Archive for November, 2009
The Greatest Scam In The History of Earth
Control: The House and Senate climate bills contain a provision giving the president extraordinary powers in the event of a “climate emergency.” As chief of staff Rahm Emanuel says, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.
If you thought the House health care bill that nobody read has hidden passages that threaten our freedoms and liberty, take a peak at the “trigger” placed in the byzantine innards of both the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill and the Kerry-Boxer bill just passed by Democrats out of Sen. Barbara Boxer’s Environment and Public Works Committee.
As Nick Loris of the Heritage Foundation points out, the Kerry-Boxer bill requires the declaration of a “climate emergency” if the concentration of carbon dioxide and other declared greenhouse gases in the atmosphere exceeds 450 parts per million (ppm). It was at about 286 ppm before the Industrial Revolution and now sits at around 368 ppm.
That figure was picked out of a hat because the warm-mongers believe that’s the level at which the polar ice caps will disappear, boats can be moored on the Statue of Liberty’s torch and dead polar bears will wash up on the beaches of Malibu.
The Senate version includes a section that gives the president authority, under this declared “climate emergency,” to “direct all Federal agencies to use existing statutory authority to take appropriate actions … to address shortfalls” in achieving greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions.
What the “appropriate actions” might be are not defined and presumably left up to the discretion of the White House. Could the burning of coal be suspended or recreational driving be banned? Sen. David Vitter, R-La., asked the EPA for a definition and received no response.
Competitive Enterprise Institute scholar Chris Horner says “this agenda transparently is not about GHG concentrations, or the climate. It’s about what the provision would bring: almost limitless power over private economic activity and individual liberty for the activist president and, for the reluctant leader, litigious greens and courts” packed by liberal Democrat appointees.
“Environmental groups have been working to deny grazing rights to America’s ranchers for decades. They do so by claiming violations of environmental policy, suing federal environmental agencies and ultimately, tying up ranchers’ time and resources in costly, and often baseless, court battles,” said Jeff Faulkner, Western Legacy Alliance (WLA) member. “What makes this situation worse is the fact that these environmental groups such as Western Watersheds Project and the Center for Biological Diversity are shaking down federal government programs so they can access taxpayer dollars to fund their radical agendas.”
Two of the federal programs that are seemingly handing out millions, and possibly billions, to environmental groups are the EAJA and the Judgment Fund.
The EAJA was established approximately 30 years ago by Congress to ensure that individuals, small businesses and/or public interest groups with limited financial capacity could seek judicial redress from unreasonable government actions that threatened their rights, privileges or interests.
According the U.S. Department of the Treasury website, the Judgment Fund, which was created in the 1960’s, “…is available for most court judgments and Justice Department compromise settlements of actual or imminent lawsuits against the government. Congress has added a number of administrative claim awards (settlements by agencies at the administrative level, without a lawsuit). The Judgment Fund has no fiscal year limitations, and there is no need for Congress to appropriate funds to it annually or otherwise. Moreover, disbursements from it are not attributed to or accounted for by the agencies whose activities give rise to awards paid. Absent a specific statutory requirement, the agency responsible is not required to reimburse the Judgment Fund.”
Since 2003, the Judgment Fund has paid out $4.7 billion in judgments, including the reimbursement of attorney’s fees. It appears environmental groups have accessed millions of taxpayer dollars from this fund; however, the Web site reporting these payments does not indicate to whom the payments were made or for what purpose. Additional investigation reveals that the same environmental groups benefiting from EAJA payments are accessing the Judgment Fund to millions of dollars each year.
An article at Fox News about the open letter noted:
American taxpayers are being forced to fund thousands of lawsuits filed against the federal government by environmental organizations — with their lawyers clocking thousands of hours and charging fees of up to $650 an hour.
The U.S. government hands out millions of dollars each year to various environmental organizations to help protect fish, wildlife and other aspects of the environment. And every year, those same groups spend millions suing the government over everything from forest policy and carbon emissions to water quality and wolf habitats.
Who paid the attorneys fees? The American taxpayers did.
In the lucrative world of environmental law, the biggest defendant is the federal government, and taxpayers foot the bill. The nation’s ten largest environmental groups have sued the government more than 3,000 times in a nine-year period, according to legal fund the Western Legacy Alliance, an Idaho-based legal fund that defends ranchers and farmers.
Now, the growing number of cases is beginning to attract the attention of some lawmakers in Congress.
Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., has written to the Department of Justice asking for an investigation, pointing out that much of the money being paid comes out of the Equal Access to Justice Act fund, which Congress set up for the indigent and public interest groups to recover legal fees.
Right now, the government does not account for how much is paid out to whom or for what reason.
“These are taxpayer dollars that are being used by the federal government to compensate people who have sued the federal government. I believe that taxpayers have the right to know who those people are and how much they’ve been paid,” Lummis told Fox News.
They should not expect any help from the current Administration, however.
Bloomberg noted: Billionaire George Soros, looking to address the “political problem” of climate change, said he will invest $1 billion in clean-energy technology and donate $100 million to an environmental advisory group to aid policymakers. [He] announced the investment in Copenhagen on Oct. 10 at a meeting on climate change sponsored by Project Syndicate. The group is an international association made up of 430 newspapers from 150 countries.
…Soros’s announcement comes two months before 190 nations will gather in the Danish capital for a final round of negotiations on a new climate treaty that includes provisions to finance clean- energy projects in developing nations. Talks last week in Bangkok were marked by a dispute between richer and poorer nations over whether to renew or abandon the Kyoto Protocol, the only existing global agreement to reduce carbon dioxide, which is blamed for global warming.
Soros, 79, also will establish the Climate Policy Initiative, a San Francisco-based organization to which he will donate $10 million a year for 10 years.
Extreme left journalist George Monbiot ignored all the facts I provided when he was pointing a finger at me. He’s ignoring them again, which forces him to assume the deniers are at fault. He wrote, “There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.”
The sphere is expanding for several reasons.
- All evidence rejects the hypothesis that human CO2 is causing warming or climate change.
- Facts are gradually getting to the public despite obstructionism by journalists like Monbiot.
- Temperature projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are consistently wrong.
- Record cold temperatures are occurring everywhere.
- Motives of those pushing the need for reduction in CO2 are being exposed.
- Economic costs of a completely unnecessary action are emerging.
Britain’s Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, suffered a data breach in recent days when a hacker apparently broke into their system and made away with thousands of emails and documents. The stolen data was then posted to a Russian server and has quickly made the rounds among climate skeptics. The documents within the archive, if proven to be authentic, would at best be embarrassing for many prominent climate researchers and at worst, damning.
The electronic break in itself has been verified by the director of the research unit, Professor Phil Jones. He told Britain’s Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”
The paper goes on to discuss, at length the individual emails, and if you have not yet seen them, I urge to to follow the link.
In Australia, where the story first broke, the Herald Sun noted:
…So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory – a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below – emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down skeptics.
This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider who’s now blown the whistle.
Not surprising, then, that Steve McIntyre reports:
Earlier today, CRU cancelled all existing passwords. Actions speaking loudly.
Hackers have broken into the data base of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit – one of the world’s leading alarmist centers – and put the files they stole on the Internet, on the grounds that the science is too important to be kept under wraps.
The ethics of this are dubious. But the files suggest, on a very preliminary glance, some other very dubious practices, too, and a lot of collusion – sometimes called “peer review”. Or even conspiracy.
“The files contain so much material that it is going to take some time t o put it all in context,” says Ball. “However, enough is already known to underscore their explosive nature. It is already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated material and is therefore completely compromised.
“The fallout will be extensive as material continues to emerge. Reputations of the scientists involved are already destroyed, however fringe players will continue to be identified and their reputations destroyed or sullied.”
While the mainstream media is bending into pretzels to keep the scandal under the rug, Climategate is already the biggest scientific scandal in history because of the global policy implications.
Before You Go Christmas Shopping, Please Check List of Stores Banning “Christmas”
I am sick of companies disrespecting me. I’m done with them.
Many of the chain stores want my Christmas money, but will not acknowledge Christmas. That exploits me and is the ultimate insult to the true meaning of the holiday.
Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Christ.
Christmas is not a free for all spending spree for no just cause. Hello?
The AFA was kind enough to post their naughty and nice list to help inform us all which stores not to shop at.
Don’t stop, however, with just not shopping at their store. That won’t do. They will merely chalk it up to the bad economy. You must call or email them using the information provided by the AFA and let them know WHY you will not be shopping at their store.
If they want our Christmas money, they need to participate in Christmas. It’s that simple.
If you really want to have some fun, make sure you cheerfully tell all checkers and cashiers Merry Christmas this year. You’ll be surprised how many will look at you as if you just insulted their Mother.
Start your boycott of these stores with the black friday specials… and unless they change their policy, DO NOT SHOP THERE THIS CHRISTMAS SEASON.
The American Family Association posts the following on their site:
These companies have banned “Christmas” from their retail ads, in-store promotions or television commercials.
Please take time to let them know you are offended by their anti-Christian and anti-Christmas bias. Their contact information is below.
We cannot stress to strongly how important it is for you to be firm, yet very kind in your correspondence with these companies. Please be respectful and choose your words wisely.
In addition, companies marked with an asterisk* have gone so far as to substitute the phrase “Holiday or Dream trees” instead of “Christmas trees” in their promotions.
| * Target (612) 304-6073 Guest.Relations@target.comUPDATE – AFA ENDS BOYCOTT
Click Here to read the AFA Press Release In their official statement, Target said: “Over the course of the next few weeks, our advertising, marketing and merchandising will become more specific to the holiday that is approaching – referring directly to holidays like Christmas and Hanukkah. For example, you will see reference to Christmas in select television commercials, circulars and in-store signage.”
Original Target Issue Concern: Nordstrom (206) 628-2111 President Blake W. Nordstrom contact@nordstrom.com * Sears (847) 286-2500 nationalcustomerservice@sears.com
Walgreens (847) 940-2500 President Jeffery Rien –Jeff.Rein@walgreens.com Because of your efforts, Walgreens has released the following response in 2006: “Next year (2007), you can be assured our advertising will better incorporate ‘Christmas,’ and our holiday trees will be called Christmas trees. Unfortunately, all of this year’s December ads are already printed, so it’s too late to make changes for this season.” |
| Lowe’s (800) 445-6937 We are pleased to update you about Lowe’s sale of Christmas trees. Lowe’s informed the AFA that it is removing banners referring to “holiday trees” from its stores (the actual product signs inside Lowe’s stores did say Christmas trees, but the outside banner did not). Lowe’s says it has proudly sold Christmas trees in its stores for decades, and continues to do so this year in all of its stores nationwide. All 49 varieties of live and artificial trees at Lowe’s and on Lowes.com are labeled as Christmas trees.
Lowe’s assures AFA that the language on the banner was a mistake, and was not in any way an attempt to remove Christmas from the season. We applaud Lowe’s for listening to its customers and responding to their concerns. Just as we alerted Lowe’s to our concerns, now let’s show them our support by sending thank you emails and shopping in their stores. Click Here To Thank Lowe’s Now! |
| Office Max (877) 484-3629 williambonner@officemax.com Office Max offers no “Christmas” in their advertising. |
| Kmart (800) 635-6278 kmartccn@kmart.com Kmart promotes a “Holiday Sale” on their website. Links to the trees webpage asks if you “Need it by Christmas,” but refers you to its “Holiday Shipping Dates” section. |
| Staples (800) 378-2753 experts@orders.staples.com In searching for “Christmas” on their website, results show only three matches. Staples ads avoid using “Christmas.” |
| Best Buy (888) 237-8289 dick.schulze@bestbuy.com Best Buy offers no “Christmas” in their advertising. Kohl’s UPDATE: Kohl’s has provided AFA with a corporate statement. They dispute the charge made on The O’Reilly Factor and provided a letter stating they “would use the word ‘Christmas’ in some of our advertising.” AFA is pleased to let you know that this in, in fact, the case. Kohl’s asks us to inform you of their plans to incorporate “Christmas” in future advertising. We appreciate Kohl’s listening to their customers concerns and responding in kind. |
These companies have banned “Christmas” from their television commercials. In a review of commercials aired on prime-time broadcast network, these companies clearly marketed their ads to Christmas shoppers without using the word “Christmas.”In a total of 116 commercials, only 11 (9%) included the word “Christmas” in the ad.
|
Happy Thanksgiving From Soldier For Liberty
To You and Yours, A wish for a Happy Thanksgiving Day!
