Eastaustinvoice’s Weblog

The American Spectator : The Man Who Despises America

November 11, 2009 · Leave a Comment

The American Spectator : The Man Who Despises America.

The very next paragraph is going to make the nut jobs on the far left excitable beyond belief. I am not referring to all Democrats or even a majority of liberals. I am singling out the “they’ve-lost-all-touch-with-reality” crowd. This includes Media Matters for America led by the admitted hit-and-run, drunk-driving serial liar. The group includes the unshaven, bathrobe-clad unemployed who live in their mother’s basement and are devout followers of MoveOn.Org. It is also the bitter, aging spinster working at the New York Times, the morbidly obese documentary film maker, and cable TV news’ resident drama queen who hosts MSNBC’s Countdown. They are about to simultaneously suffer from brain aneurisms. So without further delay, I’ll say it.

Barack Obama despises America.

When people who voted for Obama in 2008 — including registered Democrats — start speaking in normal conversational voices at dinner parties, neighborhood gatherings and PTA meetings that the over-inflated ego from Chicago has it “in for America,” then it’s clear most reasonable people have reached the same conclusion.

The central conviction of Obama’s ideology is that America is guilty of limitless moral failures and is the chief architect of the world’s ills. Obama has boundless enmity for America, its key institutions, and its longtime allies. Consider these facts.

The 30-years of Obama’s post-adolescent life are radical by any measure. First, he grew up listening to the ramblings of committed Communist Frank Marshall Davis. It had such a profound effect on him that he wrote fondly of Davis in his first book. In fact, that book is replete with statement after statement about how the U.S. is deeply flawed. Most Americans believe in American exceptionalism. Not so with Obama.

Patriotic Americans would not have listened to the bigoted, anti-Semitic, hate-America rants of a fringe religious leader for 20 seconds let alone for 20 years. Yet, Obama who admitted he attended services at Trinity United Church at least twice a month for two decades called Jeremiah Wright his mentor and his moral sounding board.

Nor would most Americans cultivate a close friendship with an admitted domestic terrorist and his wife whose most notable life’s accomplishments were to set off bombs that killed and maimed innocent people.

Joining Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright in organizing attendance at Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s 1995 march on Washington is beyond imaginable. Especially after Farrakhan demonstrated public support for Colonel Muammar Qaddafi during the Libyan Leader’s most bellicose years against the U.S., which included Libyan complicity in numerous terrorist attacks.

Obama’s view of America in national security and foreign affairs is profoundly disappointing to say the least.

Americans overwhelmingly view the men and women who saved Europe and the Far East during World War II as comprising the Greatest Generation. By his comments and actions, President Obama obviously thinks otherwise.

Obama did not honor American greatness on the 60th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift while on his first European trip. Instead, he accused “America [of having] shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward its European allies.

He also denigrated the accomplishments of the American G.I. during World War II in the Pacific theater when he offered a thinly veiled apology for the U.S. having dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those acts brought the war to a swift conclusion, perhaps saving hundreds of thousands of lives when it appeared Japan was prepared to wage an island-by-island battle to the last man.

Obama ordered the release of the so-called CIA “torture memos,” seriously damaging delicate intelligence relations with allied nations and placing at grave risk the safety of U.S. intelligence officers working overseas. The impact of his action handcuffs the ability of U.S. intelligence officials to protect the U.S. and American interests from acts of terrorism.

In a matter of weeks last spring, Obama gave deference to a variety of belligerent leaders while stiff-arming longtime American allies. First, he called for closer relations with Cuba while ignoring that nation’s long list of continuing human rights abuses. Then he warmly welcomed Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez at an Organization of American States summit.

Next, he failed to respond and set the record straight after Nicaragua’s Communist leader Daniel Ortega listed alleged U.S. crimes and atrocities during a nearly one-hour rant at the OAS meeting. It is unsettling that in his own remarks Obama incorrectly claimed the OAS has 36 members rather than the actual 34. Ortega and the hemisphere’s other Socialist leaders claim the OAS would include 36 members if Cuba and an independent Puerto Rico were allowed to join. Mere coincidence or Freudian slip?

Immediately following the OAS embarrassments, Obama ignored a request from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to meet. Obama would repeat this snub six months later before agreeing at the last moment to meet Netanyahu after the Israeli leader was en route the U.S.

In his speech before the Muslim world, Obama made the patently absurd claim of equivalency between the status of displaced Palestinians and the slaughter of millions of Jews during the Holocaust. His claim that 7 million Muslims live in the U.S. is a figure inflated by as much as 700%.

In an earlier speech, Obama claimed that the U.S. is not a Christian nation, which is at odds with the fact that 79% of Americans self-identify as Christians and the nation’s founders were devout Christians.

In less than six months in office, Obama apologized for Guantanamo Bay; for alleged mistakes committed by the CIA; for U.S. policy in the Americas; for America’s history of slavery; for “sacrificing [American] values;” for “hasty decisions” in the war on terror; for “America’s standing in the world;” for American errors in foreign policy; and for U.S. relations with the Muslim world.

He pronounced Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology acceptable and he warned Netanyahu against targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities. Obama’s approach to Iran is eerily similar to that of Jimmy Carter, whose actions contributed to the fall of that nation into the control of Islamic radicals.

This summer, the door to greater individual freedoms in Iran was firmly closed shut when Obama announced the U.S would not meddle in Iran’s election and he offered no encouragement to democracy activists who protested the obviously stolen elections. His silence was deafening when regime security agents savagely attacked and killed countless Iranians who took to the streets.

