By Myles Miller - The Daily Caller
Published: 12:56 AM 02/11/2012
Medical insurance premiums in the United States are on the rise, the chief architect of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul has told The Daily Caller.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber, who also devised former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s statewide health care reforms, is backtracking on an analysis he provided the White House in support of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, informing officials in three states that the price of insurance premiums will dramatically increase under the reforms.
In an email to The Daily Caller, Gruber framed this new reality in terms of the same human self-interest that some conservatives had warned in 2010 would ultimately rule the marketplace.
“The market was so discriminatory,” Gruber told TheDC, “that only the healthy bought non-group insurance and the sick just stayed [uninsured].”
“It is true that even after tax credits some individuals are ‘losers,’” he conceded, “in that they pay more than before [Obama's] reform.”
Gruber, whom the Obama administration hired to provide an independent analysis of reforms, was widely criticized for failing to disclose the conflict of interest created by $392,600 in no-bid contracts the Department of Health and Human Services awarded him while he was advising the president’s policy advisers.
Gruber also received $566,310 during 2008 and 2009 from the National Institutes of Health to conduct a study on the Medicare Part D plan. (RELATED: Full coverage of the health reform law)
In 2011, officials in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado ordered reports from Gruber which offer a drastically different portrait in 2012 from the one Obama painted just 17 months ago.
“As a consequence of the Affordable Care Act,” the president said in September 2010, ”premiums are going to be lower than they would be otherwise; health care costs overall are going to be lower than they would be otherwise.”
Gruber’s new reports are in direct contrast Obama’s words — and with claims Gruber himself made in 2009. Then, the economics professor said that based on figures provided by the independent Congressional Budget Office, “[health care] reform will significantly reduce, not increase, non-group premiums.”
During his presentation to Wisconsin officials in August 2011, Gruber revealed that while about 57 percent of those who get their insurance through the individual market will benefit in one way or another from the law’s subsides, an even larger majority of the individual market will end up paying drastically more overall.
“After the application of tax subsidies, 59 percent of the individual market will experience an average premium increase of 31 percent,” Gruber reported.
The reason for this is that an estimated 40 percent of Wisconsin residents who are covered by individual market insurance don’t meet the Affordable Care Act’s minimum coverage requirements. Under the Affordable Care Act, they will be required to purchase more expensive plans.
Asked for his own explanation for the expected health-insurance rate hikes, Gruber told TheDC that his reports “reflect the high cost of folding state high risk pools into the [federal government's] exchange — without using the money the state was already spending to subsidize those high risk pools.”
Gruber’s Wisconsin presentation, previously available on the website of Wisconsin’s Office of Free Market Health Care, disappeared from the state government’s Web servers shortly after Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker issued a Jan. 18 executive order scrapping the agency’s mission.
NEXT: Minnesotans to see premium increases, even after subsidies
Minnesotans have already seen a 15 percent average rate increase because their state government is spending approximately $100 million to subsidize those high-risk pools. Gruber said they, too, will see a premium increase — even after subsidies are factored in.
In his presentation there in November, he estimated 32 percent of Minnesotans will face premiums hike similar to those of their neighbors in the Badger State.
In his Colorado analysis, which he delivered last month, Gruber wrote that while some may benefit from new tax credits folded into Obama’s health care overhaul, “13 percent of people will still face a premium increase even after the application of tax subsidies, and seven percent will see an increase of more than ten percent.”
Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco, told TheDC that the health care law’s mandates will ultimately result in far greater costs across the board.
“If [instead] we change the tax code and allow a competitive market to build, and put doctors and patients in power, then that would really solve a lot of the problem,” Pipes said.
Pipes said she believes applying the Affordable Care Act, as written, will result in care “being rationed and more expensive.”
(RELATED VIDEO: Health care expert Sally Pipes on what could replace Obamacare)
South Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy, who chairs the House Subcommittee on Health Care, told TheDC that consumers are beginning to understand that the president’s 2010 promises are out of sync with reality.
“What a shock,” Gowdy said, feigning surprise. “Obamacare doesn’t lower costs, doesn’t increase coverage, and has turned into a wildly unpopular, labyrinthine government overreach.”
“’If you like your health insurance, you can keep it’ has morphed into ‘I, President Barack Obama, will decide what you need and make others pay for it.’”
White House deputy press secretary Jamie Smith was unable to immediately respond to a request for comment.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
March 2012 – the Black March to protest Internet censorship like SOPA and PIPA
Fire Andrea Mitchell:
The original PIPA and SOPA bills may be dead, but the Marxist Senate Democrats are still tring to censor the Internet. They are working on a bill (in secrecy) and will try to pass it off to the American people as a “cybersecurity bill.” So a protest called “Black March” has been set up with a group on Facebook. It’s encouraging people not to buy or download songs, movies, video games, DVDs and so forth to show the media industry that lobbing for Internet censorship will not be tolerated.
The original PIPA and SOPA bills may be dead, but the Marxist Senate Democrats are still tring to censor the Internet. They are working on a bill (in secrecy) and will try to pass it off to the American people as a “cybersecurity bill.” So a protest called “Black March” has been set up with a group on Facebook. It’s encouraging people not to buy or download songs, movies, video games, DVDs and so forth to show the media industry that lobbing for Internet censorship will not be tolerated.
House of Representatives Waters Down Insider Trading Bill to Protect “Consultants”
AllGov:
Friday, February 10, 2012
Ignoring the wishes of their counterparts in the Senate, the House of Representatives on Thursday adopted an ethics bill that lets private industry consultants who take advantage of legislative intelligence off the hook.
The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or Stock Act, would ban lawmakers from making trades on the stock market that rely on private information gleaned from inside the halls of Congress. But a provision requiring the same of Washington, DC, consultants who are not registered lobbyists was left out of the House bill.
The Senate version of the legislation, which already cleared the upper house, included the provision that put the same restrictions on “political intelligence consultants” that already pertain to lobbyists. These consultants share information gained from members of Congress with hedge funds, mutual funds and other clients.
One Republican, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, was not happy with the move by the GOP-controlled House. “It’s astonishing and extremely disappointing that the House would fulfill Wall Street’s wishes by killing this provision,” Grassley wrote. “The Senate clearly voted to try to shed light on an industry that’s behind the scenes.”
Instead of clamping down on insider trading by consultants, the House version mandates a federal study of the industry—a time-honored way of avoiding taking any real action by lawmakers.
The two versions of the bill will now be reconciled by a Senate-House conference.
-Noel Brinkerhoff
Friday, February 10, 2012
Ignoring the wishes of their counterparts in the Senate, the House of Representatives on Thursday adopted an ethics bill that lets private industry consultants who take advantage of legislative intelligence off the hook.
The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or Stock Act, would ban lawmakers from making trades on the stock market that rely on private information gleaned from inside the halls of Congress. But a provision requiring the same of Washington, DC, consultants who are not registered lobbyists was left out of the House bill.
The Senate version of the legislation, which already cleared the upper house, included the provision that put the same restrictions on “political intelligence consultants” that already pertain to lobbyists. These consultants share information gained from members of Congress with hedge funds, mutual funds and other clients.
One Republican, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, was not happy with the move by the GOP-controlled House. “It’s astonishing and extremely disappointing that the House would fulfill Wall Street’s wishes by killing this provision,” Grassley wrote. “The Senate clearly voted to try to shed light on an industry that’s behind the scenes.”
Instead of clamping down on insider trading by consultants, the House version mandates a federal study of the industry—a time-honored way of avoiding taking any real action by lawmakers.
The two versions of the bill will now be reconciled by a Senate-House conference.
-Noel Brinkerhoff
Obama Mandate to Cost Insurance Companies $2.8B, Raise Rates
Life News:
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | 2/10/12 8:09 PM
Putting the moral and religious liberties concerns aside for one moment when it comes to the very controversial revised mandate the Obama administration issued today requiring insurance companies to cover birth control and drugs that may cause abortions, a cost component is coming into play.
As Tom McClusky, a vice president at the Family Research Council, notes, insurance companies will pay into the billions for coverage and will pass that on to consumers.
As for the President’s insistence this saves money, Blue Cross’s unofficial estimate was that it would cost $2.8 billion for the contraceptive/sterilization/abortifacient coverage, and $13 billion for all preventive care services. It would not be a huge jump in an average $4000 premium plan, about $13.00, but the overall cost is large.
Our Administration person basically said that whether fully insured or self-insured that the insurer is not going to eat the cost of the free contraceptives, so everyone’s premiums will still rise and the costs a religious employer pays “Blue Cross” or another insurance provider will increase to pay the difference.
As President Obama liked to say during the Obamacare debate insurance companies will want to make their profit, so they’ll increase rates somewhere. The religious employer will be directly paying the insurance company probably at increased cost, to provide the free contraceptives to the employee.
How bad is this? Pro-abortion groups like abortion giant Planned Parenthood opposed the religious exemption but support the “compromise” because now there are no exceptions. President Obama doesn’t seek compromise but confusion. He isn’t looking for common ground on religious concerns but burial ground for the First Amendment.
The Obama administration has revised its controversial mandate that had forced religious employers to pay for health insurance coverage that includes birth control and drugs like Plan B, the morning after pill, and ella that can cause abortions.
Responding to a firestorm of opposition from pro-life organizations, Catholics groups and even some Democrats, the Obama administration has revised the mandate in a way that pro-life advocates are saying is even worse.
The revised Obama mandate will make religious groups contract with insurers to offer birth control and the potentially abortion-causing drugs to women at no cost. The revised mandate will have religious employers refer women to their insurance company for coverage that still violates their moral and religious beliefs. Under this plan, every insurance company will be obligated to provide coverage at no cost.
Essentially, religious groups will still be mandated to offer plans that cover both birth control and the ella abortion drug.
The new mandate has drawn opposition from pro-life groups and Catholic organizations and a “concerned” response from the Catholic bishops while Planned Parenthood and pro-abortion organizations are supportive.
Meanwhile, the Republican presidential candidates have been taking verbal swings at Obama for imposing the mandate on religious employers, which is not popular in the latest public opinion poll and which even some Democrats oppose.
Congressman Steve Scalise has led a bipartisan letter with 154 co-signers calling on the Obama Administration to reverse its initial mandate forcing religious organizations to include drugs that can cause abortion and birth control in the health care plans of their employees.
Bishops across the country have spoken out against the initial mandate and are considering a lawsuit against it — with bishops in more than 164 locations across the United States issuing public statements against it or having letters opposing it printed in diocesan newspaper or read from the pulpit.
The mandate was so egregious that even the normally reliably liberal and pro-abortion USA Today condemned it in an editorial titled, “Contraception mandate violates religious freedom.”
The administration initially approved a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine suggesting that it force insurance companies to pay for birth control and drugs that can cause abortions under the Obamacare government-run health care program.
The IOM recommendation, opposed by pro-life groups, called for the Obama administration to require insurance programs to include birth control — such as the morning after pill or the ella drug that causes an abortion days after conception — in the section of drugs and services insurance plans must cover under “preventative care.” The companies will likely pass the added costs on to consumers, requiring them to pay for birth control and, in some instances, drug-induced abortions of unborn children in their earliest days.
The HHS accepted the IOM guidelines that “require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services” and those services include “FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling” — which include birth control drugs like Plan B and ella that can cause abortions. The Health and Human Services Department commissioned the report from the Institute, which advises the federal government and shut out pro-life groups in meetings leading up to the recommendations.
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | 2/10/12 8:09 PM
Putting the moral and religious liberties concerns aside for one moment when it comes to the very controversial revised mandate the Obama administration issued today requiring insurance companies to cover birth control and drugs that may cause abortions, a cost component is coming into play.
As Tom McClusky, a vice president at the Family Research Council, notes, insurance companies will pay into the billions for coverage and will pass that on to consumers.
As for the President’s insistence this saves money, Blue Cross’s unofficial estimate was that it would cost $2.8 billion for the contraceptive/sterilization/abortifacient coverage, and $13 billion for all preventive care services. It would not be a huge jump in an average $4000 premium plan, about $13.00, but the overall cost is large.
Our Administration person basically said that whether fully insured or self-insured that the insurer is not going to eat the cost of the free contraceptives, so everyone’s premiums will still rise and the costs a religious employer pays “Blue Cross” or another insurance provider will increase to pay the difference.
As President Obama liked to say during the Obamacare debate insurance companies will want to make their profit, so they’ll increase rates somewhere. The religious employer will be directly paying the insurance company probably at increased cost, to provide the free contraceptives to the employee.
How bad is this? Pro-abortion groups like abortion giant Planned Parenthood opposed the religious exemption but support the “compromise” because now there are no exceptions. President Obama doesn’t seek compromise but confusion. He isn’t looking for common ground on religious concerns but burial ground for the First Amendment.
The Obama administration has revised its controversial mandate that had forced religious employers to pay for health insurance coverage that includes birth control and drugs like Plan B, the morning after pill, and ella that can cause abortions.
Responding to a firestorm of opposition from pro-life organizations, Catholics groups and even some Democrats, the Obama administration has revised the mandate in a way that pro-life advocates are saying is even worse.
The revised Obama mandate will make religious groups contract with insurers to offer birth control and the potentially abortion-causing drugs to women at no cost. The revised mandate will have religious employers refer women to their insurance company for coverage that still violates their moral and religious beliefs. Under this plan, every insurance company will be obligated to provide coverage at no cost.
Essentially, religious groups will still be mandated to offer plans that cover both birth control and the ella abortion drug.
The new mandate has drawn opposition from pro-life groups and Catholic organizations and a “concerned” response from the Catholic bishops while Planned Parenthood and pro-abortion organizations are supportive.
Meanwhile, the Republican presidential candidates have been taking verbal swings at Obama for imposing the mandate on religious employers, which is not popular in the latest public opinion poll and which even some Democrats oppose.
Congressman Steve Scalise has led a bipartisan letter with 154 co-signers calling on the Obama Administration to reverse its initial mandate forcing religious organizations to include drugs that can cause abortion and birth control in the health care plans of their employees.
Bishops across the country have spoken out against the initial mandate and are considering a lawsuit against it — with bishops in more than 164 locations across the United States issuing public statements against it or having letters opposing it printed in diocesan newspaper or read from the pulpit.