From AbrahamLincolnOnline.org:
Proclamation of Thanksgiving
October 3, 1863
This is the proclamation which set the precedent for America’s national day of Thanksgiving. During his administration, President Lincoln issued many orders like this. For example, on November 28, 1861, he ordered government departments closed for a local day of thanksgiving.
Sarah Josepha Hale, a prominent magazine editor, wrote a letter to Lincoln on 28, 1863, urging him to have the “day of our annual Thanksgiving made a National and fixed Union Festival.” She wrote, “You may have observed that, for some years past, there has been an increasing interest felt in our land to have the Thanksgiving held on the same day, in all the States; it now needs National recognition and authoritive fixation, only, to become permanently, an American custom and institution.” The document below sets apart the last Thursday of November “as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise.”
According to an April 1, 1864, letter from John Nicolay, one of President Lincoln’s secretaries, this document was written by Secretary of State William Seward, and the original was in his handwriting. On October 3, 1863, fellow Cabinet member Gideon Welles recorded in his diary that he complimented Seward on his work. A year later the manuscript was sold to benefit Union troops.
By the President of the United States of America.
A Proclamation.
The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth.
By the President: Abraham Lincoln
William H. Seward,
Secretary of State
Our Government Does Not Seem To Understand Who The Bad Guys Are
Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges.
The three, all members of the Navy’s elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral’s mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.
Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named “Objective Amber,” told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.
Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.
Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.
Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.
Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.
This on the heels of the Administration’s announcement to hold civilian trials for enemy combatants who confessed to killing over three thousand people at the World Trade Center on September 11,2001.
The announcement came just days after failing to label the massacre at Fort Hood a terrorist attack, despite the shooter’s al Qaeda ties and shouting Allahu Akbar while killing innocent people.
The current Administration has hired a special prosecutor to investigate our CIA for any infractions during interrogation of enemy combatants.
The abuse by our government has it’s tentacles into other groups acting in defense of their country as well.
There was the illegal firing of competent Inspector General Walpin who found improprieties involving friend of Obama, former pro-basketball star, now Mayor of Sacramento, Kevin Johnson, regarding use of Ameri-core funds.
The elitist demonization of Tea Party Patriots by many members of the Administration, Senate and Congress. Homeland security now classifies these citizens as low-level terrorists.
The problem goes back beyond the Obama Administration however.
Under the Bush Administration, our government turned on our Border Security agents and the Minutemen.
There are many other examples, but I believe I have made my point. Our corrupt and misguided government officials are going off the deep end.
In my mind, those soldiers are heroes, putting their lives on the line to keep us safe. Too bad I can not say the same for my government. God help us all.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )
A Prayer For Baby Gabriel Is A Prayer For Us All
Sounds A Lot Like “Death Panels” (and BS) To Me
Cardiologist / health administrator Bernadine Healy became the first woman to head the National Institutes of Health from 1991 to 1993. She has been particularly effective in addressing medical policy and research issues pertaining to women. Beginning her career at Johns Hopkins University where she rose to full professor on the medical school faculty, while simultaneously undertaking administrative duties. She served as deputy science advisor to President Reagan from 1984-1985. In 1985 she was appointed Head of the Research Institute of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation until her appointment as director of the NIH in 1991. Healy was also president of the American Heart Association from 1988-1989 and has served on numerous national advisory committees. Healy was named dean of the College of Medicine and Public Health at Ohio State University in 1995. And in the fall of 1999 she became president of the American Red Cross, serving until late 2001. She has been a senior writer for US News and World Report since 2003. If you missed this four and a half minute interview- please watch!
According to HHS: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), first convened by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1984, and since 1998 sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), is the leading independent panel of private-sector experts in prevention and primary care. The USPSTF conducts rigorous, impartial assessments of the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of a broad range of clinical preventive services, including screening, counseling, and preventive medications. Its recommendations are considered the “gold standard” for clinical preventive services.
The mission of the USPSTF is to evaluate the benefits of individual services based on age, gender, and risk factors for disease; make recommendations about which preventive services should be incorporated routinely into primary medical care and for which populations; and identify a research agenda for clinical preventive care.
<!–Select for PDF File (208 KB). PDF Help.
–>
Breast cancer affects one in eight women during their lives. Breast cancer kills more women in the United States than any cancer except lung cancer. No one knows why some women get breast cancer, but there are a number of risk factors. Risks that you cannot change include
- Age – the chance of getting breast cancer rises as a woman gets older
- Genes – there are two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, that greatly increase the risk. Women who have family members with breast or ovarian cancer may wish to be tested.
- Personal factors – beginning periods before age 12 or going through menopause after age 55
Other risks include being overweight, using hormone replacement therapy, taking birth control pills, drinking alcohol, not having children or having your first child after age 35 or having dense breasts. Symptoms of breast cancer may include a lump in the breast, a change in size or shape of the breast or discharge from a nipple. Breast self-exam and mammography can help find breast cancer early when it is most treatable.
Seer Stats fact sheet estimates that 192,370 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer during 2009 and of those 40,170 women will die of cancer in the same year. The median age for women being diagnosed was 61 years of age, and none were under the age of twenty; 1.9% were aged 20 and 34; 10.5% were diagnosed between 35 and 44. From the ago of forty five the incidence rose sharply 22.5% were between 45 and 54; 23.7% were aged between 55 and 64. After 65 and between 74 the incidence dropped again to 19.6%, 16.2% were aged between 75 and 84; and finally 5.5% 85+ years of age. Just because their were only five and a half percent diagnosed at over 85 merely indicates that there were less women in that age group living.
The incidence was higher in white women as 123.8 per 100,000 women were diagnosed with breast cancer, blacks were diagnosed at 117.7 per 100,000 women, the Polynesians less still as 89.5 per 100,000 women , Hispanics had 88.3 per 100,000 women And native American Indian/Alaska Native had the least number affected. 74.4 per 100,000 women.
Although roughly 20% of women are diagnosed with breast cancer UNDER age 50, and incidences increase with age, with roughly 22% of women diagnosed at age 75 or over, the “C” grade given mammography for women under 50 and over 75, means insurance will no longer cover this procedure. In my opinion, this does indeed constitute a “death panel”, putting middle aged moms and grandma at risk. Particularly, as the cost of a mammogram with doctor and other fees is several hundred dollars, and from personal experience is a four digit figure if a “lump” is found, cancerous or not, prompting the quicker turn time for results. At these costs, the number of cases being diagnosed at a treatable stage is going to decline. If you do the math, you can clearly see that of the nearly 200,000 women who would be diagnosed this year alone with breast cancer, 40% would not have had insurance covered mammograms. How many of those women could pay the costs and fees associated with the test? Not many. As well, the USPSTF suggests no benefit to self-examination at any age.
Think, America. This is the same group of “independent” consultants who will, under the bill being voted on this weekend, get to determine what is covered and what is not covered going forward. Do you really want them in charge of who gets what?
Allow me to point out, and believe me, I know how absurd this sounds, this administration believes in total compliance with UN Agenda 21 (sustainable development) which clearly calls for population reduction. Seriously. There are many posts here and elsewhere discussing this. If you know not what I am speaking about, please educate yourself. Science Czar John Holdren wrote a book touting population control by means of spiking water supplies throughout the country. So, just consider, even if you don’t believe me, how much easier it would be to deny medical testing and treatment under the guise of inaffordability.
Made clear by the press release from the Catholic League is the fact abortions will be covered in the bill.
On November 15, presidential advisor David Axelrod made it clear that President Obama opposes the Stupak amendment that bans abortion funding in the House’s version of the health care bill. The Senate has just completed its version, and it contains nothing like the language of the Stupak amendment. As reported today by AP, “On a controversial issue that threatened to derail the House legislation, [Senate Majority Leader] Reid would allow the new government insurance plan to cover abortions and would let companies that receive federal funds offer insurance plans that include abortion coverage.”
President Obama, after telling the public that he would not support a bill that provided federal funds for abortion (he was hailed by the bishops for doing so), is now championing a bill that would do just that. Moreover, he is pushing for legislation that the American people do not support: CNN posted survey results yesterday showing that 61 percent of the public is in favor of banning the use of federal funds to pay for abortion; only 37 percent favor it.
(It is only 2074 pages in length – and hey- what better way to spend your weekend???!)
President Obama said “From day one, our goal has been to enact legislation that offers stability and security to those who have insurance and affordable coverage to those who don’t, and that lowers costs for families, businesses and governments across the country,” adding the proposal “meets those principles.”
Republicans have vowed to block the bill. As you may know, however, there are 58 democrat Senators and 2 more independents that may as well be. Reid, D-Nevada, needs 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to open debate on the bill. It would take another 60 votes to close debate, but final approval of the bill would only require a simple majority, or 51 votes. Leadership says it expects to prompt a vote to start debate Saturday.
Senate Minority leader John Boehner said in a statement:
Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) massive, 2,074-page bill would levy a new “abortion premium” fee on Americans in the government-run plan.
Beginning on line 7, p. 118, section 1303 under “Voluntary Choice of Coverage of Abortion Services” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run health plan. Leader Reid’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions (line 13, p. 120).
What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run health plan. It’s right there beginning on line 11, page 122, section 1303, under “Actuarial Value of Optional Service Coverage.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.
Section 1303(a)(2)(C) describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run health plan and for those who are given an affordability credit to purchase insurance coverage that includes abortion through the Exchange. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.
A majority of Americans believe that health care plans should not be mandated to provide elective abortion coverage, and a majority of Americans do not believe government health care plans should include abortion coverage. Currently, federal appropriations bills include language known as the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, while another provision, known as the Smith Amendment, prohibits federal funding of abortion under the federal employees’ health benefits plan.
Leader Reid’s 2,074-page health care monstrosity is an affront to the American people and drastically moves away from current policy. The National Right to Life Committee has called the Reid abortion language “completely unacceptable.” The American people deserve more from their government than being forced to pay for abortion. The pro-life Stupak/Pitts amendment passed the House by a vote of 240 to 194, enjoying the overwhelming support of 176 Republicans and 64 Democrats. The Stupak/Pitts Amendment codifies current law by prohibiting federal funding of elective abortions under any government-run plan or plans available under the Exchange. The Reid plan ignores the will of a bipartisan majority of the House, and indeed the American people, by rejecting this bipartisan amendment.
Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life – not end it – and the American people agree. House Republicans have offered a common-sense, responsible solution that would reduce health care costs and expand access while protecting the dignity of all human life. The Republican plan, available at HealthCare.GOP.gov, would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. And under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage may not receive federal funds.
There are many other issues Soldier for Liberty finds fault with in the bill. In yesterday’s column we featured a clip Glenn Beck did on his show pointing out just a few of the absurd and vulgar taxes being hoisted on the backs of the American taxpayers. Seniors have much to fear from this program.
Even if this bill does not pass, let this be a lesson to all the younger people in this country. These seniors or those about to become seniors did everything they were supposed to do. They fought wars, sacrificed for their country, saved pennies to fun savings accounts and 401K programs, bought and lovingly maintained their homes, put their kids through college, paid into the social security program – everything. Now, at the cusp of the point in time where they may get to enjoy life – the government and their partners in this ponzi scheme rape their 401K accounts and IRAs, steal (and I do mean steal) the equity in their homes, now they will defund their medical care and revoke privileges for tests and procedures because it’s just too expensive to allow them to live. They have outlived their usefulness and can no longer contribute to the ever hungry government – so- well.. it’s a tough world. AMERICA- WAKE UP! I am not being melodramatic here. This bill penalizes companies if they choose to continue to pay for drug prescriptions for retirees. What do they think they are doing? And furthermore, why in the hell would AARP back this program? Because they sell medigap insurance. Period. If you are paying dues to AARP, you need to call them, NOW (888-OUR-AARP), and tell them to refund your dues. Don’t forget to tell them why. Consider joining Amac – The Association of Mature American Citizens or ASA- American Seniors Association instead. The AARP has been corrupted and no longer fairly represents the seniors of this country, in my opinion. It could be no more evident than the fact they favor cuts to senior care. It’s no small cut either.
Republicans dismissed it as “another trillion-dollar experiment,” in the words of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.). Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.) said the bill “may claim to be deficit-neutral, [but] it uses sleight-of-hand budgetary tricks by assuming unrealistic tax increases and Medicare cuts that members of Congress will not be willing to follow through on.”
The Senate measure is similar in scope to legislation the House approved earlier this month. It would require most people to buy insurance, and if their employers did not offer affordable coverage, they would be able to shop for policies on new state-based “exchanges” that would function as marketplaces for individual coverage. Insurance companies would have to abide by broad new rules that would ban practices such as denying coverage based on preexisting conditions.