In contrast to his deference to anti-American leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, and Daniel Ortega, Obama strong-armed Netanyahu on key Israeli matters. In addition to snubbing the Israeli Prime Minister’s requests to meet, Obama demanded an end to Israeli settlements and insisted on the creation of a two-state Palestine solution.

Obama abandoned NATO members Poland and the Czech Republic by canceling the central Europe missile defense plan just as rogue nations North Korea and Iran make advances in nuclear and ballistic missile production. The cancellation was demanded by Moscow authorities who have adopted a more confrontational posture toward the west.

Solidarity with freedom-loving East Germans has been a staple of the American presidency for nearly 50 years. John Kennedy pronounced himself a Berliner. Ronald Reagan demanded Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “Tear down this wall!” Yet, this bricks and mortar icon of first, Soviet totalitarianism, and then, second, the end of Soviet domination did not make the cut as Obama chose not to attend the 20th anniversary of the fall of the wall. In the summer of 2008, Obama altogether skipped mentioning the role of the U.S. — or even the West, for that matter — in bringing down the wall, instead crediting “a world that stands as one.”

Obama’s disagreement with American values and institutions is evident in domestic issues. He has stocked his administration with wild-eyed radicals who believe foreign law trumps the U.S. Constitution (Harold Koh); include an avowed Marxist and “truther” who believes George Bush was complicit in the 9/11 attack and is also an ardent supporter of cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal (Van Jones); and include a devoted admirer of Mao Tse-tung who slaughtered as many as 75 million people (Anita Dunn). (In contrast, George W. Bush’s Attorney-General nominee John Ashcroft was savaged by the news media for being an Evangelical Christian.)

Three weeks after America’s first black president was sworn in, the nation’s first black Attorney-General who was hand-picked by Obama, called America “a nation of cowards” for some perceived race relations shortfall. The understood meaning of Eric Holder’s comments is that white people are still racists. However, the reality is the people most preoccupied with fomenting the racial divide are those who populate the ranks of the Obama Administration.

Obama’s Homeland Secretary designated military veterans as terrorists-in-waiting to be equally as dangerous as other domestic terrorists including pro-lifers and citizens opposed to the flood of illegal aliens.

One of Obama’s very few suggestions to cut into his $1.4 trillion budget deficit was to have servicemen and women pay for their own war injuries. He’s all for providing free health care to illegal aliens but believes wounded warriors should foot their own hospital bills. In fact, the Defense Department is about the only sector of government in which Obama has proposed slashing spending.

Hours after a belligerent “African-American Studies” Harvard professor engaged in behavior unbefitting anyone let alone a professional man, Obama accused the exceedingly tolerant Cambridge police officers as having “acted stupidly” and then digressed into how people of color have been unfairly treated by white America.

Bush was prolific in quietly and privately visiting the military wounded and family of the fallen. In contrast, Obama attempted to make political capital of his one visit to Dover Air Force Base. Obama’s motives were so transparent that families of 17 of the 18 fallen denied permission for Obama to engage in a photo-op alongside the returning caskets.

In May, Obama immediately issued a statement that he was “shocked and outraged by the murder” of a Kansas doctor specializing in partial-birth abortions. He called it a “heinous act of violence.” Attorney-General Holder mobilized U.S. Marshals nationwide to provide protection to abortion clinics.

But Obama remained silent the very next day when two U.S. soldiers were gunned down by a Muslim extremist outside a Little Rock recruiting station. After repeated prodding for a presidential comment, the White House faxed an after-hours statement to select media outlets two days later offering a tepid remark that Obama was “saddened” without even mentioning the soldiers were murdered.

Five months later, another Muslim fanatic gunned down nearly four dozen Americans, killing 13, at the Ft. Hood army base. It was an act that demanded the most serious demeanor of the military’s Commander-in-Chief. Yet, Obama referenced the massacre in the most insincere fashion just seconds after a jocular shout-out to an audience member during a public speaking engagement. It was the equivalent of attending a funeral in swimwear while en route to the beach.

The odd inadvertent comment or occasional verbal faux pas can be explained away as just that. However, Obama has a lifetime of comments and actions including 10 months as president that belie his real attitude toward the U.S. The difference between Obama and his immediate predecessors such as Ronald Reagan, the George Bushes and Bill Clinton who actually revere and honor the greatness of America and its citizens and institutions cannot be overstated.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: News · Politics
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , ,

CAIR speaker to Muslims: OK to attack Fort Bragg

November 11, 2009 · Leave a Comment

CAIR speaker to Muslims: OK to attack Fort Bragg.

MUSLIM MAFIA
CAIR speaker to Muslims: OK to attack Fort Bragg
Exhorts Islamic faithful to target planes carrying ‘82nd Airborne’


A “state within a state” could that be what the President mean by saying that we have 57 states?

 

Posted: November 11, 2009
1:48 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 


Imam Zaid Shakir

A Council on American-Islamic Relations adviser and regular speaker at its events has suggested Islamic law permits Muslims to attack C-130 military transport planes carrying the 82nd Airborne out of Fort Bragg, N.C., according to a stunning new book exposing Washington-based CAIR’s inner workings.

Radical Islamic cleric Zaid Shakir, a frequent guest speaker at CAIR events, tells his Muslim audiences: “Jihad is physically fighting the enemies of Islam to protect and advance the religion of Islam. This is jihad.”

Acceptable targets of jihad, he says, include U.S. military aircraft.

“Islam doesn’t permit us to hijack airplanes filled with civilian people,” Shakir once told a Muslim audience. However, “If you hijack an airplane filled with the 82nd Airborne, that’s something else.”