The mandate was so egregious that even the normally reliably liberal and pro-abortion USA Today condemned it in an editorial titled, “Contraception mandate violates religious freedom.”
The administration initially approved a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine suggesting that it force insurance companies to pay for birth control and drugs that can cause abortions under the Obamacare government-run health care program.
The IOM recommendation, opposed by pro-life groups, called for the Obama administration to require insurance programs to include birth control — such as the morning after pill or the ella drug that causes an abortion days after conception — in the section of drugs and services insurance plans must cover under “preventative care.” The companies will likely pass the added costs on to consumers, requiring them to pay for birth control and, in some instances, drug-induced abortions of unborn children in their earliest days.
The HHS accepted the IOM guidelines that “require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services” and those services include “FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling” — which include birth control drugs like Plan B and ella that can cause abortions. The Health and Human Services Department commissioned the report from the Institute, which advises the federal government and shut out pro-life groups in meetings leading up to the recommendations.
Obama's contraception "compromise" is worse than the original mandate
WyBlog.us:
Friday, 10 February 2012
Obama's contraception "compromise" is worse than the original mandate
I just knew, when I saw how happy the baby-killers at Planned Parenthood were, I just knew Obama's contraception "compromise" was a gigantic F-U to us Catholics.
The media is saying Obama "backed down."
He did no such thing. He made the mandate worse.
Now Obama is forcing religious institutions to purchase group insurance policies that include contraception. It's a shell game. Now NO employer can provide a plan that does not cover contraception.
The coverage is supposedly "free," because there's no longer a line item in the premium to pay for it. Obama folded the contraceptive and abortifacient requirement into the basic coverage offered by all health insurance plans.
No wonder the abortionists are giddy. They're mainstream now! Right there in your insurance policy, next to broken arms, heart attacks, and flu shots. Abortion, it's Health Care! Contraceptives, they're just like aspirin!
Well, except that health insurance doesn't actually pay for aspirin.
And there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
We cannot "compromise" our religious liberty.
There will be a lot of confusion. But don't be confused, and don't let people around you be confused. These last days have been instructive. As Rick Santorum just said: This is "about government control of your lives and it's got to stop." As Cardinal Wuerl put it this morning: This is about "basic freedom." As Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez said the other day in a column: This new mandate moves us closer to what Pope Benedict XVI warned against in his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est ("God is Love"): "The state which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself . . [is]. a state which regulates and controls everything."
There is indeed a lot of confusion. Obamacare Tool / Useless Idiot Sister Carol Keehan jumped out ahead of the bishops (again) to proclaim she is "very pleased" that "a resolution has been reached."
Only one problem though — Archbishop (and Cardinal-designate) Dolan is not pleased at all.
We heard from Archbishop Dolan yesterday in a CBS Morning video (link contains full transcript), who said the HHS decision was, "at odds with the very sincere assurances" Obama gave to himself and to the Catholic Health Association.
Ah yes, "assurances."
Via Father Z, "I have been given personal assurances from the very highest sources…"
http://wdtprs.com/blog/podpress_trac/play/31297/0/12_02_06_The_Cardinal_Innitzer.mpg
I think we know how much we can trust Obama's "assurances."
Friday, 10 February 2012
Obama's contraception "compromise" is worse than the original mandate
I just knew, when I saw how happy the baby-killers at Planned Parenthood were, I just knew Obama's contraception "compromise" was a gigantic F-U to us Catholics.
The media is saying Obama "backed down."
He did no such thing. He made the mandate worse.
Now Obama is forcing religious institutions to purchase group insurance policies that include contraception. It's a shell game. Now NO employer can provide a plan that does not cover contraception.
The coverage is supposedly "free," because there's no longer a line item in the premium to pay for it. Obama folded the contraceptive and abortifacient requirement into the basic coverage offered by all health insurance plans.
No wonder the abortionists are giddy. They're mainstream now! Right there in your insurance policy, next to broken arms, heart attacks, and flu shots. Abortion, it's Health Care! Contraceptives, they're just like aspirin!
Well, except that health insurance doesn't actually pay for aspirin.
And there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
We cannot "compromise" our religious liberty.
There will be a lot of confusion. But don't be confused, and don't let people around you be confused. These last days have been instructive. As Rick Santorum just said: This is "about government control of your lives and it's got to stop." As Cardinal Wuerl put it this morning: This is about "basic freedom." As Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez said the other day in a column: This new mandate moves us closer to what Pope Benedict XVI warned against in his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est ("God is Love"): "The state which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself . . [is]. a state which regulates and controls everything."
There is indeed a lot of confusion. Obamacare Tool / Useless Idiot Sister Carol Keehan jumped out ahead of the bishops (again) to proclaim she is "very pleased" that "a resolution has been reached."
Only one problem though — Archbishop (and Cardinal-designate) Dolan is not pleased at all.
We heard from Archbishop Dolan yesterday in a CBS Morning video (link contains full transcript), who said the HHS decision was, "at odds with the very sincere assurances" Obama gave to himself and to the Catholic Health Association.
Ah yes, "assurances."
Via Father Z, "I have been given personal assurances from the very highest sources…"
http://wdtprs.com/blog/podpress_trac/play/31297/0/12_02_06_The_Cardinal_Innitzer.mpg
I think we know how much we can trust Obama's "assurances."
Breitbart tells CPAC: I have videos of Obama in college and they’ll come out during the election
Hot Air:
posted at 7:53 pm on February 10, 2012 by Allahpundit
Via Mediaite, the key bit comes at 5:15 but don’t skip. Watch the whole thing, as this is easily the most entertaining speech you’ll see at CPAC. Naturally he’s coy about what he’s got, but it sounds like it has to do with O as a student radical. I wonder if big media, having heard this, will scramble to try to uncover the footage and put it out ASAP so that it’s old news by the time of the general election. Can’t wait to hear their explanations for why they couldn’t be bothered to do that last cycle.
Note well what he says at 10:30 about Bernadine Dohrn’s take on the anti-war movement. It’s a comfort to know that some of its leaders are now willing to admit what a fraud it was.
posted at 7:53 pm on February 10, 2012 by Allahpundit
Via Mediaite, the key bit comes at 5:15 but don’t skip. Watch the whole thing, as this is easily the most entertaining speech you’ll see at CPAC. Naturally he’s coy about what he’s got, but it sounds like it has to do with O as a student radical. I wonder if big media, having heard this, will scramble to try to uncover the footage and put it out ASAP so that it’s old news by the time of the general election. Can’t wait to hear their explanations for why they couldn’t be bothered to do that last cycle.
Note well what he says at 10:30 about Bernadine Dohrn’s take on the anti-war movement. It’s a comfort to know that some of its leaders are now willing to admit what a fraud it was.
SAUDIS USE INTERPOL TO HAVE JOURNALIST ARRESTED FOR BREAKING ISLAMIC BLASPHEMY LAWS
Atlas Shrugs:
It's the end of the world as we know it.
Saudis Use Interpol to Have Journalist Arrested for Criticizing Muhammad - Answering Muslims
This is horrifying. Interpol (International Criminal Police Organization) is a worldwide network of police departments established to help countries capture criminals who cross borders. Saudi Arabia recently used an Interpol alert to have Hamza Kashgari arrested in Malaysia, where he fled for his life after Saudis began calling for his death. By helping the Saudis capture Kashgari, Interpol has become an international Sharia enforcement unit. People who flee the Muslim world to escape punishment can now be rounded up by Interpol and returned to their countries to face Islamic penalties for apostasy, criticizing Muhammad, etc.
THE GUARDIAN--Interpol has been accused of abusing its powers after Saudi Arabia used the organisation's red notice system to get a journalist arrested in Malaysia for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.
Police in Kuala Lumpur said Hamza Kashgari, 23, was detained at the airport "following a request made to us by Interpol" the international police cooperation agency, on behalf of the Saudi authorities.
Kashgari, a newspaper columnist, fled Saudi Arabia after posting a tweet on the prophet's birthday that sparked more than 30,000 responses and several death threats. The posting, which was later deleted, read: "I have loved things about you and I have hated things about you and there is a lot I don't understand about you … I will not pray for you."
More than 13,000 people joined a Facebook page titled "The Saudi People Demand the Execution of Hamza Kashgari".
Clerics in Saudi Arabia called for him to be charged with apostasy, a religious offence punishable by death. Reports suggest that the Malaysian authorities intend to return him to his native country.
Kashgari's detention has triggered criticism by human rights groups of Malaysia's decision to arrest the journalist and of Interpol's cooperation in the process.
Jago Russell, the chief executive of the British charity Fair Trials International, which has campaigned against the blanket enforcement of Interpol red notices, said: "Interpol should be playing no part in Saudi Arabia's pursuit of Hamza Kashgari, however unwise his comments on Twitter.
"If an Interpol red notice is the reason for his arrest and detention it would be a serious abuse of this powerful international body that is supposed to respect basic human rights (including to peaceful free speech) and to be barred from any involvement in religious or political cases." (Read more.)
It's the end of the world as we know it.
Saudis Use Interpol to Have Journalist Arrested for Criticizing Muhammad - Answering Muslims
This is horrifying. Interpol (International Criminal Police Organization) is a worldwide network of police departments established to help countries capture criminals who cross borders. Saudi Arabia recently used an Interpol alert to have Hamza Kashgari arrested in Malaysia, where he fled for his life after Saudis began calling for his death. By helping the Saudis capture Kashgari, Interpol has become an international Sharia enforcement unit. People who flee the Muslim world to escape punishment can now be rounded up by Interpol and returned to their countries to face Islamic penalties for apostasy, criticizing Muhammad, etc.
THE GUARDIAN--Interpol has been accused of abusing its powers after Saudi Arabia used the organisation's red notice system to get a journalist arrested in Malaysia for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.
Police in Kuala Lumpur said Hamza Kashgari, 23, was detained at the airport "following a request made to us by Interpol" the international police cooperation agency, on behalf of the Saudi authorities.
Kashgari, a newspaper columnist, fled Saudi Arabia after posting a tweet on the prophet's birthday that sparked more than 30,000 responses and several death threats. The posting, which was later deleted, read: "I have loved things about you and I have hated things about you and there is a lot I don't understand about you … I will not pray for you."
More than 13,000 people joined a Facebook page titled "The Saudi People Demand the Execution of Hamza Kashgari".
Clerics in Saudi Arabia called for him to be charged with apostasy, a religious offence punishable by death. Reports suggest that the Malaysian authorities intend to return him to his native country.
Kashgari's detention has triggered criticism by human rights groups of Malaysia's decision to arrest the journalist and of Interpol's cooperation in the process.
Jago Russell, the chief executive of the British charity Fair Trials International, which has campaigned against the blanket enforcement of Interpol red notices, said: "Interpol should be playing no part in Saudi Arabia's pursuit of Hamza Kashgari, however unwise his comments on Twitter.
"If an Interpol red notice is the reason for his arrest and detention it would be a serious abuse of this powerful international body that is supposed to respect basic human rights (including to peaceful free speech) and to be barred from any involvement in religious or political cases." (Read more.)
Friday, February 10, 2012
FBI Warns that People Who Use AOL at Internet Cafés Could be Terrorists
AllGov:
Friday, February 10, 2012
America Online users beware: If you access your AOL account from a computer at an Internet café, your name may wind up on a terrorist-watch list.
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), AOL users at public computer venues are just one possible type of suspicious person that business owners need to keep tabs on.
The FBI has been distributing flyers to paintball centers, banks, dive shops and even tattoo shops to educate them on how to spot potential terrorist activities.
In addition to noting who is accessing AOL, Internet café owners should watch out for and report customers who always pay for their service with cash, attempt to shield their screen from other people in the room, communicate through video games or use VOIP, all of which are signs of a would-be terrorist, says the FBI.
The flyers do remind business owners and their employees that “It is important to remember that just because someone’s speech, actions, beliefs, appearance, or way of life is different; it does not mean that he or she is suspicious.”
-Noel Brinkerhoff, David Wallechinsky
To Learn More:
FBI Says Paying for Your Morning Coffee with Cash a Potential Terrorist Activity, Urges Coffee Shop Owners To Report Cash-Paying Customers To Authorities (by Ethan Huff, Natural News)
FBI “Communities Against Terrorism” Suspicious Activity Reporting Flyers (Public Intelligence)
Communities Against Terrorism: Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities Related to Internet Café (Bureau of Justice Assistance and Federal Bureau of Investigation) (pdf)
Friday, February 10, 2012
America Online users beware: If you access your AOL account from a computer at an Internet café, your name may wind up on a terrorist-watch list.
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), AOL users at public computer venues are just one possible type of suspicious person that business owners need to keep tabs on.
The FBI has been distributing flyers to paintball centers, banks, dive shops and even tattoo shops to educate them on how to spot potential terrorist activities.
In addition to noting who is accessing AOL, Internet café owners should watch out for and report customers who always pay for their service with cash, attempt to shield their screen from other people in the room, communicate through video games or use VOIP, all of which are signs of a would-be terrorist, says the FBI.
The flyers do remind business owners and their employees that “It is important to remember that just because someone’s speech, actions, beliefs, appearance, or way of life is different; it does not mean that he or she is suspicious.”
-Noel Brinkerhoff, David Wallechinsky
To Learn More:
FBI Says Paying for Your Morning Coffee with Cash a Potential Terrorist Activity, Urges Coffee Shop Owners To Report Cash-Paying Customers To Authorities (by Ethan Huff, Natural News)
FBI “Communities Against Terrorism” Suspicious Activity Reporting Flyers (Public Intelligence)
Communities Against Terrorism: Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities Related to Internet Café (Bureau of Justice Assistance and Federal Bureau of Investigation) (pdf)
Obamunist Indoctrination in Public Grade Schools
MoonBattery:
This chilling video is not from a remake of 1984, but from a public school in Livonia, Michigan:
At this point, if you want to brainwash people into believing in Barack Hussein Obama, you have to get them young, before their intellects have formed.
On tips from J and Shawn. Hat tip: Weasel Zippers.
This chilling video is not from a remake of 1984, but from a public school in Livonia, Michigan:
At this point, if you want to brainwash people into believing in Barack Hussein Obama, you have to get them young, before their intellects have formed.
On tips from J and Shawn. Hat tip: Weasel Zippers.