But the bills diverge on other key provisions. The House version would require all but the smallest businesses to offer insurance, while the Senate measure would merely fine companies for not offering affordable coverage. The Senate bill would bar illegal immigrants from buying insurance through the exchanges, while the House would restrict access only to subsidies and federal programs such as Medicaid, which would be vastly expanded under both bills.
Another potential flashpoint is abortion coverage. The issue sparked a major battle in the House, forcing Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to agree to an amendment that would bar people who receive federal subsidies for insurance coverage from using that money to purchase policies that pay for abortion.
Reid took a different approach that may or may not pass muster with abortion opponents, proposing to establish a “firewall” that would segregate private premiums from federal funding if abortion coverage were offered in the public insurance plan.
Few details were available Wednesday, but Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), an abortion rights advocate who was working to forge a compromise on the issue, said, “I couldn’t be happier. For those who want to keep abortion out of this bill, Senator Reid did it the right way.”
The National Right to Life Committee, however, called the firewall “completely unacceptable” and said it utilizes “layers of contrived definitions and hollow bookkeeping requirements” to permit federal funding of abortion.
Like the House bill, Reid’s proposal would be financed through billions of dollars in Medicare cuts, as well as new taxes. But while the House would impose a 5.4 percent surtax on income over $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for families, the Senate would rely primarily on a new tax on high-cost insurance policies that has been hugely unpopular among House members.
To blunt opposition, Reid would impose the 40 percent tax on fewer policies, raising the threshold to $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for family coverage. That change required him to come up with about $60 billion in additional revenue, most of which would come from raising the Medicare payroll tax from 1.45 percent to 1.95 percent on individual income over $200,000 and household income over $250,000. Reid is also proposing a new 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery.
FRED BARNES, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, THE WEEKLY STANDARD in a panel discussion on Special Report (Fox News): Well, if you were a government bureaucrat you would think they designed this bill just for me. That’s what it does. It gives the government a lot more power and their panels or commissions or commissioners and so on.
If you’re a doctor or a patient, you’re going to have less power. Patients now will have less choice than you get when you go to Starbucks to buy coffee. They’re going to have very little choice.
And then there are up couple of other things: One of the tricks they have used, of course, that are pretty transparent that they have used to make the bill look like it actually will reduce the deficit. Now Bret, if you believe it is going to reduce the deficit, I’ve got a few things I’d like to sell you.
And of course they took out the doctor’s fix and that saved them, what $210, $220 billion? And then they have the taxing and the so-called spending cuts, which they may or may not actually cut, go for 10 years, but the benefits only go for five years. When you get to the second 10 years, then of course it costs so much more. And that’s pretty transparent.
But here’s the hard part: Anything in this bill is going to be hard to change because you’re going to need 60 votes if you want to change the part about abortion or if you want to get rid of the public option. It is going to be hard.
And Republicans are not going to help. They are not going to let this bill be improved because they think at the end of the day it will be an awful bill anyway. Why should we make it nicer so a few of the more moderate Democrats will vote for it? They don’t want to vote for it.
Host BAIER: A. B. They move the spending to 2014, but when the program actually goes into effect — the taxes goes into effect in 2011.
One thing about the Congressional Budget Office’s assessment that Senator Reid has touted again and again as being a good thing, on page nine they say that the public plan that’s in there would typically have premiums that were somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges.
In other words: The public plan that’s offered in this plan would cost more than the private plans. I don’t get it. Wasn’t the purpose to drive down premium costs?
The fact of the matter is no matter what they vote on, most of the wording is open to interpretation for whomever is writing the bill (Cass Sunstein). They will meld this with the House bill and end up with some hodge-podge they think they can get passed. The President will sign it, knowing full well with the way it is written they can do just about anything they want to do with it.
Breaking: Sources tell me, the three or four democrats on the fence, are being handsomely rewarded for any consideration they may give to voting for the bill.
Who, in their right mind, would trade $1,000,000 subsidy or $1,000,000,000 one for that matter, for the welfare and shorter life expectancy of their constituents? Who ever they are- they need to be fired, and maybe jailed.
Stay tuned, we will post names the very minute they are available.
UPDATE: No need to post names – politics as usual in spineless Washington DC. Only robots- no individual thinkers, not even among so called “Independents”. I can only have one repsonse: The 2nd American Revolution Has Begun:
What Congress Is Proposing and What You Can Do About It
Under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the Constitution, a Member of Congress may be removed from office before the normal expiration of his or her constitutional term by an “expulsion” from the Senate (if a Senator) or from the House of Representatives (if a Representative) upon a formal vote on a resolution agreed to by two-thirds of the Members of the respective body present and voting. While there are no specific grounds for an expulsion expressed in the Constitution, expulsion actions in both the House and the Senate have generally concerned cases of perceived disloyalty to the United States, or the conviction of a criminal statutory offense which involved abuse of one’s official position. Each House has broad authority as to the grounds, nature, timing, and procedure for an expulsion of a Member. However, policy considerations, as opposed to questions of authority, have appeared to restrain the Senate and House in the exercise of expulsion when it might be considered as infringing on the electoral process, such as when the electorate knew of the past misconduct under consideration and still elected or re-elected the Member.
As to removal by recall, the United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officers such as Senators, Representatives, or the President or Vice President, and thus no Member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United States. The recall of Members was considered during the time of the drafting of the federal Constitution in 1787, but no such provisions were included in the final version sent to the States for ratification, and the specific drafting and ratifying debates indicate an express understanding of the Framers and ratifiers that no right or power to recall a Senator or Representative from the United States Congress exists under the Constitution.
Although the Supreme Court has not needed to directly address the subject of recall of Members of Congress, other Supreme Court decisions, as well as the weight of other judicial and administrative decisions, rulings and opinions, indicate that: (1) the right to remove a Member of Congress before the expiration of his or her constitutionally established term of office is one which resides exclusively in each House of Congress as established in the expulsion clause of the United States Constitution, and (2) the length and number of the terms of office for federal officials, established and agreed upon by the States in the Constitution creating that Federal Government, may not be unilaterally changed by an individual State, such as through the enactment of a recall provision or a term limitation for a United States Senator or Representative. Under Supreme Court constitutional interpretation, since individual States never had the original sovereign authority to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of service of federal officials agreed to and established in the Constitution, such a power could not be “reserved” under the 10th Amendment.
Recall of state legislators has been somewhat more successful than that of governors, although still uncommon. For example in California there were 107 attempts to trigger a recall election between 1911 and 1994 and only 4 of these succeeded in reaching the number of required signatures on the petition:
- A state senator was recalled in 1913
- A state senator was recalled in 1914, and another state senator survived a recall attempt
- A state senator survived a recall attempt in 1994 with 59% of the vote
- Two Assembly members were recalled in 1995
In 1983 two state senators were recalled in Michigan for the first time in its history.
Recall is used much more often at the local level of government. At least 36 states permit recall of local officials.
Only 7 US states require certain preconditions to be met before a recall petition can be initiated. These are: Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Rhode Island and Washington. The signature requirements to initiate a recall election vary between states but are generally based on a formula using the percentage of the vote in the last election as a base. For specific details of these states’ requirements please see: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/recallprovision.htm
Since Michigan was most recently successful at this, let’s take a look at what happened there:
Recall 1983? The History of Michigan’s Great Taxpayer Revolt.
In January of 1983, Governor James Blanchard had a problem. Michigan was in recession, losing jobs, and the legislature was facing declining tax revenues. Blanchard needed to hike taxes in order to maintain government spending, since real spending cuts seemed out of the question. He proposed, and passed through the legislature, a 38% income tax hike.
Taxpayers revolted. Recall drives were launched against Governor Blanchard and 14 state senators who supported the tax hike. Citizens launching these recalls were not taken seriously at first because no governor or state lawmaker had ever been recalled in the history of Michigan. Why?
Recalls of state officials are difficult. First, there are a huge number of petition signatures that citizens must collect. To recall a governor, citizens must collect valid signatures equal to 25% of the total number of votes cast for governor in the last gubernatorial election. That meant about 750,000 signatures in 1983, and would mean nearly one million signatures to recall Governor Granholm today. For a state representative or senator, citizens need signatures equal to 25% of the votes cast for governor in that lawmaker’s district. And they have only six months to do this.
The second reason recalls are hard is that the entire professional political establishment lines up against them. In 1983, citizens launching the recalls faced hostile local boards of canvassers (appointed partisan election officials) who ruled that the recall petition language was “unclear.” Some of these local canvassers even refused to attend scheduled meetings so that a quorum could not be present to certify recall petitions.
Having the law on your side didn’t always mean having judges on your side. A circuit court judge halted one of the recall efforts, but was later overruled by the appeals court who found in favor of the citizens. Citizen recall organizers also faced legal intimidation in the form of lawsuits brought by the state Democratic Party.
These hurdles were too much to overcome in the Blanchard recall, which failed to collect sufficient signatures. But citizens succeeded collecting signatures and winning court battles in the recall efforts against two state senators, Phil Mastin (D-Pontiac) and David Serotkin (D-Mt. Clemens). Both faced special recall elections in November of 1983. They, and the political establishment, would not give up without a fight.
Both Serotkin and Mastin raised huge sums of money from Lansing interests to defeat the recall, outspending pro-recall citizens by better than 10-1 margins. Both had consultants, staffers and organized interests to campaign on their behalf for a “No” vote in the recall election.
Both were recalled by voters by better than 2-1 margins. …
So.. what can we do? We can do plenty. We can use Saul Alinsky tactics right back at them. You can learn what those are exactly by reading my letter to the President from a few months ago. It lists them in detail and how they are using them against us.
We can call, write or fax every day! Make an email out once a week with pertinent issues and email it every day to their offices. It will only take you a few minutes a week, but will help pile it up, for future reference if nothing else. They are REQUIRED to keep every email, letter, fax, etc.. It will also give you a sense of empowerment, knowing you are doing something.
We can all work hard over the next year to stalemate, if not change, the course of what happens in Washington.
We can work to change the law.
Please, get involved.
I will do my best to find out more on this bill and will cover it in my weekend post.
I do know our health is in mortal danger. I do know they will be stopping payment of preventative tests for seniors over 75. To what degree, I can only pledge to try to find out.
Please stop back over the weekend to learn more.
Pink Slip Time
If you have not done so, it’s time to Pink Slip Congress
World Net Daily is sponsoring the “Pink Slip” campaign and will, for $29.95, express deliver a pink slip with your name and address to each member of the house and senate.
Send your pink slips to every member of the House and Senate now for just $29.95
“The pink slips program is a great way to get the attention of members who have forgotten they will have to answer to the people next year on out-of-control spending and Washington power grabs,” Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn. said of the campaign, “I support it! And I want my constituents to know I hear them loud and clear.”
Many can not afford that proposition, although, it is a wonderful idea, full of merit. Therefore, we present two alternatives here:
Diana Wingfield has come up with a black and white version in Word, that can be printed in black ink, 2 to a page. Just buy pink paper, which you may download here: DianasPinkSlip.doc
Ken Lowder, came up with a .PDF version which can be printed on postcard stock, available at your office supply, 4 per side, which you may download here:
pinkfront.pdf pinkback.pdf
Here are the original 6 image files in a .ZIP file which has a front and back file for each format and a Word file with the entire Congressional snail mail database. Post card.zip
Congressional traditional mail database:Congressional mailing and phone list.doc
Lastly, for those who may not be able to afford postage, or those who find it simpler to email their members, I have included an email version for you here. You have my permission to cut and paste this into an email. Here is the Congressional email address list which also has the fax numbers in case you wish to communicate the pink slip in that way: http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm
|
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
Stand Tall, America, Clinging To Your Gun(s)
Since when is our Constitution up for debate? I am disgusted by the constant attacks on the very foundation of our country. There are those in government, our president for one, who would just as soon see all weapons stripped from law abiding citizens. The second amendment is clear:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
President James Monroe said: “The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals.”
President Thomas Jefferson said:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson‘s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
Can it be any clearer than that?
Progressives, Fascists and Marxists strive to remove from the citizenry the ability to defend themselves.
Those same persons and groups are determined to legislate “We The People” back in to slavery for the servitude of the government.
Alan Keyes has a very clear stance on the Second Amendment :
Presently, pending in the House, are two diametrically opposed bills:
H.R. 17 Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2009
OpenCongress Summary
In correlation with the restrictions outlined by the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, this bill protects and provides context for the possession and use of fire arms, namely in defense of the self or family (or, when relevant, the home) against a reasonably perceived threat of unlawful bodily injury or violent felony.
This bill is sponsored by Roscoe Bartlett (R) MD and has 21 co-sponsors, including Michele Bachmann.
Please check the link above to ensure your Representative is a co-sponsor, and if not, get on the phone!