The 82nd Airborne Division’s elite paratroopers fly out of Fort Bragg, N.C., which is part of North Carolina state Sen. Larry Shaw’s district. Shaw is CAIR’s new chairman.

The recording of the lecture, which Shakir gave earlier this decade to a Muslim audience in the San Francisco Bay area, was obtained by the authors of the bestselling “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”

The bombshell revelation comes in the wake of the worst military massacre at a domestic U.S. military base in American history, and the worst Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.

Last week, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly gunned down in cold blood more than 50 of his fellow soldiers preparing to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan from Fort Hood, Texas. Eyewitnesses say before opening fire, Hasan jumped up on a desk and screamed, “Allahu akbar!” like the 9/11 hijackers. The suspect fatally shot 13, including a security guard. The death toll is actually 14 when a slain unborn child is counted.

Imam Shakir also gives his blessing to the use of bombs as a weapon of jihad, as long as the explosives hit “select” targets and are not indiscriminate in their destruction. Civilians can be a legitimate target, he says, if “there’s a benefit in that,” according to “Muslim Mafia,” co-authored by former federal agent P. David Gaubatz and investigative journalist Paul Sperry, author of “Infiltration.”

Even “old elderly men” and “women who are conscripted” – including Israeli and American women in uniform – are eligible enemy combatants in jihad. “This is Shariah,” Shakir asserts in a CD recording of one of his lectures in 2001, which the authors obtained from a radical mosque bookstore in Brooklyn, N.Y.

Shakir, a black convert, has been portrayed as a moderate in the mainstream media, including the New York Times, which recently ran a positive profile of him. His pro-jihad statements revealed in “Muslim Mafia” have not been previously reported. CAIR has sued and obtained a temporary restraining order to censor the book’s documentary evidence detailing CAIR’s support of terrorism and obstruction of FBI investigations.

Longtime CAIR advisory board member and chief fundraiser Siraj Wahhaj echoes his friend Shakir’s interpretation of jihad.

“If we go to war, brothers and sisters – and one day we will, believe me – that’s why you’re commanded [to fight in] jihad,” the imam has told his flock in Brooklyn. “When Allah demands us to fight, we’re not stopping and nobody’s stopping us.”

World Trade Center bombing

CAIR has invited Shakir back to speak at its events even after the FBI questioned him about a copy of one of his incendiary pamphlets found in the apartment of a suspect in the first World Trade Center bombing. The pro-jihad pamphlet lauded the “armed struggle” that brought about the rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are dying in record numbers from Taliban and al-Qaida ambushes.

Shakir, who recently confided to the New York Times that he’d like to see the U.S. “become a Muslim country” ruled by Islamic law, is a regular speaker at CAIR as well as Islamic Society of North America events. (Federal prosecutors say CAIR and ISNA are fronts for the terrorist group Hamas and its parent the radical Muslim Brotherhood, and the sister organizations were recently listed as unindicted terrorist co-conspirators in the largest terror finance case in U.S. history.) Recently, Shakir helped host workshops and delivered keynote speeches at banquets held at CAIR chapters in Chicago, Orlando and San Diego, among others.

“Imam Zaid’s speeches are very practical and bring the best out of his listeners,” said former CAIR official Ibrahim Moiz, a close personal friend who invited Shakir to speak to Muslims in Maryland, according to “Muslim Mafia.”

The cleric has not tempered his jihadist views.

“I don’t regret anything I’ve done or said,” Shakir has insisted.

Shakir holds little, if any, respect for law enforcement, particularly the FBI, according to “Muslim Mafia.” He constantly belittles the bureau in speeches to Muslims, even warning them that the FBI frames Muslims for terrorism – terrorist acts that he contends the FBI secretly commits.

“The World Trade Center bombing of course was aided and abetted by our good friends at the FBI,” the imam has claimed, in just one of the many wild-eyed conspiracy theories he peddles.

‘State within a state’

The American Muslim cleric also preaches treason against the United States, according to the book, which hit No. 5 on Amazon.com’s non-fiction best-seller list the day after it was released last month. It currently ranks No. 1 in books on terrorism and Islam.

Shakir advises the Muslim community in America to wage a cultural jihad now, and a violent jihad later – once the proper “infrastructure” is in place.

He says Muslims should respect American democracy insofar as it can be exploited to help the Brotherhood one day assume power here.

And the only thing that could stop the Islamization of America, he notes, is if its people rose up and denied the subversive movement the unbridled freedom it’s heretofore enjoyed.

However, if Americans were to do that, Muslims would then be obligated, he says, to exercise their supposedly “divine legal right” to rise up and wage violent jihad, reveals the book “Muslim Mafia.”

“What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims,” sermonized Shakir, who continues to be a marquee speaker at CAIR functions.

For now, he said, following the radical Muslim Brotherhood playbook, Muslims must continue to “create a state within a state.”

→ Leave a CommentCategories: News · Politics
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Neighbor: Fort Hood suspect emptied his apartment – Yahoo! News

November 6, 2009 · Leave a Comment

By JEFF CARLTON and MIKE BAKER, Associated Press Writers Jeff Carlton And Mike Baker, Associated Press Writers – 25 mins ago

FORT HOOD, Texas – An Army psychiatrist suspected of opening fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Hood cleaned out his apartment in the days before the rampage that left 13 people dead, a neighbor said Friday.

The neighbor, Patricia Villa, said Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan came over to her apartment Wednesday and Thursday and offered her some items, including a new Quran, saying he was going to be deployed on Friday. She wasn’t sure if he was going to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Authorities said Hasan went on a shooting spree later Thursday at the sprawling Texas post. He was among 30 people wounded in the spree and remained hospitalized on a ventilator Friday. All but two of the injured were still hospitalized, and all were in stable condition.