2012 Election Integrity Project: Judicial Watch Announces Legal Campaign to Force Clean Up of Voter Registration Rolls
Judicial Watch:February 09, 2012
Dozen States in Potential Violation of National Voter Registration Act: Voting Rolls Have More Registered Voters than Voting-Age Population
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced the launch of its 2012 Election Integrity Project to pressure states and localities, through Judicial Watch lawsuits if necessary, to clean up voter registration rolls pursuant to Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). A Judicial Watch investigation based upon publicly available data indicates voter rolls in the following states appear to contain the names of individuals who are ineligible to vote: Mississippi, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Florida, Alabama, California, and Colorado. The Election Integrity Project will be conducted in partnership with True the Vote and the Election Law Center.
Judicial Watch sent its initial warning letters on February 7, 2012, to election officials in Indiana and Ohio, as well as letters of inquiry to Florida and California officials, investigating problematic voting lists in those states. Additional letters are forthcoming.
According to Judicial Watch’s investigation, there appear to be more individuals on voter registration lists in these states than there are individuals eligible to vote, including individuals who are deceased. Judicial Watch’s initial warning letters notified election officials in Ohio and Indiana that they are required by law to “maintain accurate lists of eligible voters for use in conducting elections,” and that Judicial Watch is prepared to take legal action if election officials fail to clean up their voter rolls:
Allowing the names of ineligible voters to remain on the voting rolls harms the integrity of the electoral process and undermines voter confidence in the legitimacy of elections… As the top election officials… it is your responsibility under federal law to conduct a program that reasonably ensures that the lists of eligible voters are accurate…
We hope our concerns can be resolved amicably. However, with the November 2012 election on the horizon and in light of the importance of Section 8 of the NVRA to ensuring the integrity and legitimacy of the electoral process, we must emphasize the importance of timeliness. Accordingly, if we believe you do not intend to correct the above-identified problems, a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief may be necessary.
As Judicial Watch makes clear in its letters, under Section 8 of the NVRA, states must make a “reasonable effort” to clean up registration rolls. Section 8 also requires states to make available for public inspection “all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters.”
Election fraud was a significant concern during the 2008 and 2010 election seasons, with ACORN/Project Vote being linked to massive voter registration fraud. A total of 70 ACORN employees in 12 states have been convicted of voter registration fraud. As documented in a July 2009 report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, of the 1.3 million registrations Project Vote/ACORN submitted in the 2008 election cycle, more than one-third were invalid.
Judicial Watch has uncovered documents showing that, rather than taking action to enforce Section 8 of the NVRA, the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) is now working with ACORN-front Project Vote, Barack Obama’s former employer, to push for strict enforcement of Section 7 of the NVRA relating to welfare office voter registration obligations. The purpose of this campaign is evidently to use voter registration laws to register greater numbers of low-income voters, widely considered to be an important voting demographic for the Obama presidential campaign.
Policy changes prompted by stricter enforcement of Section 7 have resulted in increased incidents of voter registration errors. For example, a separate Judicial Watch investigation found that the percentage of invalid voter registration forms from Colorado public assistance agencies was four times the national average after Project Vote successfully forced the state to implement new policies for increasing the registration of public assistance recipients during the 2008 and 2010 election seasons.
Judicial Watch notes in its letters that while Attorney General Eric Holder appears intent on enforcing Section 7 of the NVRA, which will yield an increased risk of voter fraud, he apparently has no interest in enforcing Section 8 to ensure clean elections: “While you may be aware that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has prioritized enforcement of Section 7 of the NVRA, which seeks to expand opportunities to register to vote, the Attorney General has not demonstrated any similar interest in prioritizing enforcement of the list maintenance provisions of Section 8 of the NVRA. Nonetheless, Section 8 is an important counterpart to Section 7. The two provisions represent a carefully crafted compromise by the U.S. Congress to increase both voter registration and the integrity of voter rolls.”
“President Obama and the Holder Justice Department evidently have no interest in clean elections this year, so this responsibility has now fallen to Judicial Watch. And given the rampant election fraud that occurred during the last two election cycles, this is a matter of the highest priority as we head into the 2012 election season. It is simply impossible to have any faith in the integrity of an election where dead people remain on the voting rolls. This is a recipe for voter fraud and stolen elections,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Read more about NVRA
Dozen States in Potential Violation of National Voter Registration Act: Voting Rolls Have More Registered Voters than Voting-Age Population
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced the launch of its 2012 Election Integrity Project to pressure states and localities, through Judicial Watch lawsuits if necessary, to clean up voter registration rolls pursuant to Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). A Judicial Watch investigation based upon publicly available data indicates voter rolls in the following states appear to contain the names of individuals who are ineligible to vote: Mississippi, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Florida, Alabama, California, and Colorado. The Election Integrity Project will be conducted in partnership with True the Vote and the Election Law Center.
Judicial Watch sent its initial warning letters on February 7, 2012, to election officials in Indiana and Ohio, as well as letters of inquiry to Florida and California officials, investigating problematic voting lists in those states. Additional letters are forthcoming.
According to Judicial Watch’s investigation, there appear to be more individuals on voter registration lists in these states than there are individuals eligible to vote, including individuals who are deceased. Judicial Watch’s initial warning letters notified election officials in Ohio and Indiana that they are required by law to “maintain accurate lists of eligible voters for use in conducting elections,” and that Judicial Watch is prepared to take legal action if election officials fail to clean up their voter rolls:
Allowing the names of ineligible voters to remain on the voting rolls harms the integrity of the electoral process and undermines voter confidence in the legitimacy of elections… As the top election officials… it is your responsibility under federal law to conduct a program that reasonably ensures that the lists of eligible voters are accurate…
We hope our concerns can be resolved amicably. However, with the November 2012 election on the horizon and in light of the importance of Section 8 of the NVRA to ensuring the integrity and legitimacy of the electoral process, we must emphasize the importance of timeliness. Accordingly, if we believe you do not intend to correct the above-identified problems, a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief may be necessary.
As Judicial Watch makes clear in its letters, under Section 8 of the NVRA, states must make a “reasonable effort” to clean up registration rolls. Section 8 also requires states to make available for public inspection “all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters.”
Election fraud was a significant concern during the 2008 and 2010 election seasons, with ACORN/Project Vote being linked to massive voter registration fraud. A total of 70 ACORN employees in 12 states have been convicted of voter registration fraud. As documented in a July 2009 report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, of the 1.3 million registrations Project Vote/ACORN submitted in the 2008 election cycle, more than one-third were invalid.
Judicial Watch has uncovered documents showing that, rather than taking action to enforce Section 8 of the NVRA, the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) is now working with ACORN-front Project Vote, Barack Obama’s former employer, to push for strict enforcement of Section 7 of the NVRA relating to welfare office voter registration obligations. The purpose of this campaign is evidently to use voter registration laws to register greater numbers of low-income voters, widely considered to be an important voting demographic for the Obama presidential campaign.
Policy changes prompted by stricter enforcement of Section 7 have resulted in increased incidents of voter registration errors. For example, a separate Judicial Watch investigation found that the percentage of invalid voter registration forms from Colorado public assistance agencies was four times the national average after Project Vote successfully forced the state to implement new policies for increasing the registration of public assistance recipients during the 2008 and 2010 election seasons.
Judicial Watch notes in its letters that while Attorney General Eric Holder appears intent on enforcing Section 7 of the NVRA, which will yield an increased risk of voter fraud, he apparently has no interest in enforcing Section 8 to ensure clean elections: “While you may be aware that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has prioritized enforcement of Section 7 of the NVRA, which seeks to expand opportunities to register to vote, the Attorney General has not demonstrated any similar interest in prioritizing enforcement of the list maintenance provisions of Section 8 of the NVRA. Nonetheless, Section 8 is an important counterpart to Section 7. The two provisions represent a carefully crafted compromise by the U.S. Congress to increase both voter registration and the integrity of voter rolls.”
“President Obama and the Holder Justice Department evidently have no interest in clean elections this year, so this responsibility has now fallen to Judicial Watch. And given the rampant election fraud that occurred during the last two election cycles, this is a matter of the highest priority as we head into the 2012 election season. It is simply impossible to have any faith in the integrity of an election where dead people remain on the voting rolls. This is a recipe for voter fraud and stolen elections,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Read more about NVRA
Obama’s Classmate Speaks Out!
By DJ Redman-CDN on Feb 10, 2012
An email that went viral back in June of 2010 is now making a comeback as we head into the 2012 Presidential elections. In that email we see Mr. Wayne Allyn Root, a college classmate of Obama’s, stating some very strong opinions about just who Barack Hussein Obama really is, his religious beliefs, and his overall ideological agenda. The only changes made to the entire email are formatting and sentence structure, while word for word it is kept intact. – D.J. Redman
OBAMA’S COLLEGE CLASSMATE SPEAKS OUT By Wayne Allyn Root , June 6th, 2010
Barack Hussien Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. Economy to create systemic failure. Economic crisis and social chaos — thereby destroying capitalism and Our country from within. Barack Hussien Obama was my college classmate. ( Columbia University , class of ’83). He is a devout Muslim do not be fooled. Look at his Czars…anti-business..anti- American. As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one! Barack Hussien Obama is following the plan of Cloward &Piven, two professors at Columbia University .. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system. With government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they’re alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority, That desperately needs government for survival … and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.
Universal Health Care . The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn’t care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who, but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?
Cap &Trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, Cap &Trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, with government in control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama’s biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama “spread the wealth around.”
Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who’s asking for a 51st state? Who’s asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Barack Hussien Obama’s plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.
Legalize 12 million illegal Mexican immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America . But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.
Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions — including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees (unions) will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America.
The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.
Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama).
Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Barack Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition. With the acts outlined above, Barack Hussien Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees (unions ) who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system. Add it up and you’ve got the perfect Marxist scheme — all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Hussien Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan. Note: This letter was “Correctly attributed” says snopes! http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overwhelm.asp .
America can choose to bury her head in the sand and stand by doing nothing to stop the Socio-Marxist plan to finish her off as we know her… or she can stand up and fight against the reelection of Barack Obama in 2012. The time is now. Get active, spread information like this to everyone you know. America’s future propserity and freedom depends upon it!
An email that went viral back in June of 2010 is now making a comeback as we head into the 2012 Presidential elections. In that email we see Mr. Wayne Allyn Root, a college classmate of Obama’s, stating some very strong opinions about just who Barack Hussein Obama really is, his religious beliefs, and his overall ideological agenda. The only changes made to the entire email are formatting and sentence structure, while word for word it is kept intact. – D.J. Redman
OBAMA’S COLLEGE CLASSMATE SPEAKS OUT By Wayne Allyn Root , June 6th, 2010
Cap &Trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, Cap &Trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, with government in control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama’s biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama “spread the wealth around.”
Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who’s asking for a 51st state? Who’s asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Barack Hussien Obama’s plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.
Legalize 12 million illegal Mexican immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America . But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.
Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions — including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees (unions) will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America.
The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.
Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama).
Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Barack Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition. With the acts outlined above, Barack Hussien Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees (unions ) who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system. Add it up and you’ve got the perfect Marxist scheme — all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Hussien Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan. Note: This letter was “Correctly attributed” says snopes! http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overwhelm.asp .
America can choose to bury her head in the sand and stand by doing nothing to stop the Socio-Marxist plan to finish her off as we know her… or she can stand up and fight against the reelection of Barack Obama in 2012. The time is now. Get active, spread information like this to everyone you know. America’s future propserity and freedom depends upon it!
Too good to check: Barry Soetoro's Columbia University ID Card
Dave Blount posts the following mysterious image (Photoshopped? You make the call) under the banner "No Wonder Obama’s College Records Are Top Secret":
Luckily for the Indonesian citizen Barry Soetoro, or Barack Hussein Obama as he now calls himself, foreign students can get special assistance compliments of American taxpayers. The downside is that they are not eligible to be President...
...This document is guaranteed to be at least as genuine as the birth certificate [he] finally coughed up.
While the ID card could very well be a fake, Columbo's questions remain unanswered:
Ah... Sorry to bother you President Obama, Sir.
Doug Ross
Luckily for the Indonesian citizen Barry Soetoro, or Barack Hussein Obama as he now calls himself, foreign students can get special assistance compliments of American taxpayers. The downside is that they are not eligible to be President...
...This document is guaranteed to be at least as genuine as the birth certificate [he] finally coughed up.
While the ID card could very well be a fake, Columbo's questions remain unanswered:
Ah... Sorry to bother you President Obama, Sir.
Doug Ross
New World Bank Report Shows Large Public Sectors Reduce Economic Growth
by Dan Mitchell
When Ronald Reagan said that big government undermined the economy, some people dismissed his comments because of his philosophical belief in liberty.
And when I discuss my work on the economic impact of government spending, I often get the same reaction.
This is why it’s important that a growing number of establishment outfits are slowly but surely coming around to the same point of view.
The European Central Bank published a study showing “…a significant negative effect of the size of government on growth.”
A study by two Harvard economists found that “large adjustments in fiscal policy, if based on well-targeted spending cuts, have often led to expansions.”
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development noted in recent research that welfare programs are economically destructive because they lure people into dependency because “net disposable income would increase despite putting in fewer hours.”
A study from the International Monetary Fund concluded that “Cuts to pension and health entitlements had the most beneficial effect on economic growth.”
This is remarkable. It’s beginning to look like the entire world has figured out that there’s an inverse relationship between big government and economic performance.
That’s an exaggeration, of course. There are still holdouts pushing for more statism in Pyongyang, Paris, Havana, and parts of Washington, DC.
But maybe they’ll be convinced by new research from the World Bank, which just produced a major report on the outlook for Europe. In chapter 7, the authors explain some of the ways that big government can undermine prosperity.
There are good reasons to suspect that big government is bad for growth. Taxation is perhaps the most obvious (Bergh and Henrekson 2010). Governments have to tax the private sector in order to spend, but taxes distort the allocation of resources in the economy. Producers and consumers change their behavior to reduce their tax payments. Hence certain activities that would have taken place without taxes, do not. Workers may work fewer hours, moderate their career plans, or show less interest in acquiring new skills. Enterprises may scale down production, reduce investments, or turn down opportunities to innovate. …Over time, big governments can also create sclerotic bureaucracies that crowd out private sector employment and lead to a dependency on public transfers and public wages. The larger the group of people reliant on public wages or benefits, the stronger the political demand for public programs and the higher the excess burden of taxes. Slowing the economy, such a trend could increase the share of the population relying on government transfers, leading to a vicious cycle (Alesina and Wacziarg 1998). Large public administrations can also give rise to organized interest groups keener on exploiting their powers for their own benefit rather than facilitating a prosperous private sector (Olson 1982).