The other bill, which seeks to impinge upon our second amendment rights, is H.R. 45 Blair-Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
The Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act would establish a nationwide system for prohibiting unlicensed gun-ownership. If approved, the law would require gun owners to apply for five-year licenses to own firearms, and would give the U.S. Attorney General broad authority over the program.
This bill is sponsored by Bobby Rush (D) IL and the good news is it has zero co-sponsors. This man MUST GO!
I have received, as have many of my friends, an email circulating regarding fictitious SB 2099. Open Congress says:
Over the past six months or so, I’ve seen an occasional e-mail about SB 2099, a bill that would supposedly require gun owners to declare their firearms on tax forms. During the past few days, however, the volume of questions about the bill has increased. So, I thought I would write a bit about SB 2099 to try and set the record straight…In short, an inaccurate rumor from 2000 is still running the rounds today, and still scaring people into writing the NRA and their lawmakers to stop it, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
Even Archie Bunker had the right idea:
Some enlightening recent articles on the subject:
A Brief History of the Right to Self-Defense
by Bob Heinritz Posted at HumanEvents.com
11/10/2009
For the first 150-years of the existence of the U.S.A., the right of citizens to carry arms was so fundamental it was not considered worthy of debate. The Founders considered their right to keep and bear arms the ultimate and most fundamental guarantee of life and freedom against crime, foreign invasion, and as a last resort, a despotic government. No knowledgeable American–from the founding of the United States through the mid-1950’s–would have questioned that the Second Amendment to the Constitution meant exactly what it says, “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This was not a right of a Militia. The “Militia” was–and under current law still is–all able-bodied adults, who are expected to keep their privately-owned arms similar to what is used by the military at the time.Nineteenth-century U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story, called the American right to bear arms “the palladium of the liberties of the republic.” Our Founders believed that in a free society good citizens must always be prepared to defend themselves and their country. Thomas Jefferson said, “The God who gave us life, gave us freedom to defend life.” Being armed was more than a right. It was a moral obligation of citizenship.
The article goes on to detail what has happened in other countries on the subject of guns and gun control and is one of the most concise pieces I have seen on the subject. Extremely poignant and interesting. It concludes:
…You won’t see this data on the American evening news or hear our President, governors or other politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property. Guns in the hands of honest citizens preserve freedom and dignity — from both criminal and government predators. And, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. The gun-control party is now in the majority in Congress. Take note before it’s too late. The next time a politician talks in favor of gun-control, please remind all who are listening of the lesson of history. All credible scholarship indicates so-called “gun-control” laws never work, are dangerous to the rights of the law-abiding, and are inconsistent with the values on which the United States were founded. The Founders of America had it right. With guns, we are “citizens.” Without them, we are “subjects.” Please spread this civil-rights message — the right to life — to all of your friends, and especially all your government servants. You don’t work for them. They work for you.
Another fantastic article I recently came upon was through the Buckeye Firearms Association:
Obama administration backs U.N.’s pursuit of international gun control treaty By Chad D. Baus
Reuters is reporting that the Obama administration has reversed U.S. policy and said it would back launching talks on a United Nations treaty to regulate arms sales, a move that is pro-gun activists warn is one giant leap toward side-stepping Congress and overturning the Second Amendment.
From the story:
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush’s administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, “operates under the rules of consensus decision-making.”
“Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly,” Clinton said in a written statement.
Although President Obama is clearly doing their bidding, gun control extremists are still not happy, saying they are opposed to the proposed concensus rules because decisions on the treaty be made by consensus “could fatally weaken a final deal.”
“The shift in position by the world’s biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers,” Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.
However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus “could fatally weaken a final deal.”
“Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause,” said Oxfam International’s policy adviser Debbie Hillier.
The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.
Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.
Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.
The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better.
The change in policy is opposed by the National Rifle Association, as well as by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which is quoted as saying the treaty will not restrict the access of “dictators and terrorists” to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people…….
Stand tall America and defend your second amendment rights!
More Troubling Headlines for H1N1 Vaccine
THE STRANGE CASE OF JOSEPH MOSHE
Dr. Roby Mitchell, MD H1N1 Vaccine Does Not Work People Used As Human Guinea Pigs
H1N1 Vaccine and Spontaneous Abortions. Just a Coincidence?
There have been many reports. This link contains several reports from the women themselves.
Canadian Doctor: H1N1 Vaccination a Eugenics Weapon for Mass Extermination (via realneo)
Canadian doctor Ghislaine Lanctôt, author of the Medical Mafia, has underscored the lawsuit recently filed by Austrian journalist Jane Bürgermeister against the WHO, the UN, and several high ranking government and corporate officials. Bürgermeister has documented how an international corporate criminal syndicate plans to unleash a deadly flu virus and institute a forced vaccination program.
“I am emerging from a long silence on the subject of vaccination, because I feel that, this time, the stakes involved are huge. The consequences may spread much further than anticipated,” writes Lanctôt, who believes the A(H1N1) virus will be used in a pandemic concocted and orchestrated by the WHO, an international organization that serves military, political and industrial interests.
In her book The Medical Mafia, Lanctôt writes about the ineffectiveness and dangers of vaccination. “Because of my professional status, my words weighed significantly in the public eye. The Medical Board’s reaction was immediate and strong. Its leaders demanded that I resign as a physician. I answered that I would do so as long as they could prove that what I had written was false. The Medical Board replied with a call for my expulsion,” she writes. “As I witnessed the disproportionate reaction of the Medical Board, I realized that, for the health establishment, the subject of vaccination was taboo. Unknowingly, I had opened a Pandora’s box. I discovered that, despite official claims, vaccines have nothing to do with public health. Underneath the governmental stamp of approval, there are deep military, political and industrial interests.”
During her trial in 1995, Lanctôt used an episode from the March 11th, 1979, 60 Minutes TV show covering the massive vaccination program foisted on the American public supposedly in response to the 1976 swine flu outbreak. It was later established by the CDC that the virus originated out of Fort Dix in New Jersey. “The Fort Dix outbreak may have been a zoonotic anomaly caused by introduction of an animal virus into a stressed population in close contact in crowded facilities during a cold winter,” note Joel C. Gaydos, Franklin H. Top, Jr, Richard A. Hodder, and Philip K. Russell.
It was also characterized “a rare example of an influenza virus with documented human to human transmission,” according to Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. The virus is “thought to be a direct descendant of the virus that caused the pandemic of 1918,” explained Richard Krause, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the time.
“Public health experts, fearing a possible replay of the 1918 pandemic, engaged in an intense debate about how to respond. Eventually they launched a nationwide vaccination campaign, which was announced by President Gerald Ford in March. By the end of the year, 48 million people had been vaccinated,” write Robert Roos and Lisa Schnirring of the Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy. “But the feared pandemic never materialized.”
Instead, numerous people came down with Guillian-Barre syndrome, a paralyzing neurologic illness, after receiving the government-hyped vaccination.
More than 33 years later, according to Dr. Russell Blaylock, a board certified neurosurgeon, “we are hearing the same cries of alarm from a similar lineup of virology experts. The pharmaceutical companies are busy designing a vaccine for the swine flu in hope that this administration will make the vaccine mandatory before another vaccine-related disaster can ruin their party…. Like SARS and bird flu before it, this swine flu scare is a lot of nonsense. Just take your high dose vitamin D3 (5000 IU a day), eat a healthy diet and take a few immune boosting supplements (such as beta-1, 3/1, 6 glucan) and you will not have to worry about this flu.”
According to a source known to former NSA official Wayne Madsen, “A top scientist for the United Nations, who has examined the outbreak of the deadly Ebola virus in Africa, as well as HIV/AIDS victims, concluded that H1N1 possesses certain transmission “vectors” that suggest that the new flu strain has been genetically-manufactured as a military biological warfare weapon.
In April, Army criminal investigators were looking into the possibility that disease samples went missing from biolabs at Fort Detrick. “Chad Jones, spokesman for Fort Meade, said CID is investigating the possibility of missing virus samples from the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases,” the Frederick News Post reported. “Obviously, in light of the current swine flu scare, and the new strain’s possible synthetic origin, the fact that virus samples may have gone missing from the same Army research lab from which the 2001 anthrax strain was released is extremely disturbing,” Paul Joseph Watson wrote at the time.
Jane Bürgermeister “charges that the entire ’swine flu’ pandemic business is premised on a massive lie that there is no natural virus out there that poses a threat to the population,” writes Barbara Minton for Natural Health News. “She presents evidence leading to the belief that the bird flu and swine flu viruses have, in fact, been bioengineered in laboratories using funding supplied by the WHO and other government agencies, among others. This ’swine flu’ is a hybrid of part swine flu, part human flu and part bird flu, something that can only come from laboratories according to many experts.”
The Original 1976 60 minutes Swine Flu Interview
Part 1
Part 2
In an attempt to overcome skeptisism the White House, proficcient in propaganda, announced a contest.On July 9, 2009, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced a video PSA contest on flu prevention. The top ten videos were put to vote on YouTube for the public to select the overall winner. These are those top ten videos plus a special Spanish-language mention. The videos are featured on the www.flu.gov website.
RELATED ARTICLES:
The H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic: Manipulating the Data to Justify a Worldwide Public Health Emergency
Our Lives at Risk: Drug Company Greed, Dangerous Vaccines, No Precautionary Principle
H1N1, Global Conspiracies, and Amerikan Gulags
SWINE FLU PANDEMIC IS MAN-MADE
Obama Swine Flu National Emergencey: Evidences Vaccine Market-Building for Mass Murder
Switzerland Authorises Two Pandemic Vaccines
Switzerland Forbids Vaccine for Pregnant Women, Young and Elderly
Medical Workers Balk At Mandatory Flu Vaccines
Mass Vaccinations to Keep Flu at Bay for 2010 Winter Olympics
Many Italian Doctors Reject Swine Flu Vaccine
Google Announces Flu Shot Locator Database
Death After H1N1 Vaccine May Scare People Off
Teen Diagnosed With Guillain-Barre Syndrome After Swine Flu Shot
Polish Health Minister Says NO to H1N1 Vaccine for Entire Country:
Previous Soldier For Liberty Columns On the Subject :
Council on Foreign Relations Calls H1N1 Vaccine Skeptics CRAZY!
H1N1 Power.gov – Flu in the Age of Obama:This Flu May Take Your Freedom
Death by Injection or By Legislation ?
Is President Obama A Muslim?- In Context of Ft Hood, Afghanistan, NY Trial Decision
Nidal Hasan
Uniformed Services University School of Medicine
This is also a rehash, but worth reconsideration.
This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. Name: Barry Soetoro
Religion: Islam
Nationality: Indonesian
How did little INDONESIAN, Barry Soetoro, (A.K.A. Barack Obama) get around the issue of nationality to become president?
PART 2:
| In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College .
Released recently, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school.
|
The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.
The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program.
To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
Please see last week’s column for how all this may have impacted our government’s ability or the President’s willingness to take appropriate actions to forestall events at Fort Hood.
If he is Muslim, what, if any, impact would this have in his ability to keep Americans safe, to be commander in chief during a time we are at war in a Muslim country, to assess the dangers of holding the trials of Radical Muslim Terrorists within the United States with full Constitutional rights? Only he can answer, but it’s up to American citizens to ask, and ask loudly!
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
In Loving Memory of My Big Brother
In Loving Memory
Veteran, Patriot, Seeker of Truth and Justice
My Big Brother
Joseph D. Mirto, III
who passed away Friday, November 13, 2009
after a valiant battle with cancer.
He could not attend attend Saturday’s Tea Parties
but he was there in spirit.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
Immigration Bill 2010 as Administration Lays Yet Another Faulty Claim
I can’t even hold in my rage for this administration at this point. I came across an article in the Washington Times Friday:
Immigration Bill Is Promoted for 2010 – Napolitano says time is right
Declaring success in border security and immigration enforcement, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Friday that the federal government has done its work and now it’s time for Congress to pass a broad bill to legalize illegal immigrants.
Her speech signals President Obama will make good on his promise to push Congress to pass an immigration bill next year – adding yet another hot-button issue to an already long and contentious list.
Ms. Napolitano said members of Congress and voters who balked at an immigration bill two years ago, fearing a repeat of the 1986 amnesty that only made the problem worse, can be assured this time is different. She said in those two years, the flow of illegal immigrants across the border has dropped dramatically and the government is doing more to catch fugitive aliens inside the U.S.
“The security of the southwest border has been transformed from where it was in 2007,” she said in a speech to the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “The federal government has dedicated unprecedented resources to the Mexican border in terms of manpower, technology and infrastructure – and it’s made a real difference.”