Investigators were still trying to piecing together how and why an Army psychiatrist facing deployment allegedly gunned down his comrades in one of the worst mass shootings ever on an American military base.

“This was an individual who took it upon himself to attack and murder his colleagues, people who were on the base with him,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Sky News from Brussels, Belgium. “That investigation is under way by law enforcement authorities, and let’s let that be the No. 1 priorty in terms of ascertaining what motivations he had.”

Officials at the post hospital where Hasan worked said they weren’t aware of any problems with his job performance.

One of Hasan’s bosses praised his work ethic and said he provided excellent care for his patients.

“Up to this point I would consider him an asset,” said Col. Kimberly Kesling, deputy commander of clinical services at Darnall Army Medical Center.

She described Hasan as “a quiet man who wouldn’t seek the limelight.”

An imam from a mosque Hasan regularly attended said Hasan, a lifelong Muslim, was a committed soldier, gave no sign of extremist beliefs and regularly wore his uniform at prayers.

Soldiers who witnessed the rampage reported that the gunman shouted “Allahu Akbar!” — an Arabic phrase for “God is great!” — before opening fire, said Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, the base commander. He said officials had not yet confirmed that Hasan made the comment before the shooting spree.

Hasan’s family said in a statement Friday that his alleged actions were “despicable and deplorable” and don’t reflect how the family was raised.

Villa, who recently moved next door to Hasan, said she had never spoken to him before he came over to her apartment.

She said Hasan gave her frozen broccoli, spinach, T-shirts and shelves on Wednesday, then returned Thursday morning and gave her his air mattress, several briefcases and a desk lamp. He then offered her $60 to clean his apartment Friday morning, after he was supposed to leave.

The motive for the shooting wasn’t clear, but someone who used to work with Hasan said he had expressed some anger about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Retired Col. Terry Lee told Fox News said Hasan had hoped President Barack Obama would pull troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq and got into frequent arguments with others in the military who supported the wars.

But another neighbor said Hasan appeared to be OK with his pending deployment, which he said was supposed to be to Afghanistan.

“I asked him how he felt about going over there, with their religion and everything, and he said, `It’s going to be interesting,’” said Edgar Booker, a 58-year-old retired soldier who now works in a cafeteria on the post.

Col. Steve Braverman, the Fort Hood hospital commander, said early Friday that Hasan was on deployment orders to Afghanistan. A military official later told The Associated Press that Hasan was to be deployed to Iraq. It was not immediately possible to verify the discrepancy.

The military official, who did not have authorization to discuss the matter publicly and spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity, said Hasan had indicated he didn’t want to go to Iraq but was willing to serve in Afghanistan.

Cone said authorities have not yet been able to talk to Hasan, but interviews with witnesses went through the night.

As some of the wounded began to recover, tales of heroic action during the shooting spree emerged.

Base officials lauded an officer, Kimberly Munley, who shot the gunman and was wounded herself.

“She happened to encounter the gunman. In an exchange of gunfire, she was wounded but managed to wound him four times,” Cone said. “It was an amazing and aggressive performance by this police officer.”

Cone said some 300 soldiers had been lined up to get vaccinations and have their eyes tested at a Soldier Readiness Center when the shots rang out. He said one soldier who had been shot told him, “I made the mistake of moving and I was shot again.”

Sgt. Andrew Hagerman said before the first ambulance even arrived, soldiers were tearing off their clothes to help the wounded.

“You had people without tops on. You had people ripping their pant legs off,” said Hagerman, a military policeman from Lewisville, Texas.

Hagerman said he saw Hasan laying on the ground receiving medical assistance for a gunshot wound as responders tried to get his handcuffs off to better treat him.

Officials are not ruling out the possibility that some of the casualties may have been victims of “friendly fire,” that in the confusion at the shooting scene some of the responding military officials may have shot some of the victims.

Cone acknowledged that it was “counterintuitive” that a single shooter could hit so many people, but he said the massacre occurred in “close quarters.

“With ricochet fire, he was able to injure that number of people,” Cone said. He said authorities were investigating whether Hasan’s weapons were properly registered with the military.

The wounded were dispersed among hospitals in central Texas, Cone said. Their identities and the identities of the dead were not immediately released.

Friday was designated a day of mourning at Fort Hood. There also will be a ceremony at the air base to honor the dead.

For six years before reporting for duty at the Texas post in July, Hasan worked at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center pursuing a career in psychiatry, as an intern, a resident and, last year, a fellow in disaster and preventive psychiatry. The Army major received his medical degree from the military’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., in 2001.

But his record wasn’t sterling. At Walter Reed, he received a poor performance evaluation, according to an official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case publicly. And while he was an intern, Hasan had some “difficulties” that required counseling and extra supervision, said Dr. Thomas Grieger, who was the training director at the time.

Faizul Khan, a former imam at a mosque Hasan attended in Silver Spring, Md., said “I got the impression that he was a committed soldier.” He said Hasan attended prayers regularly at the mosque in Silver Spring, Md., and was a lifelong Muslim. He spoke often with Hasan about Hasan’s desire for a wife.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Hasan’s aunt, Noel Hasan of Falls Church, Va., said he had been harassed about being a Muslim in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, and he wanted out of the Army.

“Some people can take it and some people cannot,” she said. “He had listened to all of that and he wanted out of the military.”

At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.

Investigators had not determined for certain whether Hasan was the author of the posting, and a formal investigation had not been opened before the shooting, said law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the case.