In other words, government spending undermines growth, and the damage is magnified by poorly designed tax policies.
The authors then put forth a theoretical hypothesis.
…economic models argue that the excess burden of tax increases disproportionately with the tax rate—in fact, roughly proportional to its tax rate squared (Auerbach 1985). Likewise, the scope for self-interested bureaucracies becomes larger as the government channels more resources. At the same time, the core functions of government, such as enforcing property rights, rule of law and economic openness, can be accomplished by small governments. All this suggests that as government gets bigger, it becomes more likely that the negative impact of government might dominate its positive impact. Ultimately, this issue has to be settled empirically. So what do the data say?
These are important insights, showing that class-warfare tax increases are especially destructive and that government spending undermines growth unless the public sector is limited to core functions.
Then the authors report their results.
Figure 7.9 groups annual observations in four categories according to the share of government spending in GDP during that year. Both samples show a negative relationship between government size and growth, though the reduction in growth as government becomes bigger is far more pronounced in Europe, particularly when government size exceeds 40 percent of GDP. …we provide new econometric evidence on the impact of government size on growth using a panel of advanced and emerging economies since 1995. As estimates can be biased due to problems of omitted variables, endogeneity, or measurement errors, it is necessary to rely on a broad range of estimators. …They suggest that a 10 percentage point increase in initial government spending as a share of GDP in Europe is associated with a reduction in annual real per capita GDP growth of around 0.6–0.9 percentage points a year (table A7.2). The estimates are roughly in line with those from panel regressions on advanced economies in the EU15 and OECD countries for periods from 1960 or 1970 to 1995 or 2005 (Bergh and Henrekson 2010 and 2011).
These results aren’t good news for Europe, but they also are a warning sign for the United States. The burden of government spending has jumped by about eight percentage points of GDP since Bill Clinton left office, so this could be the explanation for why growth in America is so sluggish.
Last but not least, they report that social welfare spending does the most damage.
Governments are big in Europe mainly due to high social transfers, and big governments are a drag on growth. The question is whether this is because of high social transfers? The answer seems to be that it is. The regression results for Europe, using the same approach as outlined earlier, show a consistently negative effect of social transfers on growth, even though the coefficients vary in size and significance (table A7.4). The result is confirmed through BACE regressions. High social transfers might well be the negative link from government size to growth in Europe.
The last point in this passage needs to be emphasized. It is redistribution spending that does the greatest damage. In other words, it’s almost as if Obama (and his counterparts in places such as France and Greece) are trying to do the greatest possible damage to the economy.
In reality, of course, these politicians are simply trying to buy votes. But they need to understand that this shallow behavior imposes very high costs in terms of foregone growth.
To elaborate, this video discusses the Rahn Curve, which augments the data in the World Bank study.
As I argue in the video, even though most of the research shows that economic growth is maximized when government spending is about 20 percent of GDP, I think the real answer is that prosperity is maximized when the public sector consumes less than 10 percent of GDP.
But since government in the United States is now consuming more than 40 percent of GDP (about as much as Spain!), the first priority is to figure out some way of moving back in the right direction by restraining government so it grows slower than the private sector.
When Ronald Reagan said that big government undermined the economy, some people dismissed his comments because of his philosophical belief in liberty.
And when I discuss my work on the economic impact of government spending, I often get the same reaction.
This is why it’s important that a growing number of establishment outfits are slowly but surely coming around to the same point of view.
The European Central Bank published a study showing “…a significant negative effect of the size of government on growth.”
A study by two Harvard economists found that “large adjustments in fiscal policy, if based on well-targeted spending cuts, have often led to expansions.”
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development noted in recent research that welfare programs are economically destructive because they lure people into dependency because “net disposable income would increase despite putting in fewer hours.”
A study from the International Monetary Fund concluded that “Cuts to pension and health entitlements had the most beneficial effect on economic growth.”
This is remarkable. It’s beginning to look like the entire world has figured out that there’s an inverse relationship between big government and economic performance.
That’s an exaggeration, of course. There are still holdouts pushing for more statism in Pyongyang, Paris, Havana, and parts of Washington, DC.
But maybe they’ll be convinced by new research from the World Bank, which just produced a major report on the outlook for Europe. In chapter 7, the authors explain some of the ways that big government can undermine prosperity.
There are good reasons to suspect that big government is bad for growth. Taxation is perhaps the most obvious (Bergh and Henrekson 2010). Governments have to tax the private sector in order to spend, but taxes distort the allocation of resources in the economy. Producers and consumers change their behavior to reduce their tax payments. Hence certain activities that would have taken place without taxes, do not. Workers may work fewer hours, moderate their career plans, or show less interest in acquiring new skills. Enterprises may scale down production, reduce investments, or turn down opportunities to innovate. …Over time, big governments can also create sclerotic bureaucracies that crowd out private sector employment and lead to a dependency on public transfers and public wages. The larger the group of people reliant on public wages or benefits, the stronger the political demand for public programs and the higher the excess burden of taxes. Slowing the economy, such a trend could increase the share of the population relying on government transfers, leading to a vicious cycle (Alesina and Wacziarg 1998). Large public administrations can also give rise to organized interest groups keener on exploiting their powers for their own benefit rather than facilitating a prosperous private sector (Olson 1982).
In other words, government spending undermines growth, and the damage is magnified by poorly designed tax policies.
The authors then put forth a theoretical hypothesis.
…economic models argue that the excess burden of tax increases disproportionately with the tax rate—in fact, roughly proportional to its tax rate squared (Auerbach 1985). Likewise, the scope for self-interested bureaucracies becomes larger as the government channels more resources. At the same time, the core functions of government, such as enforcing property rights, rule of law and economic openness, can be accomplished by small governments. All this suggests that as government gets bigger, it becomes more likely that the negative impact of government might dominate its positive impact. Ultimately, this issue has to be settled empirically. So what do the data say?
These are important insights, showing that class-warfare tax increases are especially destructive and that government spending undermines growth unless the public sector is limited to core functions.
Then the authors report their results.
Figure 7.9 groups annual observations in four categories according to the share of government spending in GDP during that year. Both samples show a negative relationship between government size and growth, though the reduction in growth as government becomes bigger is far more pronounced in Europe, particularly when government size exceeds 40 percent of GDP. …we provide new econometric evidence on the impact of government size on growth using a panel of advanced and emerging economies since 1995. As estimates can be biased due to problems of omitted variables, endogeneity, or measurement errors, it is necessary to rely on a broad range of estimators. …They suggest that a 10 percentage point increase in initial government spending as a share of GDP in Europe is associated with a reduction in annual real per capita GDP growth of around 0.6–0.9 percentage points a year (table A7.2). The estimates are roughly in line with those from panel regressions on advanced economies in the EU15 and OECD countries for periods from 1960 or 1970 to 1995 or 2005 (Bergh and Henrekson 2010 and 2011).
These results aren’t good news for Europe, but they also are a warning sign for the United States. The burden of government spending has jumped by about eight percentage points of GDP since Bill Clinton left office, so this could be the explanation for why growth in America is so sluggish.
Last but not least, they report that social welfare spending does the most damage.
Governments are big in Europe mainly due to high social transfers, and big governments are a drag on growth. The question is whether this is because of high social transfers? The answer seems to be that it is. The regression results for Europe, using the same approach as outlined earlier, show a consistently negative effect of social transfers on growth, even though the coefficients vary in size and significance (table A7.4). The result is confirmed through BACE regressions. High social transfers might well be the negative link from government size to growth in Europe.
The last point in this passage needs to be emphasized. It is redistribution spending that does the greatest damage. In other words, it’s almost as if Obama (and his counterparts in places such as France and Greece) are trying to do the greatest possible damage to the economy.
In reality, of course, these politicians are simply trying to buy votes. But they need to understand that this shallow behavior imposes very high costs in terms of foregone growth.
To elaborate, this video discusses the Rahn Curve, which augments the data in the World Bank study.
As I argue in the video, even though most of the research shows that economic growth is maximized when government spending is about 20 percent of GDP, I think the real answer is that prosperity is maximized when the public sector consumes less than 10 percent of GDP.
But since government in the United States is now consuming more than 40 percent of GDP (about as much as Spain!), the first priority is to figure out some way of moving back in the right direction by restraining government so it grows slower than the private sector.
The Ugly Face of ObamaCare, a Law of Hidden Mandates
By Lonely Conservative
The following is a guest post by Joseph Hall.
***
The Ugly Face of ObamaCare, a Law of Hidden Mandates
In 2009, proponents of ObamaCare gushed with delight over the passage of the law that would transform America into an eternal beacon of hope. The president had pushed through a 2,000 plus page bill that was pass unread. The administration floated a few projections in front of the OMB and won a coveted endorsement of a plan that would theoretically make money as it was implemented. America was told that this plan would benefit millions through its many faceted programs.
In 2012, the mask came off, and the face of the law is repulsive. The contraceptive mandate that was contained in ObamaCare was flung into the spotlight by the HHS proclamation of a forced requirement for Catholic and other religious hospitals and clinics to provide free contraceptive benefits to their patients. But, this is only the tip of the mandates contained within the federal law. In order for Obama Care to remain as low-cost as possible, a series of mandates were included to shift cost from the government’s plan to health insurance companies and providers.
The WSJ just reported on the evolving contraceptive issue, “ObamaCare’s Great Awakening: HHS tells religious believers to go to hell. The public notices.”
“In late January the Health and Human Services Department required almost all insurance plans to cover contraceptive and sterilization methods, including the morning-after pill. The decision came after passionate lobbying by religious groups and liberals from the likes of Planned Parenthood, amid government promises of compromise.
In the end, Planned Parenthood won. HHS chose to draw the rule’s conscience exceptions for “religious employers” so narrowly that they will not be extended to religious charities, universities, schools, hospitals, soup kitchens, homeless shelters and other institutions that oppose contraception as a matter of religious belief.”
Additionally, ObamaCare mandates also include a tax on tanning beds, a mandate to put calorie counts on all restaurant menus, (including drive thru menus) a mandate to add adult children on parents’ plans, a mandate to buy health insurance, a mandate to fund abortions, and many others.
Most of the mandates require that health care providers, business owners, and private insurance companies absorb the costs of compliance.
While this tirade from the Obama administration has caught some people off guard, the reality is that there will be more controversy in the months ahead. There is speculation that ObamaCare is yet another law that is intended to further divide the country. The administration has revealed that the 2012 election will revolve around the socialist doctrine of “fairness.” While the term may sound innocuous to the average citizen, it becomes a battering ram in the political arena of reelection.
The contraceptive mandate is a multipurpose tool for politically bashing the foundational values of America. First, it divides the church leadership from its base by proposing this is a fairness issue for women who need contraception. Second, it creates the illusion of an out of touch leadership and invites membership to seek a more rational answer. Finally, it creates confusion for Americans and provides Obama the opportunity to proclaim that people need to be protected from the crazy right-to-life extremists. Obama is a political illusionist and is unafraid to appear unreasonable to promote his play for power.
The freedoms afforded by the constitution are being substituted by the mandated will of the government. When Obama Care is used to divide the country it can be viewed as divisive and unlawfully interfering with personal freedom of choice and in the practice of religion.
Watch video clip from the O’Reilly Factor, “Are we losing freedom in America?”
Progressives insist this is a health care issue, shifting the focus from a constitutional issue involving freedom of choice to a woman’s reproductive right issue.
The current administration is clearly pursuing a divide and conquer tactic to impale freedom on the spear of Imperialism. Obama Care is only one weapon in the war on individual freedom.
Submitted by: Joseph Hall, Daymar Institute, Health Care & General Education
The following is a guest post by Joseph Hall.
***
The Ugly Face of ObamaCare, a Law of Hidden Mandates
In 2009, proponents of ObamaCare gushed with delight over the passage of the law that would transform America into an eternal beacon of hope. The president had pushed through a 2,000 plus page bill that was pass unread. The administration floated a few projections in front of the OMB and won a coveted endorsement of a plan that would theoretically make money as it was implemented. America was told that this plan would benefit millions through its many faceted programs.
In 2012, the mask came off, and the face of the law is repulsive. The contraceptive mandate that was contained in ObamaCare was flung into the spotlight by the HHS proclamation of a forced requirement for Catholic and other religious hospitals and clinics to provide free contraceptive benefits to their patients. But, this is only the tip of the mandates contained within the federal law. In order for Obama Care to remain as low-cost as possible, a series of mandates were included to shift cost from the government’s plan to health insurance companies and providers.
The WSJ just reported on the evolving contraceptive issue, “ObamaCare’s Great Awakening: HHS tells religious believers to go to hell. The public notices.”
“In late January the Health and Human Services Department required almost all insurance plans to cover contraceptive and sterilization methods, including the morning-after pill. The decision came after passionate lobbying by religious groups and liberals from the likes of Planned Parenthood, amid government promises of compromise.
In the end, Planned Parenthood won. HHS chose to draw the rule’s conscience exceptions for “religious employers” so narrowly that they will not be extended to religious charities, universities, schools, hospitals, soup kitchens, homeless shelters and other institutions that oppose contraception as a matter of religious belief.”
Additionally, ObamaCare mandates also include a tax on tanning beds, a mandate to put calorie counts on all restaurant menus, (including drive thru menus) a mandate to add adult children on parents’ plans, a mandate to buy health insurance, a mandate to fund abortions, and many others.
Most of the mandates require that health care providers, business owners, and private insurance companies absorb the costs of compliance.
While this tirade from the Obama administration has caught some people off guard, the reality is that there will be more controversy in the months ahead. There is speculation that ObamaCare is yet another law that is intended to further divide the country. The administration has revealed that the 2012 election will revolve around the socialist doctrine of “fairness.” While the term may sound innocuous to the average citizen, it becomes a battering ram in the political arena of reelection.