Who are they trying to kid? Once again, they are living in some alternative reality. If, in fact, illegal aliens are coming across the border fewer in number, it is because there are no jobs here – hello??? The U.S. looks more and more like Mexico every day. Why bother?
Who’s to say there are fewer, though? If they know exactly how many illegal aliens are coming over than why can’t they stop them? Obviously, they don’t want to. It doesn’t meet with their agenda. Neither did it meet with the agenda of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc…. I am sick of it!
This administration has done nothing to foster border security. The only “work” it’s done is to push for more free benefits for illegals on the backs of hard working LEGAL citizens who don’t qualify for the same free handouts. Redistribution of our so-called “wealth” to those of foreign lands is becoming the norm for this administration and according to their agenda will continue as long as progressives are allowed control.
According to Federation for American Immigration Reform (F.A.I.R), if the administration was serious about advancing national security, it would:
* Reverse course and welcome the assistance of local jurisdictions that aggressively identify illegal aliens for deportation.
Instead they are going after Sheriff Joe Arpaio
* Push for the E-Verify system to be adopted as a national requirement for all employers and all workers. In the meantime, implementation of the “no-match” letter screening system would represent a significant deterrent to the mass illegal immigration that compromises border security.
E-Verify was to go into effect in January, then the Obama administration delayed implementation until June, then again until September. They wanted more time to review the program. Yeah, right. They didn’t want to alienate millions of potential future voters. And, of course with groups like ACORN around, they won’t even need to prove citizenship in order to vote.
* Withdraw support for an amnesty for illegal aliens and, thereby, convey the message abroad that the United States is serious about enforcing its immigration laws.
An article in the Washington Times clearly recalls the President’s words recently during the health care debate:
- President Obama said this week that his health care plan won’t cover illegal immigrants, but argued that’s all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.
- He also staked out a position that anyone in the country legally should be covered – a major break with the 1996 welfare reform bill, which limited most federal public assistance programs only to citizens and longtime immigrants.
* Rapidly pursue implementation of a comprehensive electronic database that matches entry and departure of foreign visitors, and expand the special tracking database for students to include all long-term visitors.
*Reverse the recent expansion of the Visa Waiver Program that allows the entry of nationals of 35 countries to enter without consular screening and gradually eliminate it.
*Tighten the criteria for admission of nationals of countries with active terrorist organizations in the refugee and asylum programs.
Not to mention a porous border allows anyone to walk right in. Although the massacre at Fort Hood was done by a natural born citizen, it does remind us there are segments of the population, legal or otherwise who are out to get us.
Today, Saturday, November 14, 2009, at least 53 cities are holding teaparty protests:
Tea Parties Against Amnesty and Illegal Immigration held in over 53 cities and towns tomorrow, Saturday, Nov. 14, 2009.
These events are designed to unify Americans of all races, faiths, and political parties who represent the 78% found in a recent Pulse Opinion poll who oppose any path to citizenship or any form of Amnesty for illegal immigrants currently in the United States.
New details are being added to our listing of these events online each hour.
Event times, locations, details, and organizer contact information can be found on our EVENT LOCATIONS page at www.AgainstAmnesty.com
F.A.I.R. presents the following facts for your consideration:
The general public overwhelmingly favors immigration reform. Poll after poll shows that Americans want well-enforced, sensible, and sustainable immigration laws.
- 68% oppose the creation of sanctuary cities (jurisdictions that have a policy of not enforcing immigration law) with only 13% in favor (Rasmussen, October 2009).
- 73% of Americans want to see a decrease in illegal immigration, while only 3% believe there should be an increase (CNN, October 2009).
- 56% of Mexicans believe that granting amnesty to illegal aliens in the United States would make it more likely that people they know would attempt to illegally migrate to United States. Only 17% think it would make people less likely to migrate illegally to the United States (Zogby, October 2009).
- 65% of Mexicans who have a member of their immediate household in the United States said that amnesty would make people they know more likely to attempt to illegally migrate to America (Zogby, October 2009).
- 55% of Mexicans who expressed a desire to migrate to the U.S. said they would attempt to enter the U.S. illegally (Pew Hispanic Center, September 2009).
- 56% of U.S. voters believe that the policies of the federal government encourage illegal immigration (Rasmussen, October 2009).
- 83% of U.S. voters say that citizenship verification should be part of any health care reform legislation (Rasmussen, September 2009).
- 78% of likely U.S. voters believe that mass immigration has adversely impacted the quality and cost of the U.S. health care system (Pulse Opinion Research, August 2009).
- 78% of likely U.S. voters oppose amnesty, with 19% in favor. 88% of African-Americans oppose amnesty. (Pulse Opinion Research, August 2009).
- 70% of American voters feel that increased border control should be the most important priority in immigration reform. Only 22% prioritized legalization of illegal aliens (Rasmussen, August 2009).
- 50% of American think immigration to the U.S. should be decreased, while only 14% want to see an increase in immigration to the U.S. (Gallup, August 2009).
- 68% of adults think limiting care to illegal aliens is a good to excellent way to reduce overall health care costs (Zogby, July 2009).
- 80% of likely voters oppose healthcare coverage for illegal aliens (Rasmussen, June 2009).
- 67% of liberals and progressives believe that the level of immigration into the U.S. is too high (Pulse Opinion, April 2009).
- 68% believe that employers who hire illegal aliens should be punished (Rasmussen, March 2009).
- 79% of voters say the military should be used along the border with Mexico (Rasmussen, March 2009).
- 73% believe law enforcement officers should check immigration status during traffic stops (Rasmussen, March 2009).
- Only 32% of Obama voters considered his support for amnesty as a factor in their decisions to vote for him (Zogby, November 2008).
| Summary Demographic National Data (and Source) | |
|---|---|
|
Population (2008 CB est.):
|
304,059,724 |
| Population (2000 Census): | 281,421,906 |
| Foreign-Born Population (2008 FAIR est.): | 38,110,000 |
| Foreign-Born Population (2000 Census): | 31,107,573 |
| Share Foreign Born (2008 FAIR est.) | 12.5% |
| Share Foreign-Born (2000 Census) | 11.1% |
| Immigrant Stock (2000 CB est.): | 55,890,000 |
| Share Immigrant Stock (2000 est.): | 20.4% |
| Naturalized U.S. Citizens (2000 Census): | 12,542,626 |
| Share Naturalized (2000): | 40.3% |
| Immigrant Admissions (DHS 1997-2006): | 9,105,162 |
| Illegal Alien Population (2008 FAIR est.): | 13,010,000 |
| Projected Population – 2025 (2006 FAIR): | 364,237,000 |
We pay for immigration through federal taxes
Much of the cost for immigration is paid by the states and municipalities, but a lot is paid for by the federal government too. Illegal immigrants receive taxpayer support for their U.S.-born children, immunizations, subsidized public health and other programs. Legal immigrants are eligible for almost all federal programs with the exception of welfare, which generally is not available for the first five years in the country. In many areas, such as education, the federal government gives matching grants for state expenditures, which means paying twice for those costs of immigration. When states hand a bill to the federal government for the costs of immigration (as is provided for by law in the case of incarceration of illegal immigrants, emergency medical expenditures, or welfare programs for the illegal aliens who were given amnesty in 1986), it is you who will pay regardless of where you live.
The United States is a vast country; it is easy to be deceived into thinking that what goes on in other states does not affect us. But, directly or indirectly, the impact of mass immigration on our country hits us all and hits us hard. For that reason, all Americans should demand that their elected representatives reduce the price they are paying for immigration. The best way to cut those costs is deter illegal immigration and to reduce immigration itself back towards a more moderate level.
The Tyranny of Change: America in the Progressive Era, John Whiteclay Chambers, 1992.
Why Today’s Immigration is a Worse Problem than the Great Wave
Supporters of today’s mass immigration like to claim that we should not be concerned about it, because it is no worse than the Great Wave of immigration at the turn of the last century. But in fact, because times have changed greatly in the last one hundred years, immigration now is much more out of sync with our country’s needs than it was at the turn of the last century.
Today We Need Skilled Workers
In the economy of the Gilded Age (rapid industrial expansion), low-skilled workers were highly employable. New mechanical devices and processes were being introduced that did away with the need for workers with special industrial skills and know-how. As the U.S. Industrial Commission pointed out: “The fact that machinery and the division of labor opens a place for the unskilled immigrants makes it possible not only to get the advantages of machinery, but also to get the advantages of cheap labor.” However, modern technology requires skilled workers, not unskilled ones. Yet, in 2001, only 16 percent of legal immigrants were admitted as skilled workers.
Today’s Immigrants are Permanent and Create Net Costs
Before 1900, there may have been some marginal fiscal gain from immigration. Today, the estimated annual net cost of each immigrant, on average, is $2700. Then, immigrants’ stay in the U.S. was often temporary; today’s immigrants are here to stay. The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that the rate of return from 1900 to 1904 was over 37 percent; in the 1990s, the rate of immigrants’ return to their homelands was a much lower 15 percent.
Today Assimilation is Held Back
Ethnic ghettoization and its retardation of assimilation is more serious now than a hundred years ago. At that time, only rarely did a single ethnic group dominate an area of several city blocks, and even then many immigrants moved out of such areas. Now, ethnic enclaves are huge and growing; in the city of Miami, for example, nearly half of the population speaks English poorly or not at all, and 73 percent speak a language other than English at home.
Even at the turn of last century, it was known that the era of needed expansion in the U.S. was at an end. At the 1893 meeting of the American Historical Society, Frederick Jackson Turner began his paper on “The Significance of the Frontier in American History” by noting that the Bureau of the Census had just announced that there was no longer a continuous lie of free unsettled land visible on the U.S. map. The American “frontier” had closed…
Alien Nation, Peter Brimelow, 1995.
Today Our Country is No Longer Empty
During those frontier days, we had a vast empty country and states actively recruited immigrants. Now, our country is increasingly congested and communities pass ordinances to limit the growth of their populations. In 1900, the number of people per square mile in the United States was 25.6; in 2002, it was 82 people per square mile—a more than three times greater population density.
Today We Have Chain Migration
At the turn of the last century, having relatives in the United States made it logistically easier to immigrate here; it did not, however, guarantee that you would be admitted. At the turn of this century, having near relatives in the United States makes you legally eligible to immigrate and guarantees you eventual admission. In 2001, 64 percent of legal immigrants were admitted simply because they had a relative here. Due to the eligibility of the foreign relatives of immigrants, there is a line of several million aliens waiting and eligible for admission as immigrants to the United States.
S.729 – DREAM Act of 2009
A bill to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to permit States to determine State residency for higher education purposes and to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain alien students who are long-term United States residents and who entered the United States as children, and for other purposes.
This bill would give states the authority to repeal the denial of an unlawful alien’s eligibility for higher education benefits, which have been previously tied state-residency. Additionally, it allows for the adjustment from status of alien to conditional permanent resident and outlines the criteria for such an adjustment by the Secretary of Homeland Security. The bill and its equivalent in the House, H.R.1751, is just as controversial as most other immigration related bills, such as, H.R.1868, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009.
At my last count, 10 states allowed for in-state tuition for illegal aliens and three even allowed for them to receive financial help with that tuition. Does this seem fair to you? To me it seems as if this is another benefit not given to legal citizens of this country.
In any other country, including Mexico, there are strict penalties for illegal entry, but yet, those of us in favor of halting illegal immigration are called unreasonable. More suicidal progressive initiatives dressed up as political correctness.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 5 so far )
George Soros and the Catholic Church Align? The Devil’s In The Details
The critical role of the Catholic Church in passing national health care reform legislation is coming under serious media scrutiny. But the story has taken a strange turn. It has now been revealed that George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund operator and well-known atheist, has been pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into “progressive” Catholic groups that are significant players in the national debates over health care and immigration.
On the surface, it would appear that Soros would be opposed to many positions of the Catholic Church. A major financial backer of the ACLU, Soros supports such causes as drug legalization, the rights of “sex workers” and felons, euthanasia, radical feminism, abortion rights, and homosexual rights. He does all of this in the name of promoting an “open society.”
2008
To provide general support to the Air Traffic Control Education Fund, which helps musicians use their talent and high profiles to effect social change by connecting them to activists, organizations, and issue campaigns.
Oakland, CA | $100,000 | 2 years | www.atctower.net
2009
To support Air Traffic Control, an Oakland-based organization which supports musicians and managers in lending their talents to social justice by connecting concerned artists to activists, advocacy organizations and issue advocacy campaigns.