FBI agents who searched Hasan’s apartment early Friday seized his computer, a law enforcement official said. It was not immediately known if they found anything suspicious on his computer files.

A military official said investigators were sifting through materials Hasan carried with him during the shooting and evidence left in his vehicle, which was found parked at the base.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation

___

Baker reported from Killeen, Texas. Associated Press Writers Lara Jakes, Devlin Barrett, Brett J. Blackledge and Eileen Sullivan in Washington, April Castro in Killeen and Matt Curry in Dallas contributed to this report.

via Neighbor: Fort Hood suspect emptied his apartment – Yahoo! News.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: News · Politics
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

We borrow money from China?! – Boston, 1773

November 4, 2009 · Leave a Comment

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Uncategorized

Pelosi Plan Makes Millions of People Pay Fines

November 3, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Pelosi Plan Makes Millions of People Pay Fines

Monday, November 2, 2009 9:39 AM

By: Ernest Istook Article Font Size

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s healthcare plan presumes that about 8-14 million American workers will pay fines rather than buy health insurance. Unless they do, there’s a $167-billion hole in her financing plan and everything falls apart.

Like the rest of us, this group would face higher-than-ever insurance prices under Pelosi’s proposed bill.

Speaker Pelosi, President Obama, and others claim they will make coverage cheaper, yet the official projection relies upon millions who would prefer to pay fines rather than join their system. In some cases the individuals would pay the penalty; in others their employers would pay; and sometimes both.

The estimate of 8-14 million who would be fined is based on the official projections made by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The plan is built around a major contradiction. Only if it fails to make insurance more affordable would the bill generate the promised $167-billion by fining people who would still remain uninsured.

Why would this happen? Because insurance would become more expensive if the legislation passes, thus increasing the disincentives to buy coverage.

Premiums under the new government-run “public option” will probably be higher than from private insurance, according to the CBO (page 6 of its report). The Associated Press reports that “premiums in the public plan would be higher than the average for private plans.” Rather than inducing private carriers to lower their premiums, other experts agree that private insurance will also be costlier under Pelosi’s plan, as insurers pass along the bill’s tax increases.

Yet Speaker Pelosi claims the measure will bring “lower costs for every patient” by “lowering healthcare costs for all of us.” President Obama campaigned on a promise that the plan would save families $2,500 a year in lower premiums. He doesn’t mention that figure anymore.

The exact number of those who will pay fines is unknown, but it is huge. Here’s how the projection of 8-14 million was calculated, based on the CBO report:

• It starts with the finding by the CBO that $167 billion in penalties would be paid in the next 10 years — $135 billion by employers who don’t provide insurance and $32 billion by workers who don’t buy it. For companies, it’s an 8 percent payroll tax; for individuals it’s a convoluted formula that comes out to about 2-2.5 percent of income.

• CBO concluded that by 2019, the employer tax would generate $27 billion a year. Since that’s 8 percent, it represents a tax on $340 billion in wages. If aan average wage were $40,000, that would represent 8.4 million workers for whom fines would be paid.

 

• CBO also says by 2910 the annual fines paid by individuals would be about $6 billion per year. If their average wage were $40,000, it would represent 6-million tax filers (individuals and couples) paying the penalty.

 

• There would be overlap between the groups, so the total paying the penalty should be in the 8-14 million worker range — akin to about 1 worker in every 10 nationwide.

 

For this group of uninsured, the Pelosi plan makes them pay a lot and get little or nothing.

 

This is not a “millionaire’s tax.” It’s a tax on the uninsured. According to The New York Times, these tend to be “the working poor.”

 

Only a fraction of these Americans might receive some form of subsidy or assistance under the Pelosi plan. Yet sponsors claim they will finance the plan by collecting $167 billion in taxes from the uninsured! It contradicts the very premise of the legislation.

 

While attention has focused on the “public option” provision, the notion of collecting billions of dollars from millions of Americans — and still leaving them uninsured — is a serious wrong that deserves serious attention.

 

Ernest Istook, a former U.S. congressman from Oklahoma, is a distinguished fellow at The Heritage Foundation. This article is cross posted from The Foundry.

via Pelosi Plan Makes Millions of People Pay Fines.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: News · Politics
Tagged: , , , , , ,

Texas 2009 Constitutional Election Recommendations – Wallbuilders

November 2, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Wallbuilders Voting Recommendations for
2009 Texas Constitutional Amendments

Voting is currently underway on 11 amendments to the Texas State Constitution (early voting will continue through October 30, with general voting on November 3).

We want to provide you with our recommendations on the amendments that are on the ballot, as well as


dates and locations where you may go to vote. (Our Christian Voter Guide website has voter guides from other pro-family groups, as well as additional information.) Please vote, pass this on, and encourage those in your circle of influence to vote!
WallBuilders Recommendations

: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation.”Proposition 1

Recommended Vote

Reasoning

: The language of this amendment is so vague that it will allow cities and counties to enlarge infrastructure, increase the use of eminent domain, and thus elevate property taxes under the laudable excuse of helping military bases. Municipalities already have the right to use eminent domain, but this amendment would authorize them to finance an expanded use of that power. While the stated purpose of this amendment is laudable, the potential for abuse and misuse is too great.: No Proposition 2

: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property’s value as a residence homestead.”Recommended Vote

Reasoning

: Currently, residential property is taxed on its “highest and best use,” thus allowing excessive property taxation by taxing residential property as if it were commercial property. According to the Texas House Select Committee on Property Tax Relief and Appraisal Reform, “appraisal values increased from 200-400% in one year as a result of the ‘highest and best use’ standard.” This amendment helps provide a limit on property tax appraisal hikes by ensuring that residential homes are appraised at a residential rather than a commercial value.: Yes Proposition 3