The contraceptive mandate is a multipurpose tool for politically bashing the foundational values of America. First, it divides the church leadership from its base by proposing this is a fairness issue for women who need contraception. Second, it creates the illusion of an out of touch leadership and invites membership to seek a more rational answer. Finally, it creates confusion for Americans and provides Obama the opportunity to proclaim that people need to be protected from the crazy right-to-life extremists. Obama is a political illusionist and is unafraid to appear unreasonable to promote his play for power.
The freedoms afforded by the constitution are being substituted by the mandated will of the government. When Obama Care is used to divide the country it can be viewed as divisive and unlawfully interfering with personal freedom of choice and in the practice of religion.
Watch video clip from the O’Reilly Factor, “Are we losing freedom in America?”
Progressives insist this is a health care issue, shifting the focus from a constitutional issue involving freedom of choice to a woman’s reproductive right issue.
The current administration is clearly pursuing a divide and conquer tactic to impale freedom on the spear of Imperialism. Obama Care is only one weapon in the war on individual freedom.
Submitted by: Joseph Hall, Daymar Institute, Health Care & General Education
Surprise: Super PAC Supporting Ron Paul Run By A 9/11 Truther
February 10, 2012 – 8:07 am
I’m sure we’ll get all sorts of talking points about how Paul isn’t actually a truther, he just doesn’t want to annoy potential donors
(MSNBC) As libertarian Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul looks for a state he can win, some of his supporters have turned to a new theme: voting fraud.
A Super PAC supporting Paul has pledged to monitor the vote in all the remaining states, using an army of exit pollsters to fight what it calls results that are “outrageous, unacceptable and patently un-American.” The group, called Revolution PAC, has spent half a million dollars supporting Paul with videos, webcasts, online ads, direct mail, billboards and radio ads in primary and caucus states.
The leader of the group, its founder, chairman and treasurer, is Gary Franchi, a promoter of conspiracy theories and sophisticated social-media entrepreneur in the resurgent movement known as the Patriots.
Some of what MSNBC writes about is
Franchi has supported the 9/11 Truth Movement, which supports the idea that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, werean inside job to create a pretext for a reduction in American liberty, or at least involved a cover-up, with the World Trade Center brought down by a planned U.S. demolition, instead of terrorist-controlled airplanes. Franchi founded the Lone Lantern Society (a reference to Paul Revere indicating that foreign enemies are on American soil). The group supports “the birth of freedom and the death of the New World Order,” a secretive elite that is supposedly trying to set up a world government. Lone Lantern has held street demonstrations on the 11th of every month in Chicago and elsewhere, demanding an investigation of 9/11. In New Hampshire in 2008, a video shows Franchi asking Tom Ridge, the former secretary of Homeland Security, who was campaigning for Sen. John McCain, whether Ridge would support an investigation of the “controlled demolition” of the World Trade Center. Ridge was having none of it, saying, “I just don’t buy into that. That’s a conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact. It’s almost out of the Twilight Zone.”
Obviously, Revolution PAC is an outside group which can support who they want. But, Paul could finally come out and say “I do not support the 9/11 Truth movement, they’re out of their minds. He won’t. He seems to enjoy hanging with Truthers/conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones, and going on their radio programs.
Like Ron Paul, Franchi has a few good ideas, then turns them up to Ludicrous Speed, perhaps even going plaid. Ron Paul has won none of the beauty contests, er, primaries/caucuses, and will, mostly likely, win none in the future. He has a great core group, but no broader appeal, especially when people find out about his background.
This entry was written by William Teach and posted on at 8:07 am
I’m sure we’ll get all sorts of talking points about how Paul isn’t actually a truther, he just doesn’t want to annoy potential donors
(MSNBC) As libertarian Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul looks for a state he can win, some of his supporters have turned to a new theme: voting fraud.
A Super PAC supporting Paul has pledged to monitor the vote in all the remaining states, using an army of exit pollsters to fight what it calls results that are “outrageous, unacceptable and patently un-American.” The group, called Revolution PAC, has spent half a million dollars supporting Paul with videos, webcasts, online ads, direct mail, billboards and radio ads in primary and caucus states.
The leader of the group, its founder, chairman and treasurer, is Gary Franchi, a promoter of conspiracy theories and sophisticated social-media entrepreneur in the resurgent movement known as the Patriots.
Some of what MSNBC writes about is
Franchi has supported the 9/11 Truth Movement, which supports the idea that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, werean inside job to create a pretext for a reduction in American liberty, or at least involved a cover-up, with the World Trade Center brought down by a planned U.S. demolition, instead of terrorist-controlled airplanes. Franchi founded the Lone Lantern Society (a reference to Paul Revere indicating that foreign enemies are on American soil). The group supports “the birth of freedom and the death of the New World Order,” a secretive elite that is supposedly trying to set up a world government. Lone Lantern has held street demonstrations on the 11th of every month in Chicago and elsewhere, demanding an investigation of 9/11. In New Hampshire in 2008, a video shows Franchi asking Tom Ridge, the former secretary of Homeland Security, who was campaigning for Sen. John McCain, whether Ridge would support an investigation of the “controlled demolition” of the World Trade Center. Ridge was having none of it, saying, “I just don’t buy into that. That’s a conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact. It’s almost out of the Twilight Zone.”
Obviously, Revolution PAC is an outside group which can support who they want. But, Paul could finally come out and say “I do not support the 9/11 Truth movement, they’re out of their minds. He won’t. He seems to enjoy hanging with Truthers/conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones, and going on their radio programs.
Like Ron Paul, Franchi has a few good ideas, then turns them up to Ludicrous Speed, perhaps even going plaid. Ron Paul has won none of the beauty contests, er, primaries/caucuses, and will, mostly likely, win none in the future. He has a great core group, but no broader appeal, especially when people find out about his background.
This entry was written by William Teach and posted on at 8:07 am
Bone head Ben Nelson of Nebraska calls Obama’s contraception-mandate boneheaded
Senator Nelson agrees with A-G challenge of Health Care Law
February 8, 2012 By Karla James
Nebraska will challenge the new federal Health Care Law requirement regarding contraception provided by church owned and related entities. Nebraska U-S Senator Ben Nelson is on board with Attorney General Jon Bruning’s decision to file a legal challenge.
Senator Nelson went on to say that this is one of the rare times where he and the Attorney General agree. He then went on to say, “this was a bone headed decision by H-H-S”. Senator Nelson is hosting a Congressional staff briefing today with members of the U-S Conference of Catholic Bishops and he is hoping to convince other senators to join their effort to get this requirement removed.
February 8, 2012 By Karla James
Nebraska will challenge the new federal Health Care Law requirement regarding contraception provided by church owned and related entities. Nebraska U-S Senator Ben Nelson is on board with Attorney General Jon Bruning’s decision to file a legal challenge.
Senator Nelson went on to say that this is one of the rare times where he and the Attorney General agree. He then went on to say, “this was a bone headed decision by H-H-S”. Senator Nelson is hosting a Congressional staff briefing today with members of the U-S Conference of Catholic Bishops and he is hoping to convince other senators to join their effort to get this requirement removed.
Nancy Pelosi May Have Broken Law
The Blaze:
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 7:18am by Jonathon M. Seidl
Remember when Nancy Pelosi said she she was willing to do anything to get Obamacare passed? Here’s a refresher:
You go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in. But we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people.
Well, it could be that same approach to fundraising that now has her in hot water. According to CNN, the House Minority Leader may have broken the law when she solicited donations during a speech in the Capitol building.
CNN explains:
At a Capitol Hill press conference Thursday, Pelosi was making the case for campaign finance reform and said Democrats will disclose donors to their political groups, even when the law doesn’t require it.
During her comments, she said “by the way we’re asking people to contribute to us if they want to elect more reformers to Congress so we can do away with super PACs – we can do away with secret contributions.”
So what’s so odd about that statement? Well, the part where she says “we’re asking people to contribute” while standing inside the U.S. Capitol is. That’s because, as CNN notes, “The law prohibits any kind of fundraising on federal grounds.”
A Pelosi spokesman, Drew Hammil, denied any wrongdoing.
The comment was very clearly referring to our efforts to disclose, reform and amend,” he told CNN. “Reporters have repeatedly asked the Leader how to square fundraising and reform policy so that’s why she said we have to raise money to elect more reformers. That is her pitch to supporters.”
In 1997, the Clinton administration (and Al Gore) faced a probe over whether he solicited donations by making campaign phone calls from the Oval Office. The law that forbids such conduct is called the Pendleton Act.
This story has been updated for clarity.
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 7:18am by Jonathon M. Seidl
Remember when Nancy Pelosi said she she was willing to do anything to get Obamacare passed? Here’s a refresher:
You go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in. But we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people.
Well, it could be that same approach to fundraising that now has her in hot water. According to CNN, the House Minority Leader may have broken the law when she solicited donations during a speech in the Capitol building.
CNN explains:
At a Capitol Hill press conference Thursday, Pelosi was making the case for campaign finance reform and said Democrats will disclose donors to their political groups, even when the law doesn’t require it.
During her comments, she said “by the way we’re asking people to contribute to us if they want to elect more reformers to Congress so we can do away with super PACs – we can do away with secret contributions.”
So what’s so odd about that statement? Well, the part where she says “we’re asking people to contribute” while standing inside the U.S. Capitol is. That’s because, as CNN notes, “The law prohibits any kind of fundraising on federal grounds.”
A Pelosi spokesman, Drew Hammil, denied any wrongdoing.
The comment was very clearly referring to our efforts to disclose, reform and amend,” he told CNN. “Reporters have repeatedly asked the Leader how to square fundraising and reform policy so that’s why she said we have to raise money to elect more reformers. That is her pitch to supporters.”
In 1997, the Clinton administration (and Al Gore) faced a probe over whether he solicited donations by making campaign phone calls from the Oval Office. The law that forbids such conduct is called the Pendleton Act.
This story has been updated for clarity.
U.S. secretly funds Regime-Change in Cuba!–and smuggles in cutting-edge communications equipt!!!
By Humberto Fontova, on February 9, 2012, at 10:54 pm
Raul Castro and Che Guevara availing themselves of state-of-the-art U.S. communications equiptment provided them by CIA operatives in Santiago Cuba, Robert Weicha and Park Wollam (1957-58)
I refer to the tens of thousands of dollars delivered by the CIA's Robert Weicha to the Julio 26 Movement, along with the state of the art communications equipt. that became Radio Rebelde, from where Fidel, Raul and Che broadcast their utterly bogus “guerrilla" victories island-wide, along with their plans to uplift Cuba into a Caribbean Shangri-La inspired by the principles of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and Thomas Jefferson.
Furthermore, these CIA operatives working undercover as "U.S. Consuls" in Santiago tried repeatedly to meet with Castro himself to better coordinate their clandestine financial aid. In July 1957 Frank Pais wrote Castro to say that U.S. diplomat (CIA officer Robert Weicha) craved to meet with him. "We do not raise the slightest objection to the U.S. diplomat's visit!" replied an eager Castro. "We can receive any U.S. diplomat here!"
“Me and my staff were all Fidelistas,” Robert Reynolds, CIA’s Caribbean Desk Chief 1957-60)
"Everyone in the CIA and everyone at State were pro-Castro, except ambassador Earl T. Smith. (Robert Weicha, CIA operative in Santiago de Cuba 1957-59)
Robert Hill, then responsible for the US State Department's relations with Congress, told the newly-appointed US Ambassador to Cuba, Earl Smith: "You are assigned to Cuba to preside over the downfall of Batista. The decision has been made that Batista has to go." (Hugh Thomas: p. 165)
So when Cuba "Experts" claim that U.S. officials have a history of plotting with Cuban dissidents to secretly slip money into their palms and plot "regime-change"--THEY'RE RIGHT!
I refer to the tens of thousands of dollars delivered by the CIA's Robert Weicha to the Julio 26 Movement, along with the state of the art communications equipt. that became Radio Rebelde, from where Fidel, Raul and Che broadcast their utterly bogus “guerrilla" victories island-wide, along with their plans to uplift Cuba into a Caribbean Shangri-La inspired by the principles of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and Thomas Jefferson.
Furthermore, these CIA operatives working undercover as "U.S. Consuls" in Santiago tried repeatedly to meet with Castro himself to better coordinate their clandestine financial aid. In July 1957 Frank Pais wrote Castro to say that U.S. diplomat (CIA officer Robert Weicha) craved to meet with him. "We do not raise the slightest objection to the U.S. diplomat's visit!" replied an eager Castro. "We can receive any U.S. diplomat here!"
“Me and my staff were all Fidelistas,” Robert Reynolds, CIA’s Caribbean Desk Chief 1957-60)
"Everyone in the CIA and everyone at State were pro-Castro, except ambassador Earl T. Smith. (Robert Weicha, CIA operative in Santiago de Cuba 1957-59)
Robert Hill, then responsible for the US State Department's relations with Congress, told the newly-appointed US Ambassador to Cuba, Earl Smith: "You are assigned to Cuba to preside over the downfall of Batista. The decision has been made that Batista has to go." (Hugh Thomas: p. 165)
So when Cuba "Experts" claim that U.S. officials have a history of plotting with Cuban dissidents to secretly slip money into their palms and plot "regime-change"--THEY'RE RIGHT!
Bloomberg evicts churches from using public schools, but allows labor unions
by Jason Mattera
Human Events
02/10/2012
Should religious institutions be able to rent public property just like any other community group?
If you’re New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the answer is a resounding no, a decision that has angered local communities and is poised to kick out dozens churches from meeting in New York City public schools even though other groups, including labor unions, are granted full access.
“Houses of worship throughout the city consider this policy to be nothing short of discrimination, and we will make that known,” said Fernando Cabrera, a Democratic city councilman representing the Bronx. “Evicting [churches] hurts people and neighborhoods by denying them the social and spiritual services they desperately need, which in my district includes tutoring services, soup kitchens and more,” he added.
At issue is whether or not allowing religious organizations access to public schools during off-hours is an “endorsement” of that particular religion’s belief system. For the past 10 years an injunction issued by the U.S. District Court of New York said that churches can, in fact, rent out school facilities just like any other group. But a recent ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals defied the lower court’s ruling, agreeing with the Department of Education that granting churches equal access to vacant government buildings amounts to a subsidy of religion.