Oakland, CA | $125,000 | 3 years | www.atctower.net
2009
To support American Rights at Work Education Fund (ARAWEF), a national organization which advances workers’ rights for people seeking a voice and better conditions on the job. ARAWEF builds diverse coalitions, conducts public education campaigns, and builds innovative engagement efforts to engage community and business support.
Washington, D.C. | $150,000 | 1 year | www.americanrightsatwork.org
2008
To support Yalla Vote, a civic education and nonpartisan voter engagement project to increase civic engagement of the Arab American community in the 2008 election and beyond.
Washington, D.C. | $75,000 | 1 year | www.aaiusa.org/foundation
2008
To provide general support to Asian Pacific Islander American Vote, a national non-partisan organization that encourages local nonprofits working in Asian American communities to build civic and voter engagement activities into their work.
Washington, D.C. | $250,000 | 2 years | www.apiavote.org
2009
To support the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Foundation, which provides social justice organizations with education, research, and strategic assistance on ballot initiatives and referendums at the local and state levels across the nation.
Washington, D.C. | $100,000 | 2 years | www.ballot.org
2009
A grant to support the Bus Federation, a unique coalition of five state organizations in Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington that seek to engage young people in civic engagement work and develop them as leaders.
Portland, OR | $150,000 | 2 years | www.busfederation.com
2009
A grant to support Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, a national organization that educates Catholics and the broader public about the Catholic social justice vision of the common good and connects that vision to specific advocacy efforts.
Washington, D.C. | $100,000 | 1 year | www.catholicsinalliance.org
2009
A grant to support the Center for American Progress, one of the nation’s largest progressive think tanks.
Washington, D.C. | $1,000,000 | 2 years | www.americanprogress.org
2008
To support Campus Progress, which seeks to cultivate a new generation of writers, policy analysts, communications specialists, and activists to build a progressive movement in which young leaders play a leading role in achieving lasting gains for this country.
Washington, D.C. | $500,000 | 2 years | www.campusprogres.org
2009
To support Center for Civic Policy, which utilizes innovative strategies to build 501c3 nonpartisan civic engagement capacity and advances social justice at the state and local levels.
Albuquerque, NM | $200,000 | 2 years | www.civicpolicy.com
2008
To support the national convening of the Civic Engagement Networks Project, an emerging effort that includes participation from the Center for Community Change’s Community Voting Project; National Coalition for Black Civic Participation; Pushback Network; State Voices; and the We Are America Alliance.
Albuquerque, NM | $25,000 | 1 year | www.civicpolicy.org
2008
To provide general support for the Center for Community Change, a national organization and resource center for grassroots organizations, which seeks to build the power and capacity of low-income people, particularly people of color, to change their communities and the public policies that affect their lives.
Washington, D.C. | $600,000 | 1 year | www.communitychange.org
2009
To support the Center for Community Change, a national resource center for grassroots social justice organizations, with a particular emphasis on groups working in low-income, people of color and immigrant communities.
Washington, DC | $930,000 | 1 year | www.communitychange.org
2008
To support the Center for Community Change’s Fair Immigration Reform Movement, a national grassroots coalition of immigrant rights organizations working for comprehensive immigration reform.
Washington, D.C. | $250,000 | 1 year | www.communitychange.org
2009
To support Generation Change, a project of the Center for Community Change, which recruits, trains, and sustains the next generation of community organizers and social justice nonprofit leaders.
Washington, D.C. | $300,000 | 1 year | www.communitychange.org/our-projects/generationchange
2009
A grant to support the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest, an advocacy organization that protects the ability of nonprofits to engage in lobbying and other forms of advocacy.
Washington, D.C. | $50,000 | 1 year | www.clpi.org
2008
To support the Center for Progressive Leadership, a national training institute dedicated to developing the next generation of progressive political leaders through intensive training programs for youth, advocates, and future candidates.
Washington, D.C. | $200,000 | 2 years | www.progressleaders.org
2009
To support the Student PIRGs, a national organization which facilitates non-partisan student activism by recruiting and training college students to become engaged in policy campaigns, elections, and the political process.
Chicago, IL | $100,000 | 1 year | www.studentpirgs.org
2008
To provide general support for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, one of the nation’s premier policy organizations working at the federal and state levels on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals.
Washington, D.C. | $1,500,000 | 2 years | www.cbpp.org
2009
To support Choice USA, an organization which mobilizes and develops the skills of young people to be the leaders of a more inclusive and effective reproductive justice movement. This project was co-funded by the OSI Equality and Opportunity Fund.
Washington, D.C. | $150,000 | 1 year | www.choiceusa.org
2008
To provide general support to the Civic Engagement Fund, a re-granting fund dedicated to providing training, education, and technological resources to a national network of leaders and organizations that build capacity for nonpartisan civic engagement, public policy advocacy, and issue-related programs.
| $200,000 | 1 year
2008
To support the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute’s work as part of the State Fiscal Analysis Initiative, a network run out of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and which provides state-based research and policy support around budget, tax, and fiscal issues in state capitals in ways that advance the interests of low- and middle-income Americans. The Open Society Institute is part of a funding collaborative that divides up State Fiscal Analysis Initiative groups for grantmaking purposes.
Denver, CO | $150,000 | 2 years | www.cclponline.org
2009
To support Democracia U.S.A., a Miami-based national organization that advances civic engagement among the nation’s fasting growing demographic group by conducting nonpartisan voter registration and voter education in Latina/o communities.
Miami, FL | $500,000 | 2 years | www.democraciausa.org
2009
To support Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, a New York City-based think tank focused on conducting research and promoting progressive economic and social policies.
New York, NY | $350,000 | 2 years | www.drummajorinstitute.org
2008
To provide general support for the Drum Major Institute, a New York City-based think tank focused on promoting progressive economic and social policies, including DMI’s Scholars and Fellows program, focused on the development of a new generation of policy and advocacy leaders from diverse backgrounds.
|
New York, NY | $400,000 | 2 years | www.drummajorinstitute
Economic Policy Institute
2009 To support Economic Policy Institute, a Washington, DC-based policy center that researches the impact of economic trends and policies on working people in the United States and around the world. Washington, DC | $550,000 | 2 years | www.epi.org |
2008
To support the Mississippi Economic Policy Center’s work as part of the State Fiscal Analysis Initiative, a network run out of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and which provides state-based research and policy support around budget, tax, and fiscal issues in state capitals in ways that advance the interests of low- and middle-income Americans. The Open Society Institute is part of a funding collaborative that divides up State Fiscal Analysis Initiative groups for grantmaking purposes.
| $150,000 | 2 years | www.ecd.org
2009
A grant to support Faith in Public Life, a national strategy center advancing faith in the public square as a positive and unifying force for justice, compassion, and the common good. This grant is co-funded by U.S. Programs’ Equality and Opportunity Fund in recognition of Faith in Public Life’s work to advance comprehensive immigration reform.
Washington, D.C. | $450,000 | 2 years | www.faithinpubliclife.org
2008
To support the Four Freedoms Fund at Public Interest Projects, a collaborative grantmaking pool that addresses issues related to advancing the rights of immigrants, including a nonpartisan civic engagement initiative focused on building the civic engagement capacity of local immigrants’ rights organizations.
New York, NY | $300,000 | 1 year | www.fourfreedomsfund.org
2009
A grant to support the annual immigrant civic engagement convening for the Four Freedoms Fund at Public Interest Projects, a national funding collaborative established to safeguard immigrants’ civil rights and civil liberties and promote the full participation of immigrants in a democratic society.
New York, NY | $80,000 | 1 year | www.publicinterestprojects.org/projects/partner-and-collaborative-funds/fff
2009
A grant to support the Roosevelt Institute’s work on economic policy and its student-led network of campus think tanks that connect student ideas to advocacy. This grant is co-funded by the Seize the Day Initiative in recognition of Roosevelt’s leadership in creating a new economic paradigm.
Hyde Park, NY | $500,000 | 2 years | www.rooseveltinstitute.org
|
Funders’ Committee for Civic Participation
2009 A grant to support the Funders’ Committee for Civic Participation, a driving force in the donor community in advancing effective voter registration, education, and protection. Portland, OR | $100,000 | 2 years | http://funderscommittee.org |
2008
To support the Gamaliel Foundation, a network of grassroots, interfaith, interracial issue organizations working to build power and a more just society, in its Faith and Democracy Campaign, which combines faith and values work with organizing around issues at the state and national levels.
Chicago, IL | $300,000 | 2 years | www.gamaliel.org
2009
A grant to support the Generational Alliance, a national collaboration of youth engagement organizations working to empower low-income youth, youth of color, and LGBTQ youth through community organizing and non-partisan voter engagement, arts and culture, communication and media, policy, and leadership development.
Washington, D.C. | $100,000 | 2 years | www.generationalalliance.org
2009
A grant to support the Grassroots Institute for Fundraising Training, a national organization that promotes the connection between fundraising, social justice, and social justice movement building, particularly for people of color communities and organizations.
Oakland, CA | $100,000 | 1 year | www.grassrootsfundraising.org
2008
To provide general support to the Grassroots Policy Project, an educational and research organization working in partnership with grassroots community groups, activist networks, statewide coalitions and other training organizations to encourage strategic approaches to issues of social and economic justice.
Cambridge, MA | $100,000 | 2 years | www.grassrootspolicy.org
2009
To support the Hip Hop Caucus (HHC), an emerging national organization that inspires non-partisan voter participation and community engagement from the hip hop generation, specifically from young people who are not on college campuses. This grant is co-funded by U.S. Programs’ Campaign for Black Male Achievement in recognition of HHC’s work to advance civic participation from—and green jobs for—young Black men.
Washington, D.C. | $150,000 | 2 years | www.hiphopcaucus.org
2008
To provide general support for the Institute for America’s Future, which provides research, training, and communications assistance to organizations working on a wide spectrum of issues.
Washington, D.C. | $500,000 | 2 years | www.ourfuture.org
2008
To provide general support for the Interfaith Education Fund, which provides organizing, technical assistance, training, and research support to a broad-based network of local interfaith coalitions known as the Industrial Areas Foundation.
| $300,000 | 18 months | www.industrialareasfoundation.org
2009
To support the Funders’ Collaborative on Youth Organizing, a national intermediary that increases funding for youth organizing groups and develops strategies to promote to funders the importance of investment in the leadership of low-income youth of color in social justice organizing.
Brooklyn, NY | $150,000 | 18 months | www.fcyo.org
2008
To support the Kentucky Tax and Budget Initiative’s work as part of the State Fiscal Analysis Initiative, a network run out of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and which provides state-based research and policy support around budget, tax, and fiscal issues in state capitals in ways that advance the interests of low- and middle-income Americans. The Open Society Institute is part of a funding collaborative that divides up State Fiscal Analysis Initiative groups for grantmaking purposes.
Jeffersontown, KY | $75,000 | 1 year | www.kyyouth.org
2008
To provide general support for the League of Young Voters Education Fund, which engages and supports young people, particularly those who do not attend college, those from low-income communities, and youth of color, helping them to lead and actively participate in creating change in their communities.
| $600,000 | 2 years | www.theleague.com
2008
To support the Louisiana Budget Project’s work as part of the State Fiscal Analysis Initiative, a network run out of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and which provides state-based research and policy support around budget, tax, and fiscal issues in state capitals in ways that advance the interests of low- and middle-income Americans. The Open Society Institute is part of a funding collaborative that divides up State Fiscal Analysis Initiative groups for grantmaking purposes.
| $150,000 | 2 years | www.lano.org
2009
A grant to support the Movement Strategy Center for its work to strengthen the social justice movement through increasing the capacity of individuals, organizations, alliances, and sectors to be more strategic, collaborative, and sustainable.
Oakland, CA | $150,000 | 1 year | www.movementstrategy.org
2008
To provide general support for the Movement Strategy Center, which strengthens the progressive movement by teaching organizers and organizations training, movement building, and networking skills through capacity-building, convenings, and research and information.
Oakland, CA | $200,000 | 1 year | www.movementstrategy.org
2009
To support the National Domestic Workers Alliance, a New York City and Oakland-based coalition of 15 domestic worker organizations from 10 major cities that seeks to organize and build the power of domestic workers to improve their living and working conditions, bring visibility to the struggles of this unrecognized workforce, and end the exclusion of domestic workers from protection as a workforce.
| $200,000 | 2 years
2008
To support the National Organizers Alliance in launching a new web-based career center and job clearinghouse, “Organizers for America,” for community organizers seeking to work with civil rights, faith, issue, labor, and neighborhood organizations.
| $40,000 | 1 year | www.noacentral.org
2009
To support the National Training and Information Center (NTIC), a 36 year old national resource center that supports, strengthens, and coordinates multi-issue grassroots community organizations working for social and economic justice, on housing, fiscal service regulation, and immigration issues. (This project was co-funded by the OSI Equality and Opportunity Fund’s Neighborhood Stabilization Initiative and the Seize the Day special funding initiative.)