: “The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes.”Recommended Vote

Reasoning

: This amendment provides for equal treatment among Texans, ensuring that property tax appraisals will be calculated by uniform standards and methods, thus reducing bias and manipulation in appraisals. Local decision-making on this tax issue will be eliminated by this amendment, but on this issue, equal treatment of all citizens under the law is a more fundamental and compelling principle than that of local controls.: Yes Proposition 4

: “The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund.”Recommended Vote

Reasoning

: This amendment will increase spending on non-essential government services at a time when the economy is poor and there is a likelihood of a deficit in the coming legislative session. This is the wrong time for increased spending on non-essential governmental services; current educational resources should be focused on student education rather than research expansion. Furthermore, free enterprise already provides extensive and productive private research whereas government funded research often results in questionable projects and endeavors that would never withstand free-market scrutiny or competition.: No Proposition 5

: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.Recommended Vote

Reasoning

: This amendment will help reduce government duplication and redundancy. Since rural counties with small populations often have a limited pool of qualified persons to serve on appraisal review boards, this consolidation will make it more likely that review boards will be staffed with competent and qualified personnel.: Yes Proposition 6

: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans’ Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized.”Recommended Vote

: No strong recommendation; NO: The Veterans’ Land Board (composed of both elected and appointed officials) has been one government agency with a record of efficient operation. Currently, the Board must seek legislative approval every two years in order to issue low risk bonds, but this amendment will eliminate that bi-annual requirement. Based on the positive record of this Board, this amendment might possibly increase government operating efficiency. But on the other hand, for a board to seek a bi-annual legislative approval helps ensure accountability and maintains checks and balances, therefore remaining a sound principle of governance.weak Reasoning

Proposition 7

: “The constitutional amendment to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices.”Recommended Vote

Reasoning

: From the time of the Founding Fathers, state elected officials have been allowed to serve in state militaries (e.g., Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry). While this practice is not permitted on the federal level (the Constitution separates the civil authority from the military authority, and federal law reinforces that separation of power), it has been traditional at the state level. This amendment will permit Texas civil officials who wish to do so to also serve in the Texas State Guard.: Yes Proposition 8

: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state.”Recommended Vote

Reasoning

: Veterans hospitals and veterans benefits are services provided by the national military and are under the direct supervision of the national Congress (a fact made clear by George Washington in his letter resigning from the Continental Army at the end of the American Revolution). While there is currently a proper resistance to federal intrusion into state powers, the issue of veterans is one that constitutionally should be maintained at the federal rather than the state level. Veterans do need excellent services and facilities, but it is the responsibility of the federal and not the state governments to provide the necessary excellence in this area. Opposing this amendment preserves the constitutional separation of powers between the federal and the state levels.: No Proposition 9

: “The constitutional amendment to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico.”Recommended Vote

Reasoning

: Constitutionally requiring that there must be public access to these beaches infringes the private property rights of those owning property along those beaches. The Open Beaches Act of 1959 already provides protections for easements along those beaches. This is an expansion of government power that infringes on private property rights.: No Proposition 10

: “The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years.”Recommended Vote

Reasoning

: Currently, Emergency Service Districts have great powers, including the power to levy taxes, and board members serve two year terms. Lengthening these terms would reduce public oversight over these board members and their extensive powers. These board members should be as accountable to voters as are members of the Texas and the U. S. House of Representatives and therefore should face elections every two rather than every four years.
: No Proposition 11

: “The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature’s authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity.”Recommended Vote

Reasoning

Here’s what you can do:

: In 2005, the U. S. Supreme Court’s Kelo decision wrongly allowed cities to depart from the tradition exercise of eminent domain for “public use” (i.e., to obtain private property for the construction of schools, bridges, roads, etc.) and instead to apply an expansive “public purpose” measurement whereby cities could seize private property and turn it over to economic developers who would generate increased tax revenue for cities. However, the Supreme Court did note that state legislatures could limit this power by defining “public use”; this amendment properly narrows the definition, thereby better protecting private property rights.: Yes

  • Find your polling location!
  • Please pass this information on to others and encourage them to vote! You may also visit
  • Early voting locations (open from October 19-30) may be different than Election Day locations (November 3). Because you never know what last-minute emergencies may arise, please early vote and encourage others to do the same!www.christianvoterguide.com for additional information.

    → Leave a CommentCategories: Uncategorized
    Tagged: ,

    Document sheds light on ethics probe in Congress – washingtonpost.com

    November 2, 2009 · Leave a Comment

    Document sheds light on ethics probe in Congress – washingtonpost.com.

    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, November 2, 2009

     

     After years of criticism that congressional lawmakers were reluctant to investigate their colleagues, the disclosure in recent days of a sensitive document from the House ethics committee offers the contradictory portrait of a panel actively pursuing a range of probes even as Democrats under scrutiny remain in positions of power.

    This Story

    The 22-page document revealed that the ethics committee, as of late July, was looking into the activities of at least 19 lawmakers, including reviews of home mortgages and interviews about corporate-backed trips for members of Congress to Caribbean resorts. Combined with the inquiries being conducted by a new ethics office, the document showed a far more robust set of investigations than previously revealed.

    But the document also brings potential political peril for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), whose party claimed the majority in November 2006 after she promised to “drain the swamp” of corruption on Capitol Hill. Two and a half years into Pelosi’s reign, more than 25 Democrats have been targeted for ethics reviews by the two ethics bodies, while just seven Republicans appeared to be under scrutiny, according to the document.