“When worship services are performed in a place, the nature of the site changes. The site is no longer simply a room in a school being used temporarily for some activity,” the majority opinion stated. “The church has made the school the place where it performs its rites, and might well appear to have established itself there. The place has, at least for a time, become the church.”
Such a ruling adheres to an “extreme version of the establishment clause and separation of church and state,” Jordan Lorence, a senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, the legal firm representing the local churches, told HUMAN EVENTS. “It’s hard for the bureaucrats and judges to grasp the difference between government sponsored religion and government accommodating everybody to use an empty building.”
The idea that a school would morph into a church vis-Ã -vis a worship service taking place on non-school days makes no sense to NYC pastors who rent the space.
“The church is a people, not a building,” Pastor Chris Dito of International Christian Center in Staten Island told HUMAN EVENTS. “If we have a prayer meeting at Starbucks, it doesn’t magically transform into a church.” Dito said that International Christian Church caters to families who have children with special needs, and the New Dorp High School where they currently meet provides his church with the ability address those needs. “The classrooms are a big help.”
And it’s not like the church is freeloading either. They pay $1,500 a month in maintenance costs.
In total, more than 70 churches are at risk of being evicted. A handful of Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu groups also had access to the school grounds, although they don't meet as frequently as the Christian groups.
What’s more, while Mayor Michael Bloomberg will forbid religious organizations from leasing out schools under the rubric of “separation of church and state,” it turns out that the Department of Education itself rents out religious facilities to house public schools. P.S. 133 in Park Slope, Brooklyn, for instance, leases a Catholic institution that is run by St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Church.
“Talk about hypocrisy,” notes Lorence. “The kids in P.S. 133 go everyday to a building with crosses on it and that doesn’t bother them [Education bureaucrats]. But what bothers them is a three-hour stint on Sunday mornings of a church being there.”
Out of the 1,200 school buildings in New York City, there are at least 10,000 extracurricular community uses each year, ranging from dance recitals, Boy Scout meetings and even the filming of the popular television show “Law & Order.” And, as the Alliance Defense Fund points out in one of their many legal briefs, labor unions, including the Communications Workers of America, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Service Employees International Union and the United Federation of Teachers, all are allowed to meet in public school buildings.
But come Feb. 12, not churches.
Pastor Matt Brown of Park Slope Church has been meeting in John Jay High School in Brooklyn for the past eight years. He pays a fee of $3,200 a month to cover maintenance costs and is one of the clergymen being forced to relocate.
“Everyone loses with the mayor’s decision,” Pastor Brown told HUMAN EVENTS. “The janitors and guards at John Jay High School who will now be out of work on Sunday, the school itself, which uses part of the rent money for facilities; and the students at the high school who were the beneficiaries of our presence there.” Pastor Brown noted that he and his congregation has stocked the school’s library with academic books, tutored students for standardized tests, and even painted the hallways and classrooms voluntarily.
Mayor Bloomberg could single-handedly reverse the Education Department’s decision, as they report directly to him, but he’s refused to do so. In fact, the mayor’s office tells HUMAN EVENTS that the evictions will go through as planned. Legislation has been submitted by Bronx City Councilman Fernando Cabrera to block the mayor’s decision since the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case late last year, but that bill is currently being held up by the Council’s speaker, Christine Quinn.
“The Left’s whole concept of equality goes right out the window when we’re talking about renting unused NYC classrooms on the weekends,” said Lorence. “'Churches lose’ is how the Left always interprets the First Amendment.”
Human Events
02/10/2012
Should religious institutions be able to rent public property just like any other community group?
If you’re New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the answer is a resounding no, a decision that has angered local communities and is poised to kick out dozens churches from meeting in New York City public schools even though other groups, including labor unions, are granted full access.
“Houses of worship throughout the city consider this policy to be nothing short of discrimination, and we will make that known,” said Fernando Cabrera, a Democratic city councilman representing the Bronx. “Evicting [churches] hurts people and neighborhoods by denying them the social and spiritual services they desperately need, which in my district includes tutoring services, soup kitchens and more,” he added.
At issue is whether or not allowing religious organizations access to public schools during off-hours is an “endorsement” of that particular religion’s belief system. For the past 10 years an injunction issued by the U.S. District Court of New York said that churches can, in fact, rent out school facilities just like any other group. But a recent ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals defied the lower court’s ruling, agreeing with the Department of Education that granting churches equal access to vacant government buildings amounts to a subsidy of religion.
“When worship services are performed in a place, the nature of the site changes. The site is no longer simply a room in a school being used temporarily for some activity,” the majority opinion stated. “The church has made the school the place where it performs its rites, and might well appear to have established itself there. The place has, at least for a time, become the church.”
Such a ruling adheres to an “extreme version of the establishment clause and separation of church and state,” Jordan Lorence, a senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, the legal firm representing the local churches, told HUMAN EVENTS. “It’s hard for the bureaucrats and judges to grasp the difference between government sponsored religion and government accommodating everybody to use an empty building.”
The idea that a school would morph into a church vis-Ã -vis a worship service taking place on non-school days makes no sense to NYC pastors who rent the space.
“The church is a people, not a building,” Pastor Chris Dito of International Christian Center in Staten Island told HUMAN EVENTS. “If we have a prayer meeting at Starbucks, it doesn’t magically transform into a church.” Dito said that International Christian Church caters to families who have children with special needs, and the New Dorp High School where they currently meet provides his church with the ability address those needs. “The classrooms are a big help.”
And it’s not like the church is freeloading either. They pay $1,500 a month in maintenance costs.
In total, more than 70 churches are at risk of being evicted. A handful of Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu groups also had access to the school grounds, although they don't meet as frequently as the Christian groups.
What’s more, while Mayor Michael Bloomberg will forbid religious organizations from leasing out schools under the rubric of “separation of church and state,” it turns out that the Department of Education itself rents out religious facilities to house public schools. P.S. 133 in Park Slope, Brooklyn, for instance, leases a Catholic institution that is run by St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Church.
“Talk about hypocrisy,” notes Lorence. “The kids in P.S. 133 go everyday to a building with crosses on it and that doesn’t bother them [Education bureaucrats]. But what bothers them is a three-hour stint on Sunday mornings of a church being there.”
Out of the 1,200 school buildings in New York City, there are at least 10,000 extracurricular community uses each year, ranging from dance recitals, Boy Scout meetings and even the filming of the popular television show “Law & Order.” And, as the Alliance Defense Fund points out in one of their many legal briefs, labor unions, including the Communications Workers of America, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Service Employees International Union and the United Federation of Teachers, all are allowed to meet in public school buildings.
But come Feb. 12, not churches.
Pastor Matt Brown of Park Slope Church has been meeting in John Jay High School in Brooklyn for the past eight years. He pays a fee of $3,200 a month to cover maintenance costs and is one of the clergymen being forced to relocate.
“Everyone loses with the mayor’s decision,” Pastor Brown told HUMAN EVENTS. “The janitors and guards at John Jay High School who will now be out of work on Sunday, the school itself, which uses part of the rent money for facilities; and the students at the high school who were the beneficiaries of our presence there.” Pastor Brown noted that he and his congregation has stocked the school’s library with academic books, tutored students for standardized tests, and even painted the hallways and classrooms voluntarily.
Mayor Bloomberg could single-handedly reverse the Education Department’s decision, as they report directly to him, but he’s refused to do so. In fact, the mayor’s office tells HUMAN EVENTS that the evictions will go through as planned. Legislation has been submitted by Bronx City Councilman Fernando Cabrera to block the mayor’s decision since the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case late last year, but that bill is currently being held up by the Council’s speaker, Christine Quinn.
“The Left’s whole concept of equality goes right out the window when we’re talking about renting unused NYC classrooms on the weekends,” said Lorence. “'Churches lose’ is how the Left always interprets the First Amendment.”
CNN Israel: Fires 4 Israelis Keeps 4 Arabs – No Jews Reporting
February 9, 2012
By Maggie
It about the budget, don’t ya know. Downsizing. No one wants to advertise with the CNN Israeli bureau. The story is just breaking, so there may be more or less to come.
That doesn’t explain why they fired four Israeli Jewish journalists (out of a crew of 8), and retained only Arab journalists. The local chief editor of CNN is now an Arab.
Among the long time news personnel let go were Moshe Cohen, editor, fired after 10 years with CNN; Izi Landberg, Producer, about 25 years with CNN; Avi Kaner cameraman fired after 10 years with CNN; and Michal Zippori desk producer.
CNN’s usual procedure in the past was to send both a Jewish and an Arab reporter out on stories. Now, they’re only going to send an Arab journalist, with all that implies. It’s no secret to anyone that Arab journalists have to toe the Fatah and Hamas line if they want to do reporting on stories in Gaza and the Arab occupied areas of Judea and Samaria without taking the risk of being murdered. Read the entire story by Jean-Patrick Grumberg for Dreuz. www.Dreuz.info
Blazing Cat Fur notes that the story is just breaking tonight, and we would be prudent to wait until we have additional details and sufficient confirmation.
Posted by Maggie @ Maggie’s Notebook
By Maggie
It about the budget, don’t ya know. Downsizing. No one wants to advertise with the CNN Israeli bureau. The story is just breaking, so there may be more or less to come.
That doesn’t explain why they fired four Israeli Jewish journalists (out of a crew of 8), and retained only Arab journalists. The local chief editor of CNN is now an Arab.
Among the long time news personnel let go were Moshe Cohen, editor, fired after 10 years with CNN; Izi Landberg, Producer, about 25 years with CNN; Avi Kaner cameraman fired after 10 years with CNN; and Michal Zippori desk producer.
CNN’s usual procedure in the past was to send both a Jewish and an Arab reporter out on stories. Now, they’re only going to send an Arab journalist, with all that implies. It’s no secret to anyone that Arab journalists have to toe the Fatah and Hamas line if they want to do reporting on stories in Gaza and the Arab occupied areas of Judea and Samaria without taking the risk of being murdered. Read the entire story by Jean-Patrick Grumberg for Dreuz. www.Dreuz.info
Blazing Cat Fur notes that the story is just breaking tonight, and we would be prudent to wait until we have additional details and sufficient confirmation.
Posted by Maggie @ Maggie’s Notebook
Attorneys General letter against Obama’s Contraception Policy
Conservative Daily News:
Obamacare is pushing religious organizations to perform duties and tasks that are in direct contradiction to their beliefs. Three Attorneys General from Texas, Nebraska and South Carolina have c0-written a letter to remind the Obama administration that what President Obama is asking is unconstitutional and immoral.
Link to Letter: 2 pages
Whether or not an American agrees with the organizations, a citizen must decide that seeing the federal government decide what a religious groups may or may not believe in is exactly what the Constitution was intended to prevent.
The U.S. Supreme Court has been using the first amendment to slowly, but surely, dismantle religion by removing its influences from anything remotely related to government. The ten commandments have been pulled from court houses, the golden rule yanked from schools and prayer not allowed on school grounds or at athletic events.
Most may not find trouble with the action the government is taking. It won’t be long until the government decides that another group must do something for the common good. Maybe it’s gun ranges, maybe it’s steak or pork – once Americans allow the government to oppressively decided what one group can or cannot do, it is not much longer until it is telling all groups what they may not do.
In a total bastardization of the Constitution, progressives have decided that the needs of the government outweigh those of the individual – fight this or your prized right may be next and there will be no one left to fight beside you.
Obamacare is pushing religious organizations to perform duties and tasks that are in direct contradiction to their beliefs. Three Attorneys General from Texas, Nebraska and South Carolina have c0-written a letter to remind the Obama administration that what President Obama is asking is unconstitutional and immoral.
Link to Letter: 2 pages
Whether or not an American agrees with the organizations, a citizen must decide that seeing the federal government decide what a religious groups may or may not believe in is exactly what the Constitution was intended to prevent.
The U.S. Supreme Court has been using the first amendment to slowly, but surely, dismantle religion by removing its influences from anything remotely related to government. The ten commandments have been pulled from court houses, the golden rule yanked from schools and prayer not allowed on school grounds or at athletic events.
Most may not find trouble with the action the government is taking. It won’t be long until the government decides that another group must do something for the common good. Maybe it’s gun ranges, maybe it’s steak or pork – once Americans allow the government to oppressively decided what one group can or cannot do, it is not much longer until it is telling all groups what they may not do.
In a total bastardization of the Constitution, progressives have decided that the needs of the government outweigh those of the individual – fight this or your prized right may be next and there will be no one left to fight beside you.
The US is Morphing Into East Berlin
www.economicnoise.com:
I have always considered myself a peaceful, law-abiding citizen. I have never been arrested, obtained a Top-Secret clearance for my duties in military intelligence, have always paid my taxes, never demonstrated for or against any causes, etc. etc. Apparently, my evaluation was incorrect.
According to Mac Slavo, I am now considered a threat, as I suppose many like-minded readers of this blog might be also. Who knew that we might be labeled as terrorists?
Whether you like it or not, if you promote the ownership of gold, reject the notion that forced taxation is your patriotic duty and prefer to live in a country with limited government interference, you have now been stereotyped and grouped in with the handful of criminals who have recently turned violent against law enforcement officials. And, chances are that those close to you, who may not necessarily share your views, have now been alerted to your volatile nature and potential for violence against local law enforcement officials and the free people of the United States.
It appears that if you believe in that simplistic, archaic (and now “subversive”) document known as The Constitution you are considered dangerous. Belief in the founding values of this nation are apparently sufficient cause for you or I to be considered a threat to society — a terrorist! Even George Orwell must be amazed at the level of double-speak which now passes for governmental definitions and laws. Profiling based on traditional values is enough to make you a suspect.
The distance we have moved from freedom toward tyranny since 9/11/2001 is frightening. The tragic event has been used to justify actions that were unimaginable as recently as two decades ago. 9/11 represents the classic as necessary for protecting the American public, a classic case of never letting a crisis go to waste. In reality, it is just another excuse for government to grow more powerful and gain more control. If you strip away all rights and freedom, is there any reason to even want protection? Without personal freedom, what is the purpose of living? Without a purpose for living, what good does protection do?
Every government program is designed to empower government. That can only be accomplished by removing freedoms for its citizens. For most of my life, every program has fit this theme: Leviathan, yes; freedom, no! Every program has made government more oppressive.