Chicago, IL | $600,000 | 2 years | www.ntic-us.org
2008
To support the New America Foundation’s Next Social Contract initiative, a domestic policy effort to develop a new metanarrative to assess how the American social contract evolved, why it fails to meet needs today, and how it can be reinvented for the conditions of a largely post-industrial and increasingly diverse society.
Washington, D.C. | $500,000 | 2 years | www.newamerica.net
2008
To support the New Democracy Project—a think tank and advocacy organization that promotes democratic participation, economic fairness, and social justice—and the Center for American Progress in producing an agency-by-agency guide for a new administration relying on leading scholars, authors, and former officals. (This project was co-funded by the OSI Equality and Opportunity Fund, National Security and Human Rights Campaign, and Transparency & Integrity Fund.)
| $100,000 | 1 year | www.newdemocracyproject.org
2008
To support the State Fiscal Analysis Initiative, a network run out of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and which provides state-based research and policy support around budget, tax, and fiscal issues in state capitals in ways that advance the interests of low- and middle-income Americans. The Open Society Institute is part of a funding collaborative that divides up State Fiscal Analysis Initiative groups for grantmaking purposes.
Trenton, NJ | $150,000 | 2 years | www.njpp.org
New Organizing Institute
2009
To support New Organizing Institute, a Washington, DC-based organization that enhances civic engagement and social justice organizing by enabling nonprofit groups to take advantage of the latest advances in new technology.
Washington, DC | $200,000 | 2 years | www.neworganizing.com
2009
To support the New York City-based National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights, a nationwide coalition of lawyers, academics, students and community activists that joined together in response to a series of Supreme Court decisions that have eroded civil rights protections, particularly in the area of federalism.
New York, NY | 300,000 | 18 months | www.rollbackcampaign.org
|
New York Lawyers for the Public Interest / Campaign to Restore Civil Rights
2008 To support the Campaign to Restore Civil Rights, a coalition of over eighty federal, state, and local organizations that seek restoration of key legal protections eroded by federal courts over the past decade. New York, NY | $200,000 | 1 year | www.rollbackcampaign.org
Nonprofit Voter Engagement Network
2009 A grant to support the Nonprofit Voter Engagement Network, a national alliance of direct and human service providers and agencies building the civic engagement capacity of the nonprofit social service sector. St. Paul, MN | $300,000 | 2 years | www.nonprofitvote.org |
2008
To support the State Fiscal Analysis Initiative, a network run out of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and which provides state-based research and policy support around budget, tax, and fiscal issues in state capitals in ways that advance the interests of low- and middle-income Americans. The Open Society Institute is part of a funding collaborative that divides up State Fiscal Analysis Initiative groups for grantmaking purposes.
Silverton, OR | $150,000 | 2 years | www.ocpp.org
2008
To provide general support for the Partnership for Working Families, which provides research and technical assistance to a network of metropolitan-based economic justice organizations focused on community benefit agreements.
Washington, D.C. | $350,000 | 2 years | www.communitybenefits.org
2009
A grant to support the Partnership for Working Families, a national network that provides policy, communications, research, organizing and legal resources to metro-based affiliates that are working to advance economic and social justice in their communities.
Washington, D.C. | $300,000 | 2 years | www.communitybenefits.org
2008
To support Young People For, which provides fellowships and internships to youth in an effort to diversify the leadership of social change movements, support young people to effect change, and sustain social change leadership over the long term.
Washington, D.C. | $400,000 | 1 year | www.youngpeoplefor.org
2009
To support the PICO National Network, a 36-year-old network of congregation-based community organizations which brings the voices of people of faith and faith leaders to the public debate on national priorities, including housing, health care, and immigration. (This project was co-funded by the OSI Equality and Opportunity Fund’s Neighborhood Stabilization Initiative and the Seize the Day special funding initiative.)
Oakland, CA | $600,000 | 2 years | www.piconetwork.org
2009
A grant to support the Progressive States Network for its work to provide non-partisan support to state legislators with background research on public policy and linking legislators and state advocates to each other across state lines.
New York, NY | $300,000 | 2 years | www.progressivestates.org
2009
A grant to support the Pushback Network, a national collaboration of grassroots groups and networks, that seeks to build “bottom-up” state-based alliances to increase civic participation by leaders from marginalized communities.
| $225,000 | 18 months | http://pushbacknetwork.org
|
Right to the City Alliance
2008 To support the Right to the City Alliance, an emerging national network of local base-building organizations and allies committed to building a movement for urban justice, human rights, and democracy, in a strategic planning and organizational assessment process. Brooklyn, NY | $100,000 | 9 months | www.righttothecity.org |
2009
To support Right to the City Alliance, a Brooklyn, NY-based emerging national alliance of more than 50 urban base-building organizations and allies committed to building a movement for urban justice, human rights, and democracy.
Brooklyn, NY | $500,000 | 2 years | www.righttothecity.org
|
Rockwood Leadership Program
2009 A grant to support the Rockwood Leadership Program, a national non-profit that promotes social change by providing individuals, organizations, and issue sectors with powerful and effective training in leadership and collaboration. Berkeley, CA | $400,000 | 2 years | www.rockwoodleadership.org |
2008
To support the Rockwood Leadership Program in conducting an independent, thorough evaluation of its programs, and to provide underwriting support for the incoming class of its most advanced offering, Leading from the Inside Out, the Rockwood Yearlong Fellowship for Social Change Leaders.
Berkeley, CA | $109,000 | 1 year | www.rockwoodleadership.org
2008
To provide general support for Ruckus Society, a capacity-building and intermediary organization that provides trainings to grassroots organizations and young individuals working on environmental, human rights, and social justice issues.
Oakland, CA | $100,000 | 2 years | www.ruckus.org
2009
To support the Harlem-based Social Justice Leadership which provides innovative high-quality leadership training to staff of community organizations, labor unions, and other grassroots social justice organizations in Miami, New Orleans, and New York City.
New York, NY | $100,000 | 1 year | www.sojustlead.org
|
State Voices
2008 To support State Voices, a network that supports year-round state tables for 501(c)(3) organizations that foster collaborative issue policy work, economies of scale, rigorous evaluation, and efforts to engage socially responsible and historically underrepresented communities in and out of election seasons. Detroit, MI | $200,000 | 2 years | www.statevoices.org |
2009
A grant to support State Voices, the convener and technical assistance provider for 16 permanent, year-round state tables for more than 545 diverse non-partisan 501(c)(3) organizations that foster collaborative voter engagement and multi-issue advocacy work.
Detroit, MI | $600,000 | 18 months | www.statevoices.org
2009
To support the Civic Engagement Fund, housed at State Voices, which provides shared voter file access, trainings, and technical and strategic support to more than 540 local, state, and national affiliate non-profit organizations seeking to enhance non-partisan voter participation in sixteen states.
Detroit, MI | $400,000 | 1 year | www.statevoices.org
2009
A grant to support Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a grassroots network of students who are concerned about the impact drug abuse has on communities and how the “War on Drugs” is failing.
Washington, D.C. | $100,000 | 2 years | www.ssdp.org
2008
To support the We Are America Alliance, an umbrella group of partners and allies dedicated to encouraging maximum civic participation in immigrant communities across the country.
| $200,000 | 1 year | www.weareamericaalliance.org
2008
To support the Opportunity Agenda, a social justice organization that works collaboratively with other organizations, spanning isolated issues and constituencies, to integrate strategic communications with those organizations’ advocacy and research. This grant was co-funded by the OSI Equality and Opportunity Fund.
New York, NY | $400,000 | 2 years | www.opportunityagenda.org
2009
To support WireTap Magazine, based in San Francisco, CA, an influential independent news and culture youth web magazine which amplifies the voices of young people from diverse backgrounds in order to shape the political discourse and spotlight issues that impact their lives.
| $200,000 | 2 years | www.wiretapmag.org
2008
To provide general support to the Tobin Project, an alliance of leading academics across the social sciences and humanities that redirects and harnesses academic work for public purposes and policy debates.
Cambridge, MA | $450,000 | 2 years | www.tobinproject.org
2009
A grant to support the Tobin Project, a network of leading academics from law, economics, history, politics, and policy working to reframe fundamental debates about foreign and domestic policy.
Cambridge, MA | $225,000 | 1 year | www.tobinproject.org
2009
A grant to support United for a Fair Economy’s Tax Fairness Organizing Collaborative, a national network of state-based organizations that educates and organizes for fair taxation at the state and local levels.
Boston, MA | $150,000 | 1 year | www.faireconomy.org/tfoc
2008
To provide general support for the United States Student Association Foundation, which provides education and organizing materials, technical assistance, and training to students in the United States Student Association network who are organizing on issues of access on the campus, state, and federal level.
Washington, D.C. | $600,000 | 2 years | www.usstudents.org
2008
To support the Center for State Innovation, an effort to provide policy advice and research to innovative state executives (governors, secretaries of state, attorneys general, and treasurers, primarily).
Madison, WI | $250,000 | 1 year | www.stateinnovation.org
Voto Latino
2009
A grant to support Voto Latino (VL), an emerging national organization that informs and motivates Latino youth to engage in civic participation by leveraging the latest technologies to promote positive change. This grant is co-funded by U.S. Programs’ Strategic Opportunities Fund in recognition of VL’s census outreach leadership and the Seize the Day Initiative in recognition of VL’s cutting edge use of new media outreach strategies.
Washington, D.C. | $225,000 | 2 years | www.votolatino.org
2009
To support Campus Camp Wellstone, a project of the Wellstone Action Fund, which runs trainings and develops curriculum for a diverse community of young people and organizations that seek to inspire greater activism from young people.
Minneapolis, MN | $200,000 | 2 years | www.wellstone.org/our-programs/campus-camp-wellstone
2008
To provide general support to the Western States Center, which seeks to build a movement for political reform and economic, racial and environmental justice in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Alaska.
Portland, OR | $100,000 | 1 year | www.westernstatescenter.org
|
Western States Center
2009 To support Western States Center, a Portland, OR-based organization that builds power to advance social justice through provide training, consultation and resources to a wide range of community and constituency-based organizations in the Pacific Northwest, Great Basin, and Intermountain West states. Portland, OR | $100,000 | 1 year | www.westernstatescenter.org |
2008
To support the Wisconsin Budget Project’s work as part of the State Fiscal Analysis Initiative, a network run out of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and which provides state-based research and policy support around budget, tax, and fiscal issues in state capitals in ways that advance the interests of low- and middle-income Americans. The Open Society Institute is part of a funding collaborative that divides up State Fiscal Analysis Initiative groups for grantmaking purposes.
Madison, WI | $150,000 | 2 years | www.wccf.org
|
Youth Engagement Fund and Table
2008 To support the Youth Engagement Fund and Table, which coordinates a 501(c)(3) table of national youth groups and their field programs aimed at mobilizing and permanently engaging young voters, ages 18-29. | $250,000 | 1 year |
2009
A grant to support the Youth Engagement Fund and Table housed at the Tides Foundation, a non-partisan 501(c)(3) collaborative table of youth civic engagement organizations that exists to increase the ability of each group to meet voter registration and mobilization goals.
| $150,000 | 18 months
Our Government More Concerned With Citizens Speech Than Terrorists
The Preamble of the Constitution of the clearly states:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
For almost a year before the terrorist attack by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the FBI had him in their sight.
In December, Hasan reportedly sent 10 to 20 e-mails to several terror-related Islamic figures, including Anwar Aulaqi, a radical imam from Virginia. Aulaqi has been openly propagandizing for al Qaeda in Yemen and who had ties to several of the 9/11 hijackers, sources told the LA Times.
“I think the very fact that you’ve got a major in the US Army contacting [a radical imam], or attempting to contact him, would raise some red flags,” Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) — ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee — told the Los Angeles Times.
Those messages, intercepted by a Joint Terrorism Task Force during an unrelated investigation, were later referred to FBI and Army investigators in Washington, officials said, but were dismissed as merely “research” and contained no explicit threats or plots.
As far back as June 2007, Hasan sounded what any normal citizen would view as an alarm bell, by giving a slide presentation to other doctors as what was supposed to be a presentation regarding soldier’s health issues. This presentation, available to view by clicking title, was called The Koranic World View as It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military . Clearly off topic, wouldn’t you say?