    Republicans have criticized Pelosi for declining to take away power from close allies such as Reps. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) and John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). Both are powerful chairmen who were previously known to be under investigation, but the new document offered greater detail about those probes.

    Rangel said in an interview he was interviewed by the ethics committee about a trip he took to a Caribbean resort that may have been underwritten by corporate interests. Such privately financed trips were forbidden under rules Pelosi pushed shortly after taking over in 2007. Rangel said the interview did not cover other allegations about his personal finances.

    Release of the document, which was provided to The Washington Post by a source with no connection to the ethics committee or Congress, provided an unexpected window into the inner workings of the committee, which has operated in secrecy for decades.

    The scope of its activities provided a counterpoint to critics who have questioned whether the panel — made up of six Democrats, six Republicans and a staff of fewer than 10 lawyers — has taken its work seriously. Ethics watchdogs, who have spent more than a decade pummeling the House and Senate ethics committees, offered rare praise for the House panel and the new Office of Congressional Ethics.

    “Both groups are seriously pursuing their ethics responsibilities at this stage,” six groups said in a joint statement.

    But the revelations have also triggered new sensitivities for the ethics committee, which is formally known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Some lawyers have privately wondered whether the disclosures could damage cases the committee was pursuing. And lawmakers questioned the panel’s professionalism for allowing a now-dismissed junior staffer to take the document home and accidentally load it onto a computer that was using peer-to-peer technology, opening all her files to everyone logged into that network.

    The leaders of the ethics committee,  Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and  Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) alerted colleagues Thursday evening and cautioned that some newly revealed cases could just be cursory reviews by staff members. However, the nearly three dozen cases in the confidential report come under the heading “Investigative Issues of Significance.”

    Watchdog work

    The document covered every activity undertaken by the ethics committee staff for the week of July 27, revealing a hefty workload ranging from complex legal work to mundane requests from congressional staff. One lawyer, for example, fielded 21 phone calls from aides seeking guidance on House rules, reviewed 43 travel requests for staff members or lawmakers hoping to be in sync with chamber rules and reviewed seven financial disclosure forms.

    A senior aide to House  Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) asked whether a lawmaker and aide, while visiting a private ranch on a fact-finding trip, could accept horseback rides from the owner so they could traverse the massive ranch. That was ap proved by a committee lawyer.

     

    The chief of staff for  Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) asked if it was permissible to use official congressional e-mail to alert citizens outside his eastern Iowa district to lobby other members of Congress on a particular issue. Staff rejected this request, saying it would break the “prohibition on members conducting and assisting outside lobbying of Congress.”

    This Story

    Committee inquiries rarely become public, only at the most serious stages. Some reprimands are private. Only in recent years has the committee published biannual reports documenting the number of ongoing investigations.

    The system is meant to protect innocent lawmakers from the political fallout of being identified as under investigation in cases that are not substantial, according to Robert Walker, a former counsel for the House and Senate ethics committees. He rejected criticism that the panel did not conduct enough inquiries.

    “The House ethics committee has historically engaged in a number of ongoing investigations on a regular basis. Many groups may not be willing to acknowledge that, but they did occur,” he said.

    A new ethics enforcer

    Most watchdog groups credited a spike in committee activity to the Office of Congressional Ethics, a semi-independent body that conducts investigations and makes recommendations to the full ethics committee. Only the committee retains the power to punish a lawmaker.

    The OCE’s creation came after a more than yearlong negotiation between Pelosi and many Democrats and Republicans who objected to a new ethics body.

    Now in its first year of existence, the OCE operates with a mandate of speedy probes and public dissemination of information. It is run by a former federal prosecutor who helped send Enron executives to prison and a former Air Force prosecutor who tried terrorists.

    The newly released document hints at the uneasy coexistence of the ethics committee and OCE. That relationship hit a bump last week after the committee dismissed a potential case referred from the ethics office.

    OCE investigators had found that a Republican lawmaker probably broke rules by inviting his wife’s business partner to testify at a hearing, but the ethics committee unanimously dismissed the case and rebuked the OCE for misunderstanding House rules.

    The most persistent critics of the ethics committee said the decision was more evidence of lawmakers declining to police their colleagues. But they also expressed mixed emotions after release of the document.

    “We were pleasantly surprised to learn the ethics committee is investigating so many members of Congress, but starting an investigation isn’t enough. The real question is whether any of the members under investigation will ever be held accountable for their conduct,” said Melanie Sloan, founder of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

     

    → Leave a CommentCategories: News · Politics
    Tagged: , , , , ,

    HipHop Republican: Focus On Capitalism II (LP)

    October 31, 2009 · Leave a Comment

    more about “HipHop Republican: Focus On Capitalis…“, posted with vodpod

     

    → Leave a CommentCategories: Politics · Uncategorized
    Tagged: , ,

    Former senator Edward Brooke receives Congressional Gold Medal – washingtonpost.com

    October 30, 2009 · Leave a Comment

    By Ann Gerhart

    Washington Post Staff Writer

    Thursday, October 29, 2009

    The crisp cadence of a fife-and-drum corps reverberated through the Capitol Rotunda on Wednesday morning, the august room packed with nearly 500 people craning their necks to see the remarkable tableau arranged on a stage before them.

    There sat Edward William Brooke III, who grew up in a segregated neighborhood not far from the Capitol, fought in a segregated Army in World War II and returned to Washington in 1967, the first African American elected to the Senate by popular vote — and on this day, the recipient of the highest honor Congress can bestow, the Congressional Gold Medal.

