1st step may be computerizing paperwork this year.
Maybe using tax credits/ rebates to encourage.
Health reform is overwhelming, how about breaking it into smaller pieces, 1st step may be computerizing paperwork this year.
Maybe using tax credits/ rebates to encourage.
OBAMA'S POLL NUMBERS DROP
OBAMA'S POLL NUMBERS DROP
By DICK MORRIS EILEEN MCGANN
President Obama has crossed the red line in his dropping approval rating.
The percentage of Americans who strongly or somewhat approve of how he is doing his job has fallen to 51 percent in the latest Rasmussen polling -- the lowest ever. Because Obama got 52 percent of the vote in the presidential race, defeating McCain by 52-47, the fact that his approval has dropped below his vote share indicates that he is actually shedding real support for the first time.
Until this drop, all Obama was doing was losing McCain voters. Now he is losing his own. It didn't really matter whether people who voted for McCain approved of the job Obama was doing. They were never part of his base. But now voters who pulled the lever for Obama have started to tell pollsters that they disapprove of his job performance. As he wades deeper into the healthcare reform battle, raises taxes to pay for it and pushes cap-and-trade legislation, the drop is likely to be even sharper and much, much steeper.
In our new book, Catastrophe, we highlight the reasons why Obama's popularity will drop and why he will lose the congressional elections of 2010.
Click here to order a copy of CATASTROPHE now!
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?page_id=573
By DICK MORRIS EILEEN MCGANN
President Obama has crossed the red line in his dropping approval rating.
The percentage of Americans who strongly or somewhat approve of how he is doing his job has fallen to 51 percent in the latest Rasmussen polling -- the lowest ever. Because Obama got 52 percent of the vote in the presidential race, defeating McCain by 52-47, the fact that his approval has dropped below his vote share indicates that he is actually shedding real support for the first time.
Until this drop, all Obama was doing was losing McCain voters. Now he is losing his own. It didn't really matter whether people who voted for McCain approved of the job Obama was doing. They were never part of his base. But now voters who pulled the lever for Obama have started to tell pollsters that they disapprove of his job performance. As he wades deeper into the healthcare reform battle, raises taxes to pay for it and pushes cap-and-trade legislation, the drop is likely to be even sharper and much, much steeper.
In our new book, Catastrophe, we highlight the reasons why Obama's popularity will drop and why he will lose the congressional elections of 2010.
Click here to order a copy of CATASTROPHE now!
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?page_id=573
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)