The movement toward oppression is no surprise. It is in every government’s nature to be oppressive. Over time, even the freest countries succumb, as tradition and custom are eventually eroded by the ongoing onslaught of government power grabs.
We may have passed the point of no return in terms of ever regaining a proper balance between government and freedom. As Mr. Slavo observed all the tools are now in place to “legally” complete the transformation to total government control:
In a coincidental stroke of good luck and timing for the national security apparatus of the United States, the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allows for the rounding up and detainment of of these potential extremists without charge or trial, because the last thing we need is for courts, juries, and evidence to be involved in ensuring the security of American citizens.
Be warned fellow Americans. No one will be immune to the violative laws, policies and regulations of the police state which is quickly and forcefully embedding itself into all aspects of American life and culture.
In the new America, every man, woman and child is a suspect, person-of-interest and potential terrorist.
We are close to becoming a gigantic version of East Berlin. Expect to see walls erected to contain the escape of citizens. No, I don’t mean physical walls, but legislative ones like capital controls, emigration controls, etc.
Welcome to “Hope and Change” as it existed in Eastern Europe. It is not all Obama’s fault. The Republicans are as guilty as the Democrats in this unending grab for more power over citizens.
I have always considered myself a peaceful, law-abiding citizen. I have never been arrested, obtained a Top-Secret clearance for my duties in military intelligence, have always paid my taxes, never demonstrated for or against any causes, etc. etc. Apparently, my evaluation was incorrect.
According to Mac Slavo, I am now considered a threat, as I suppose many like-minded readers of this blog might be also. Who knew that we might be labeled as terrorists?
Whether you like it or not, if you promote the ownership of gold, reject the notion that forced taxation is your patriotic duty and prefer to live in a country with limited government interference, you have now been stereotyped and grouped in with the handful of criminals who have recently turned violent against law enforcement officials. And, chances are that those close to you, who may not necessarily share your views, have now been alerted to your volatile nature and potential for violence against local law enforcement officials and the free people of the United States.
It appears that if you believe in that simplistic, archaic (and now “subversive”) document known as The Constitution you are considered dangerous. Belief in the founding values of this nation are apparently sufficient cause for you or I to be considered a threat to society — a terrorist! Even George Orwell must be amazed at the level of double-speak which now passes for governmental definitions and laws. Profiling based on traditional values is enough to make you a suspect.
The distance we have moved from freedom toward tyranny since 9/11/2001 is frightening. The tragic event has been used to justify actions that were unimaginable as recently as two decades ago. 9/11 represents the classic as necessary for protecting the American public, a classic case of never letting a crisis go to waste. In reality, it is just another excuse for government to grow more powerful and gain more control. If you strip away all rights and freedom, is there any reason to even want protection? Without personal freedom, what is the purpose of living? Without a purpose for living, what good does protection do?
Every government program is designed to empower government. That can only be accomplished by removing freedoms for its citizens. For most of my life, every program has fit this theme: Leviathan, yes; freedom, no! Every program has made government more oppressive.
The movement toward oppression is no surprise. It is in every government’s nature to be oppressive. Over time, even the freest countries succumb, as tradition and custom are eventually eroded by the ongoing onslaught of government power grabs.
We may have passed the point of no return in terms of ever regaining a proper balance between government and freedom. As Mr. Slavo observed all the tools are now in place to “legally” complete the transformation to total government control:
In a coincidental stroke of good luck and timing for the national security apparatus of the United States, the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allows for the rounding up and detainment of of these potential extremists without charge or trial, because the last thing we need is for courts, juries, and evidence to be involved in ensuring the security of American citizens.
Be warned fellow Americans. No one will be immune to the violative laws, policies and regulations of the police state which is quickly and forcefully embedding itself into all aspects of American life and culture.
In the new America, every man, woman and child is a suspect, person-of-interest and potential terrorist.
We are close to becoming a gigantic version of East Berlin. Expect to see walls erected to contain the escape of citizens. No, I don’t mean physical walls, but legislative ones like capital controls, emigration controls, etc.
Welcome to “Hope and Change” as it existed in Eastern Europe. It is not all Obama’s fault. The Republicans are as guilty as the Democrats in this unending grab for more power over citizens.
The Sun is Setting Tell Everyone You Know
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens
at 9:50 PM
Thursday, February 9, 2012
If we say nothing while watching someone walk off a cliff and plunge to her death we would be criminally negligent. If we ride past a home in the early morning and see smoke rising from the roof and don’t call 911 we would be criminally negligent. Today, as we watch our nation walk off a cliff, as we watch the smoke rise from the home of the brave and the land of the free, if we do not do all we can to raise the awareness of our fellow Americans we are criminally negligent.
Those who are awake to the coming end of limited government have watched this slow motion train wreck for our entire lives. We have watched as inch by inch the Federal Government has lured our fellow citizens into one entitlement trap after another. We have wondered when they will wake up and pay attention.
Election after election we have marveled at the shallowness of the debate. One side says, “If you elect them they will gut the safety net and throw Grandma off the cliff!” And after every election no matter who wins the safety net becomes more of a hammock. The other side says, “If you elect them they will gut the defenses and whoever the currently fashionable model of a barbarian horde happens to be will soon stifle freedom, walk upon Old Glory and turn us all into slaves.” And after every election the defense budget grows and the policeman of the world continues to walk the beat.
Blind justice may be good but a blind electorate is falling for these two straw man arguments electing demagogues whose motto might as well be, “You know I’m lying but you like what I say.” The social safety net will not be eliminated by any of these empty suits. It will instead become the sack the cats are sewn in before the crazy guy throws it in the river. The defense budget will not be gutted. It won’t even be reduced. Baseline budgeting and secret off budget black ops funding will make sure our 900 base 130 country overseas empire continues to make sure the sun never sets on the stars and stripes.
As each constitutional guarantee falls by the wayside we wonder when enough people will turn off the game, forget about the vampires, the hoarders, and the dysfunctional non-reality reality stars and realize our nation and our children’s heritage is being transformed into what our ancestors fought a revolution to be rid of?
Most of us, even the comatose can recite, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Our assembly line public education has drilled that into our heads.
What our one more brick in the wall system hopes we don’t recall is the next line, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” And they pray that we don’t shout the next line, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”
When a government uses the excuse of security to tap our phones, monitor electronic communications, and generally read our mail without a warrant, to arrest and detain American citizens on American soil without a warrant, and hold them indefinitely without trial, to wage war without declaration or even congressional approval what we have here is more than a failure to communicate. What we have is a central government establishing a tyranny in the name of providing security.
Ben Franklin told us, “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Looking for substance we tune into the ad nauseam insipid debates organized and orchestrated by a partisan press merely trying to make the Republicans look like the bar scene from Star Wars. What do we hear? Except for the lone exception we hear one after another big government professional calling for less spending, less regulations and more war. Out of that list all we will get is more war. And the lone exception is continuously relegated to the status of an also ran by every news organization including the supposedly conservative one.
On the other side we are offered four more years of this: four more years of total transformation until we wake up one day in the Progressive version of Heaven: a cradle-to-grave nanny state fighting endless wars for peace. Regimented, controlled, secure and listening as the same comatose voters who brought us to this place repeat the pabulum that jumps off the teleprompters into the mouths of the info-announcers as if these were their own opinions.
We cannot, we must not allow this to happen without at the very least exerting every effort to wake up anyone within the sound of our voice. To do this we of course must be awake and aware ourselves.
If we do not know where we came from how can we know where we are? If we don’t know where we are, how can we know where we are going?
We must study to show ourselves approved. If we lose the foundation how will the structure stand? We must know and understand the constitutional and historical underpinnings of this noble experiment in human freedom if we are to preserve it. We must know and understand the flow of current events if we wish to shape the future.
Study, learn, share, and look for the lights in the tower. One if by land and two if by sea, we must recognize the signs of the times and try to wake up as many people as we can. The time is late, the hour is dark, but the right shall prevail.
Forty-seven years ago a young pre-rap poet songwriter tried to wake people up to the intrusion of government and the need to recognize it when he said, “Maggie comes fleet foot face full of black soot talkin’ that the heat put plants in the bed but the phone’s tapped anyway Maggie says that many say they must bust in early May orders from the D.A. Look out kid Don’t matter what you did. Walk on your tiptoes don’t try “No-Doz” better stay away from those that carry around a fire hose keep a clean nose watch the plain clothes you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”
Knowing which way the wind blows should tell us that we must do our duty to save our country or it will be lost. I don’t know about you but in the future when my grandchildren ask, “What did you do to hold back the night?” I want to be able to say more than, “I didn’t notice the darkness.”
Keep the faith, keep the peace, we shall overcome.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com/ © 2012 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens
at 9:50 PM
Thursday, February 9, 2012
If we say nothing while watching someone walk off a cliff and plunge to her death we would be criminally negligent. If we ride past a home in the early morning and see smoke rising from the roof and don’t call 911 we would be criminally negligent. Today, as we watch our nation walk off a cliff, as we watch the smoke rise from the home of the brave and the land of the free, if we do not do all we can to raise the awareness of our fellow Americans we are criminally negligent.
Those who are awake to the coming end of limited government have watched this slow motion train wreck for our entire lives. We have watched as inch by inch the Federal Government has lured our fellow citizens into one entitlement trap after another. We have wondered when they will wake up and pay attention.
Election after election we have marveled at the shallowness of the debate. One side says, “If you elect them they will gut the safety net and throw Grandma off the cliff!” And after every election no matter who wins the safety net becomes more of a hammock. The other side says, “If you elect them they will gut the defenses and whoever the currently fashionable model of a barbarian horde happens to be will soon stifle freedom, walk upon Old Glory and turn us all into slaves.” And after every election the defense budget grows and the policeman of the world continues to walk the beat.
Blind justice may be good but a blind electorate is falling for these two straw man arguments electing demagogues whose motto might as well be, “You know I’m lying but you like what I say.” The social safety net will not be eliminated by any of these empty suits. It will instead become the sack the cats are sewn in before the crazy guy throws it in the river. The defense budget will not be gutted. It won’t even be reduced. Baseline budgeting and secret off budget black ops funding will make sure our 900 base 130 country overseas empire continues to make sure the sun never sets on the stars and stripes.
As each constitutional guarantee falls by the wayside we wonder when enough people will turn off the game, forget about the vampires, the hoarders, and the dysfunctional non-reality reality stars and realize our nation and our children’s heritage is being transformed into what our ancestors fought a revolution to be rid of?
Most of us, even the comatose can recite, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Our assembly line public education has drilled that into our heads.
What our one more brick in the wall system hopes we don’t recall is the next line, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” And they pray that we don’t shout the next line, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”
When a government uses the excuse of security to tap our phones, monitor electronic communications, and generally read our mail without a warrant, to arrest and detain American citizens on American soil without a warrant, and hold them indefinitely without trial, to wage war without declaration or even congressional approval what we have here is more than a failure to communicate. What we have is a central government establishing a tyranny in the name of providing security.
Ben Franklin told us, “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Looking for substance we tune into the ad nauseam insipid debates organized and orchestrated by a partisan press merely trying to make the Republicans look like the bar scene from Star Wars. What do we hear? Except for the lone exception we hear one after another big government professional calling for less spending, less regulations and more war. Out of that list all we will get is more war. And the lone exception is continuously relegated to the status of an also ran by every news organization including the supposedly conservative one.
On the other side we are offered four more years of this: four more years of total transformation until we wake up one day in the Progressive version of Heaven: a cradle-to-grave nanny state fighting endless wars for peace. Regimented, controlled, secure and listening as the same comatose voters who brought us to this place repeat the pabulum that jumps off the teleprompters into the mouths of the info-announcers as if these were their own opinions.
We cannot, we must not allow this to happen without at the very least exerting every effort to wake up anyone within the sound of our voice. To do this we of course must be awake and aware ourselves.
If we do not know where we came from how can we know where we are? If we don’t know where we are, how can we know where we are going?
We must study to show ourselves approved. If we lose the foundation how will the structure stand? We must know and understand the constitutional and historical underpinnings of this noble experiment in human freedom if we are to preserve it. We must know and understand the flow of current events if we wish to shape the future.
Study, learn, share, and look for the lights in the tower. One if by land and two if by sea, we must recognize the signs of the times and try to wake up as many people as we can. The time is late, the hour is dark, but the right shall prevail.
Forty-seven years ago a young pre-rap poet songwriter tried to wake people up to the intrusion of government and the need to recognize it when he said, “Maggie comes fleet foot face full of black soot talkin’ that the heat put plants in the bed but the phone’s tapped anyway Maggie says that many say they must bust in early May orders from the D.A. Look out kid Don’t matter what you did. Walk on your tiptoes don’t try “No-Doz” better stay away from those that carry around a fire hose keep a clean nose watch the plain clothes you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”
Knowing which way the wind blows should tell us that we must do our duty to save our country or it will be lost. I don’t know about you but in the future when my grandchildren ask, “What did you do to hold back the night?” I want to be able to say more than, “I didn’t notice the darkness.”
Keep the faith, keep the peace, we shall overcome.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com/ © 2012 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens
Marxist Senate Democrats now fundraising off Obama’s war on religion via contraception-mandate
FireAndreaMitchell.com:
Why am I not surprised? The Marxist Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee or DSCC for short is using Obama’s war on religion via his contraception mandate to fundraise. Marxist Democrats and their supporters must be pretty proud of themselves. According to CNSNEWS, in an e-mail sent out by Taliban Patty Murray, she brags about Obama’s mandate, begs for money, and talks about “women’s rights.” Now, I know I’m probably just some redneck conservative but doesn’t Obama’s mandate also apply to men? – the campaign arm of the Senate Democratic Caucus – is using the controversy over the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate to raise campaign funds. Yes, this is the same Patty Murray who defended and praised Osama bin Laden in 2002.
The email also cites the liberals’ “victory” in forcing the Susan G. Komen foundation to reverse its decision to defund Planned Parenthood – despite the fact that the abortion provider does not provide mammograms.
“Our opponents tried to defund Planned Parenthood, in the federal budget and in many states. They tried to destroy our Medicare and Medicaid lifelines, which would be particularly devastating to women. They tried to get the Susan G. Komen Foundation to cut off support for Planned Parenthood.