    And there sat President Obama, whose stunning electoral journey to the White House seemed no more improbable than the one made four decades earlier by the 90-year-old man who sat beside him, a black Protestant Republican who won in the overwhelmingly white, Catholic, Democratic state of Massachusetts. After Obama heralded Brooke for a life spent “breaking barriers and bridging divides,” the two men embraced tightly. It was a reminder of how much this country has changed in their lifetimes.

    Brooke is a tall and expressive man, unstooped by age, quick to smile and careful to put others at ease. His voice carries more of his youth at Shaw Junior High than his adulthood in Boston. On Wednesday, he wore a gold-striped tie and a dark jacket. And he turned his full charisma on  Nancy Pelosi, noting, with some wonderment, “now the speaker of the House is . . . a . . . lady!”

    In his two terms in the Senate, Brooke took up the causes of low-income housing, increasing the minimum wage and furthering mass transit. He took on big tobacco. A strong proponent of civil rights from his days as Massachusetts’s attorney general, he was a lonely Republican voice against school segregation and for reproductive rights for women. Eventually, he took on his own president. Brooke, noted  Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) on Wednesday, introduced legislation to name a special prosecutor in the Watergate scandal, and he became the first senator in either party to call for President Richard M. Nixon’s resignation.

    Such a coalition-builder was Brooke, Obama said, that his “fan base includes Gloria Steinem,  Barney Frank and  Ted Kennedy — as well as  Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney and George W. Bush,” who awarded Brooke the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2004.

    “He didn’t care whether a bill was popular or politically expedient, Democratic or Republican — he cared about whether it helped people, whether it made a difference in their daily lives,” Obama said.

    Brooke’s way was “to ignore the naysayers, reject the conventional wisdom and trust that ultimately, people would judge him on his character, his commitment, his record and his ideas,” the president said. “He ran for office, as he put it, ‘to bring people together who had never been together before.’ And that he did.”

    It was a far different time, of course. A third of the Republican caucus was considered liberal or moderate. The South was still a Democratic stronghold.

    Wednesday was the first time Brooke had met the president. When Obama entered the Senate, the two men talked on the phone once. They exchanged their books, “each with kind inscriptions,” Brooke said in an interview. “He wrote, ‘You paved the way for us’ or something like that, and I said something like, ‘You are a worthy bearer of the torch.’ “

    He is proud of what Obama has accomplished, he said. “What really pleases me is that he is trying his best and succeeding with what he said he would do. The problem people have with politicians is that they say what they are gonna do, and that is the end of it.”

    Brooke added that he was particularly touched that Obama signed legislation Wednesday that extends protection from hate crimes to gay men and lesbians, a cause he first advanced in the 1960s.

    Brooke said the two men “share a pragmatism” that enabled each of them to vault over old fears. When he first sought statewide office as attorney general, he said, “I heard it: ‘White voters will never vote for you.’ And I would say: ‘We’ve been voting for whites all these years. I can’t see any reason why, if the candidate has integrity and intelligence and commitment and ideas, he can’t be elected to statewide office.’ “

    Brooke, too, angered supporters who thought he was not moving quickly enough or speaking loudly enough as the lone black member of the Senate.

    But, he said: “While I could rabble-rouse in my time, I made a lot of enemies by saying, ‘I am not a civil rights leader, I am a politician. They are doing their job, and I welcome it. My job is to be a legislator, and to get things done in the Congress.’ “

    In a period of about 10 years after the Civil War, the Mississippi legislature voted twice to send black men to the Senate. In 1913, the 17th Amendment allowed voters to elect their senators directly. Only four African Americans have served in the Senate in the nearly 100 years since then: Brooke, Carol Moseley Braun, Obama and Obama’s successor from Illinois, Roland W. Burris, who was controversially appointed by the governor.

    After he lost his bid for a third term and left the Senate, Brooke practiced law in Washington and became chairman of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. After he received a diagnosis of breast cancer in 2002, he spoke out to raise awareness of the disease in men.

    On Wednesday, Brooke discussed the things he believes Congress still must do. As sunlight glinted through the windows high in the marble dome, he talked from the stage about the halting economy, multiple wars and “people who still are hungry, who still are homeless,” and he charged his former colleagues to get busy.

    And then, he displayed a flash of the fortitude he used when cajoling fellow lawmakers. Using the license accorded to a man who has lived for 90 years, Brooke turned, fixed his eyes on McConnell and directly addressed the Senate Republican leader.

    “We’ve got to get together,” Brooke lectured, with a smile. McConnell fidgeted. The crowd burst into applause, and McConnell joined in. “We have no alternative. There’s nothing left. It’s time for politics to be put aside on the back burner.”

     

    via Former senator Edward Brooke receives Congressional Gold Medal – washingtonpost.com.

    → Leave a CommentCategories: News · Politics
    Tagged: , ,

    Edward Brooke: Rap Brown and the Black Movement#at=15

    October 29, 2009 · Leave a Comment

    The Washington Post has a delightful story on Edward Brooke, the first African American Senator elected by popular vote. Having recently celebrated his 90th birthday, the former Republican Senator from Massachusetts was honored with the Congressional Gold Medal on Wednesday. In the audience sat the third African American to head to the Senate via the popular vote, President Obama.

    Brooke has always been a hero of mine, for breaking a racial barrier and for being a solid moderate Republican. He is one of the reasons I am a Republican. So, it is truly an honor to see this man be feted- and it is also amazing that in the same room sat the first African American Senator elected by popular vote and the first African American President.

    What a country.

    Share This:

    via Honoring Edward Brooke – Hip Hop Republican.

    more about “Edward Brooke: Rap Brown and the Blac…“, posted with vodpod

     

    → Leave a CommentCategories: Uncategorized
    Tagged: ,