I am left to wonder why it’s all right to plot against America in the eyes of our government. It causes me to remember they had warning of the 9/11 attacks before that fateful day and did nothing to stop those as well, most likely simply dismissing these threats, for one reason or another. How many of our tax dollars go to fund the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security and the myriad of other government agencies supposedly dedicated to protecting “we the people”? No disrespect intended to the “boots on the ground” but rather management when I say, we are not getting our money’s worth.
World Net Daily reported a Council on American-Islamic Relations adviser and regular speaker at its events has suggested Islamic law permits Muslims to attack C-130 military transport planes carrying the 82nd Airborne out of Fort Bragg, N.C., according to a stunning new book, “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.” which exposed Washington-based CAIR’s inner workings.
Radical Islamic cleric Zaid Shakir, a frequent guest speaker at CAIR events, tells his Muslim audiences: “Jihad is physically fighting the enemies of Islam to protect and advance the religion of Islam. This is jihad.”
Acceptable targets of jihad, he says, include U.S. military aircraft.
“Islam doesn’t permit us to hijack airplanes filled with civilian people,” Shakir once told a Muslim audience. However, “If you hijack an airplane filled with the 82nd Airborne, that’s something else.”
The 82nd Airborne Division’s elite paratroopers fly out of Fort Bragg, N.C., which is part of North Carolina state Sen. Larry Shaw’s district. Shaw is CAIR’s new chairman.
Knowing this, what is being done to prevent such attacks? If recent history shows us, then perhaps nothing. Why, pray tell, do we outsource the protection of our military bases to private citizens? That seems absurd to me, beyond comprehension. I am afraid, however, it is now indicative of how our government works. Just as we outsource design and construction of our weaponry systems.
President Obama, in July, appointed a Muslim to a top post at Homeland Security. I am not suggesting all Muslims are terrorists or can not be trusted, but I can not get behind a Muslim with questionable sense of loyalties in a top position in our Dept. of Homeland Security given present conditions. FreeRepublic.com noted:
Obama made a presidential appointment of Muslim Los Angeles Deputy Mayor Arif Alikhan for a top job at the federal Department of Homeland Security. In his new job, Arif Alikhan will be Assistant Secretary for the Office of Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security. Alikhan has been Deputy Mayor of Los Angeles–in charge of public safety for the city.
Why Muslim Alikhan at the Department of Homeland Security you might ask? DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said Alikhan’s “broad and impressive array of experience in national security, emergency preparedness, and counterterrorism will make him an asset”–yes, but on behalf of the U.S. or Muslims? I am not sure what she is talking about and she probably doesn’t know either.
Alikhan says a big part of his job will be fostering communication between agencies. Alikhan, like Obama, also wants to help improve America’s image with Muslims around the world. He will now set policy on security at the highest levels of the federal government. But what policies has the new Assistant Secretary embraced?
During his years in Los Angeles, Alikhan was responsible for derailing the Police Department’s plan to monitor activities within the Los Angeles Muslim community, where numerous radical mosques and madrassas existed, and where some of the 9/11 hijackers had received support from local residents.
Alikhan is strongly anti-Israel; he has referred to the terrorist organization Hezbollah as a “liberation movement.” Hezbollah is on the U.S. official terrorist list while being an affiliate of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Alikhan also opposed President George W. Bush’s prosecution of the war on Islamic terror.
In 2007, Alikhan was instrumental in removing the Muslim terror tracking plan in Los Angeles. The Muslim ‘‘Mapping’’ Plan of the Los Angeles Police Department is now “dead on arrival” according to Chief William Bratton. “It is over and not just put on the side,” said Chief Bratton in a meeting with the Muslim leadership of Southern California at that time. The meeting was moderated by Arif Alikhan.
Chief Bratton acknowledged the hurt and offense caused to Muslims and agreed to send a letter to the Muslim community announcing the official termination of the ‘’mapping’’ plan.
A major reason for the termination of the ‘‘mapping’’ plan was the Muslim community’s vociferous opposition and active civic engagement in making themselves heard beyond Los Angeles. Muslim organizations demonstrated a strong unity of purpose and message on the issue of ‘’mapping’’ that led to a position of strength for Muslims in the meeting. Those involved in the initial phases of this controversy were the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California http://www.shuracouncil.org/ and the Council on American-Islamic Relations http://www.cair.com/ , the Muslim Public Affairs arm.
Muslim Democrats welcomed Alikhan’s appointment at a banquet/fundraiser for the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California recently where the first speaker was Arif Alikhan, a devout Sunni and the son of Pakistani immigrants, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,505573,00 .
Other speakers included Professor Agha Saeed of the American Muslim Task Force (AMT) who spoke about “the struggle of the Muslim Community against the pervasive atmosphere of Islamophobia and hatred in the aftermath of 9/11. It was a struggle against the tide–a very strong tide–to prevent Muslims in America from being marginalized and silenced.”
Professor Saeed issued five demands from Muslims to the Department of Justice. These demands included a cessation to the infiltration by spies of mosques and an end to the introduction of agents provocateur. In addition there was to be a cessation of attempts to undermine Muslim groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Un-indicted co-conspirator CAIR was thrilled at the appointment.
Last week, Napolitano swore in Damascus-born Kareem Shora, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)’s national executive director, to a position on the Homeland Security Advisory Council, an outside-the-department group of national security experts that advises the Secretary.
Shora is the first Arab rights advocate on the panel. Shora has with ties to terror backers.
I am not suggesting Muslims should have no place in America. I am suggesting they should be allowed to participate in accordance with their ability to assimilate. They are only as special as everyone else is special. That is the beauty of America. I am curious as to why our government doesn’t seem to mind this and insists we ignore this as well. Have we not learned any lessons? They are plotting against us in Islamic mosques and schools right here in America. Have they learned nothing from Europe?
Are you aware, despite being unconstitutional, we have a new branch of government known as Muslim Outreach through the State Department? In June, the State Dept announced, without fanfare so as not to call attention to the appointment, the selection of Farah Pandith, to carry out Obama’s strategy to reach out to Muslims worldwide. Furthermore, the new outreach program offers funding sources for various programs. In August, American Thinker pointed out the various aspects of the program.
I notice there’s no Baptist Outreach, Lutheran Outreach, and as a matter of fact, this past week, Representative Woosley (D) of California is calling for an IRS investigation of the Catholic Church for taking a stand on the Health Care “Reform” issue.
Can you imagine that our government fosters a religion with an agenda to take over the world? One which has a history of total disregard for basic human rights and even human life, but yet they trash all religions traditionally held by the American people?
Our government’s disdain for it’s citizens is evident and they show it on a daily basis. We, as a people, have tolerated too long the systematic removal of Christian and Jewish religion in society for too long. As well, we have for too long tolerated the governments lack of security regarding our open border policies, which are an engraved invitation to terrorists of all ilks to come on over, infiltrate our communities and do what they will.
Then there’s the consistent audacity of the Obama Administration who is more focused on censoring Fox News and, as noted in a report from CBS News, allows it’s DOJ to disregarded the fist Amendment, and launch an unconstitutional attack on a blogger’s website. If they are not about keeping us safe, why, then, do we need to expand their spying capabilities?
World Net Daily reported this week:
The Department of Homeland Security and the National Security Agency both recently announced plans for huge new electronic security centers that could monitor, sort and archive e-mails, telephone calls and other intercepted communications.
But critics wonder just who is watching the watchers.
“The director of the NSA is in charge of an organization three times the size of the CIA and empowered in 2008 by Congress to spy on Americans to an unprecedented degree,” said James Bamford, author of the recently published book about the NSA, “The Shadow Factory.”
He told WND the agency’s ability to deal with cybersecurity and other communications is enormous.
“In 2008, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court loosened its control on the NSA and allowed for warrantless eavesdropping,” he said. “Congressional oversight is very weak. A whistleblower for AT&T reported that AT&T has switch rooms in several parts of the country.
“And it wasn’t Congress that found out about the extensive warrantless eavesdropping; it was a couple reporters,” he said.
A number of sources in civil liberties groups say Americans have a right to be concerned about the absence of strict oversight and to wonder whose conversations are being monitored and recorded.
The Department of Homeland Security also recently announced, via Secretary Janet Napolitano, that a new complex planned in Arlington, Va., will mean more security coordination.
“Securing America‘s cyber infrastructure requires a coordinated and flexible system to detect threats and communicate protective measures to our federal, state, local and private sector partners and the public,” Napolitano’s announcement said.
“Consolidating our cyber and communications operations centers within the NCCIC (National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center) will enhance our ability to effectively mitigate risks and respond to threats,” she said. The agency says the project will be a 24-hour watch facility that will focus on “national efforts to address threats and incidents affecting the nation’s critical information technology and cyber infrastructure.”
At virtually the same time, Deputy Director for Intelligence Collection Glenn Gaffney announced the groundbreaking of the NSA’s Camp Williams, Utah, facility that is to “provide intelligence and warnings related to cybersecurity threats, cybersecurity support to defense and civilian agency networks, and technical assistance to the Department of Homeland Security.”
“The NSA didn’t have these facilities a few years ago, but they do now,” continued Bamford. “The question is, ‘Why do they need them now when they didn’t need them a few years ago?’
“If you think how much information can go on a ‘thumb drive’ (or a flash drive), you can get two or three gigabytes of information on a little thumb drive. Think how much information can go into a facility that’s a million square feet,” he said.
“The NSA intercepts communications in any form, phone calls, e-mails, instant messaging, Twitters, all forms of communication,” Bamford said.
“They’re able to store trillions of phone calls, email messages, and data trails: Web searches, parking receipts, bookstore visits, and other digital ‘pocket litter.'”
He further said it’s important to look at the agency’s objectives.
“They could have put them [listening stations] in locations where the cables first come into the United States. If you put the secret rooms there you would be picking up just communications coming in and going out of the United States,” he said. “Instead they put them in locations such as the nine-story switch in downtown San Francisco; there’s a major switch there, which has both domestic and international communications.
“This raises the question: Are they targeting not only international communications but also domestic communications?” he wondered.
“The NSA certainly has the ability to listen in and monitor domestic communications. Their purpose is to eavesdrop on communications.
Lawyer, former Marine Corps officer and former Constitution Party vice presidential candidate Darrell Castle said he’s not convinced that the Department of Homeland Security is really interested in security.
“It is difficult to take Mr. Obama and Ms. Napolitano seriously when they talk about security for the nation. When they are willing to secure our borders so that terrorists are not free to cross at will, they can be taken more seriously,” he said.
Political correctness and tolerance can no longer be allowed to control our voices. You must not be afraid to speak up. If you stay silent, you may be endangering your right to ever speak up. Tell your elected officials how you feel. We must make common sense the law of the land. I am not advocating violence, but I am advocating an end to tolerance of a government who clearly does not have our best interest, or it’s stated goal, at heart.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )
Let’s All Send A Message of Thanks
for 11 minutes of darkness all across America
as we honor those who have fought to defend
our country and preserve the Constitution.
Let this be a message to our government at home as well.
KEEP AMERICA FREE !
10:45 PM, EST : light your home, inside and out.
11:00 PM, EST : turn off all your lights.
11:11 PM, EST : turn lights on again, for at least 15 minutes
|
|
Recruiting for the Army for Liberty
Product Description
From the Inside Flap
In this stunning exposé, Steve Milloy unveils the authoritarian impulse underlying the Green crusade. Whether they’re demanding that you turn down your thermostat, stop driving your car, or engage in some other senseless act of self-denial, the Greens are envisioning a grim future for you marked by endless privation.Steamrolling nearly all opposition with its apocalyptic predictions of environmental doom, the Green movement has gained influence throughout American society–from schools and local planning boards to the biggest corporations in the country. And their plans are much more ambitious than you think, says Milloy. What the Greens really seek, with increasing success, is to dictate the very parameters of your daily life–where you can live, what transportation you can use, what you can eat, and even how many children you can have.
Citing the tactics and goals of Green groups as explained by their own activists and leaders, Green Hell demonstrates:
* How Green pressure campaigns threaten the safety of your home and your car, and public health overall
* Why the election of President Obama portends a giant leap forward for coercive Green policies
* Why Greens obstruct the use of all forms of energy–even the renewable sources they tout to the public
* How wealthy Green elites stand to profit fabulously from the restrictions and regulations they seek to impose on the rest of us
* How Green pressure campaigns are hamstringing the military and endangering our national security
* Why big business is not only knuckling under to the Greens, but is aggressively promoting the green agenda to the detriment of its own stockholders
* What you can do to help stop the great Green machineA one-of-a-kind, comprehensive takedown of the entire environmental movement, Green Hell will open your eyes to a looming threat to our economy, our civil liberties, and the entire American way of life.
« Previous Entries
Soldier For Liberty 