“Enough is enough. We may have won this latest round, but our opponents aren’t going away. They’re launching endless attacks against women every single day, and we need to rise to the challenge.”
Why am I not surprised? The Marxist Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee or DSCC for short is using Obama’s war on religion via his contraception mandate to fundraise. Marxist Democrats and their supporters must be pretty proud of themselves. According to CNSNEWS, in an e-mail sent out by Taliban Patty Murray, she brags about Obama’s mandate, begs for money, and talks about “women’s rights.” Now, I know I’m probably just some redneck conservative but doesn’t Obama’s mandate also apply to men? – the campaign arm of the Senate Democratic Caucus – is using the controversy over the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate to raise campaign funds. Yes, this is the same Patty Murray who defended and praised Osama bin Laden in 2002.
The email also cites the liberals’ “victory” in forcing the Susan G. Komen foundation to reverse its decision to defund Planned Parenthood – despite the fact that the abortion provider does not provide mammograms.
“Our opponents tried to defund Planned Parenthood, in the federal budget and in many states. They tried to destroy our Medicare and Medicaid lifelines, which would be particularly devastating to women. They tried to get the Susan G. Komen Foundation to cut off support for Planned Parenthood.
“Enough is enough. We may have won this latest round, but our opponents aren’t going away. They’re launching endless attacks against women every single day, and we need to rise to the challenge.”
CPAC Video: The Field Guide to Bloggers–Stacy on the Right
www.conservativecommune.com:
By Da TechGuy – February 10, 2012
Stacy Washington is a blogger who is attending CPAC for the very first time:
Stacy’s blog is here.
By Da TechGuy – February 10, 2012
Stacy’s blog is here.
Nancy Pelosi Explains Why Obama Flip-Flopped on Super PACs
Michelle Malkin:
By Doug Powers • February 9, 2012 10:08 PM
**Written by Doug Powers
In the past few months and years, President Obama has castigated Super PACs. Obama has said “you can’t be against Super PACs one day and for them the next,” and he’s referred to 527s as a “threat to democracy.”
Fortunately, Nancy Pelosi is here to help explain why these same threats to democracy, when reluctantly utilized by the pure of heart in emergency situations, can also be used to help preserve democracy.
Here’s a brief transcript of Pelosi’s explanation by way of The Right Scoop:
The president made a decision which I think was a wise one that he was not going to unilaterally disarm and leave the field to the Koch brothers to decide who would be POTUS and who would control the Congress.
Maybe Pelosi’s right — it’s straight from Sun Tzu: “To know your enemy, you must become your enemy.” Of course, they didn’t have Super PACs in Sun Tzu’s day, which might explain why the book isn’t called “The Art of Hypocrisy”:
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
By Doug Powers • February 9, 2012 10:08 PM
**Written by Doug Powers
In the past few months and years, President Obama has castigated Super PACs. Obama has said “you can’t be against Super PACs one day and for them the next,” and he’s referred to 527s as a “threat to democracy.”
Fortunately, Nancy Pelosi is here to help explain why these same threats to democracy, when reluctantly utilized by the pure of heart in emergency situations, can also be used to help preserve democracy.
Here’s a brief transcript of Pelosi’s explanation by way of The Right Scoop:
The president made a decision which I think was a wise one that he was not going to unilaterally disarm and leave the field to the Koch brothers to decide who would be POTUS and who would control the Congress.
Maybe Pelosi’s right — it’s straight from Sun Tzu: “To know your enemy, you must become your enemy.” Of course, they didn’t have Super PACs in Sun Tzu’s day, which might explain why the book isn’t called “The Art of Hypocrisy”:
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
Best Illustration Ever: Democrat Color Wheel!
Best Illustration Ever: Democrat Color Wheel!
Spotted (and shamelessly ripped off) from the peerless Moonbattery (update: the original came from The Looking Spoon):
And I couldn't resist creating the equivalent version for the real Republican Party (not big government Statists, but Constitutional conservatives and the Tea Partiers):
Bold differences, sharp contrasts.
Which is why I support Rick Santorum for President. The nattering nabobs and paid lackeys can decry Santorum as a big government hack all they want. I'll let the various conservative groups we care about rank him: judge for yourself.
Hat tip: BadBlue.com.
Spotted (and shamelessly ripped off) from the peerless Moonbattery (update: the original came from The Looking Spoon):
And I couldn't resist creating the equivalent version for the real Republican Party (not big government Statists, but Constitutional conservatives and the Tea Partiers):
Bold differences, sharp contrasts.
Which is why I support Rick Santorum for President. The nattering nabobs and paid lackeys can decry Santorum as a big government hack all they want. I'll let the various conservative groups we care about rank him: judge for yourself.
Hat tip: BadBlue.com.
Unearthed 2000 Tape: Obama Brags About His Central Role In ACORN Election-Stealing
February 9th, 2012
Posted By Pat Dollard
Barack Obama was not elected President in 2008. He stole the office in a coup d’etat delivered by voter fraud, and media fraud.
“We’ll be hearing a LOT more from him.” – The forces behind this commercial were unusually certain of this, weren’t they? And disturbingly, almost impossibly prescient, correct. What did they know that we didn’t know? What made them so certian he would continue to win elections, which is what it would take to guarantee that we would “hear a LOT more from him”?
“He headed up Project Vote registering over 100,000 minority voters”
ACORN’s PROJECT VOTE: “As documented in a July 2009 report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, of the 1.3 million registrations Project Vote/ACORN submitted in the 2008 election cycle, more than one-third were invalid,” according to Judicial Watch.
Related: Department of Justice Cooperating with (ACORN’S) Project Vote
Posted By Pat Dollard
Barack Obama was not elected President in 2008. He stole the office in a coup d’etat delivered by voter fraud, and media fraud.
“We’ll be hearing a LOT more from him.” – The forces behind this commercial were unusually certain of this, weren’t they? And disturbingly, almost impossibly prescient, correct. What did they know that we didn’t know? What made them so certian he would continue to win elections, which is what it would take to guarantee that we would “hear a LOT more from him”?
“He headed up Project Vote registering over 100,000 minority voters”
ACORN’s PROJECT VOTE: “As documented in a July 2009 report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, of the 1.3 million registrations Project Vote/ACORN submitted in the 2008 election cycle, more than one-third were invalid,” according to Judicial Watch.
Related: Department of Justice Cooperating with (ACORN’S) Project Vote
CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson Suddenly Skips Accepting Award at CPAC
NewsBusters:
By Tim Graham | February 09, 2012 | 23:10
CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson has distinguished herself by reporting on the "Fast & Furious" gunwalking scandal in the Obama Justice Department. The conservative media watchdog group Accuracy in Media awarded her their Reid Irvine Award for investigative reporting at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday -- only Attkisson failed to appear. Instead, Michael Calderone at The Huffington Post wrote CBS Washington bureau chief Christopher Isham accepted the award in Atkisson's honor and said that the network "is very proud of Sharyl's groundbreaking reporting."
Attkisson is the first reporter from a non-conservative media organization to receive AIM's award. In response to the honor, a CBS News spokesperson said, "CBS News journalists are regularly honored by a broad spectrum of organizations for their outstanding original reporting." But liberals were outraged at Attkisson's apparent intention to accept the award in person, that it would glorify AIM and conservatives. Former CBS News man Ed Fouhy accused Attkisson of being a "pawn" before the award was presented.
This is not the liberal position when, say, journalists accept awards from their "progressive" activist groups like the "Maggie Awards" handed out by Planned Parenthood (see Rachel Maddow accept). Or see Barbara Walters accept a GLAAD Media Award in 2008, according to Reuters:
Television journalist Barbara Walters was honored by the gay media watchdog group GLAAD on Monday for her reporting on transgender children and she said the award was among the most important she had even received.
"You can forget all the Emmys," Walters said in accepting the award for television newsmagazine journalism at the 19th annual Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation Media Awards. "This means more to me."
Some journalism professors would try to suggest that journalists should only accept awards like the Peabody Awards or the Pulitzer Prizes -- even when those judgment panels are dominated by liberal media and political elites. As Brent Bozell argued in 2006,
In fact, if you look back through the eight years of the Clintons, you’d be incredibly hard-pressed to find more than one Pulitzer awarded for exposing the ever-bubbling Clinton scandals. In 1999, a New York Times team (including ace investigator Jeff Gerth) won for disclosing the "corporate sale of American technology to China, with U.S. government approval." Columnist Maureen Dowd won that year for her Lewinsky-era columns, but they attacked all sides with equal vigor. She railed against Ken Starr for "dragging us down to the point where we have to hear the sex secrets of crepuscular Republican swamp life" like Rep. Dan Burton.
Bozell returned to the subject in 2007:
Let’s start with the Commentary prize, which was awarded to Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The official Pulitzer Prize Board’s press release hailed Tucker’s “courageous, clear-headed columns that evince a strong sense of morality and persuasive knowledge of the community.” Translation: she’s liberal, and she hates George Bush.
...Any conservative student who aspires to be a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist should really try another line of work. Here’s the list since George Will won in 1977 and William Safire won in 1978: Charles Krauthammer in 1987, Paul Gigot in 2000, and Dorothy Rabinowitz in 2001. That’s five conservatives in 30 years.
Three of the last five winners – Tucker, Leonard Pitts, and Colbert King – were leftist black columnists. William Raspberry and E.R. Shipp have also won. But the Pulitzer Prize glorifiers have never honored Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams or other black conservatives.
Since 1992, eight of the sixteen Commentary prize winners have been women. Rabinowitz is the only conservative. Anna Quindlen, Maureen Dowd, Eileen McNamara and Shipp are on the liberal list. Mary McGrory (1975) and Ellen Goodman (1980) also won that prize. But there’s been no Pulitzer for Mona Charen or Michelle Malkin or Linda Chavez or – the Pulitzer people will faint -- Ann Coulter.
There’s never been a Pulitzer for Bill Buckley or Pat Buchanan or Cal Thomas or Robert Novak. Need we say more?
Since then, the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary has been won by three Washington Post columnists and a New York Times columnist. They would argue that Kathleen Parker was a win for conservatives in 2010. Again, need we say more?
Earlier: Geoffrey Dickens compares network evening news and morning news coverage of Obama's Fast and Furious scandal: 29 stories and a brief by Attkisson's CBS, one brief by ABC, and zero by NBC.
By Tim Graham | February 09, 2012 | 23:10
CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson has distinguished herself by reporting on the "Fast & Furious" gunwalking scandal in the Obama Justice Department. The conservative media watchdog group Accuracy in Media awarded her their Reid Irvine Award for investigative reporting at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday -- only Attkisson failed to appear. Instead, Michael Calderone at The Huffington Post wrote CBS Washington bureau chief Christopher Isham accepted the award in Atkisson's honor and said that the network "is very proud of Sharyl's groundbreaking reporting."
Attkisson is the first reporter from a non-conservative media organization to receive AIM's award. In response to the honor, a CBS News spokesperson said, "CBS News journalists are regularly honored by a broad spectrum of organizations for their outstanding original reporting." But liberals were outraged at Attkisson's apparent intention to accept the award in person, that it would glorify AIM and conservatives. Former CBS News man Ed Fouhy accused Attkisson of being a "pawn" before the award was presented.
This is not the liberal position when, say, journalists accept awards from their "progressive" activist groups like the "Maggie Awards" handed out by Planned Parenthood (see Rachel Maddow accept). Or see Barbara Walters accept a GLAAD Media Award in 2008, according to Reuters:
Television journalist Barbara Walters was honored by the gay media watchdog group GLAAD on Monday for her reporting on transgender children and she said the award was among the most important she had even received.
"You can forget all the Emmys," Walters said in accepting the award for television newsmagazine journalism at the 19th annual Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation Media Awards. "This means more to me."
Some journalism professors would try to suggest that journalists should only accept awards like the Peabody Awards or the Pulitzer Prizes -- even when those judgment panels are dominated by liberal media and political elites. As Brent Bozell argued in 2006,
In fact, if you look back through the eight years of the Clintons, you’d be incredibly hard-pressed to find more than one Pulitzer awarded for exposing the ever-bubbling Clinton scandals. In 1999, a New York Times team (including ace investigator Jeff Gerth) won for disclosing the "corporate sale of American technology to China, with U.S. government approval." Columnist Maureen Dowd won that year for her Lewinsky-era columns, but they attacked all sides with equal vigor. She railed against Ken Starr for "dragging us down to the point where we have to hear the sex secrets of crepuscular Republican swamp life" like Rep. Dan Burton.
Bozell returned to the subject in 2007:
Let’s start with the Commentary prize, which was awarded to Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The official Pulitzer Prize Board’s press release hailed Tucker’s “courageous, clear-headed columns that evince a strong sense of morality and persuasive knowledge of the community.” Translation: she’s liberal, and she hates George Bush.
...Any conservative student who aspires to be a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist should really try another line of work. Here’s the list since George Will won in 1977 and William Safire won in 1978: Charles Krauthammer in 1987, Paul Gigot in 2000, and Dorothy Rabinowitz in 2001. That’s five conservatives in 30 years.
Three of the last five winners – Tucker, Leonard Pitts, and Colbert King – were leftist black columnists. William Raspberry and E.R. Shipp have also won. But the Pulitzer Prize glorifiers have never honored Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams or other black conservatives.
Since 1992, eight of the sixteen Commentary prize winners have been women. Rabinowitz is the only conservative. Anna Quindlen, Maureen Dowd, Eileen McNamara and Shipp are on the liberal list. Mary McGrory (1975) and Ellen Goodman (1980) also won that prize. But there’s been no Pulitzer for Mona Charen or Michelle Malkin or Linda Chavez or – the Pulitzer people will faint -- Ann Coulter.
There’s never been a Pulitzer for Bill Buckley or Pat Buchanan or Cal Thomas or Robert Novak. Need we say more?
Since then, the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary has been won by three Washington Post columnists and a New York Times columnist. They would argue that Kathleen Parker was a win for conservatives in 2010. Again, need we say more?
Earlier: Geoffrey Dickens compares network evening news and morning news coverage of Obama's Fast and Furious scandal: 29 stories and a brief by Attkisson's CBS, one brief by ABC, and zero by NBC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)