Archive for October, 2009

The Pelosi-Reid train wreck

Last Updated: 4:47 AM, October 31, 2009

Posted: 12:13 AM, October 31, 2009

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled a 2,000-page health-care bill
Thursday — complete with a "public option" — cobbled together from
competing versions passed by separate committees.

At this
point, she and her Senate counterparts are crafting their bills in ways
to secure votes for passage rather than to produce good policy. But
their attempts may backfire on both fronts.

Fiscally
conservative Dems in the Blue Dog coalition, for example, quickly
demanded more proof that the bill — which spends $1.055 trillion over
10 years — will lower health-care costs in the long run.

And
that comes after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s ObamaCare bill met
major resistance from Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman, who said he’d
back a GOP filibuster.

Government-run health insurance — even
with an opt-out provision, as Reid proposes — "creates a whole new
government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the
line," said the Connecticut senator.

And that, he added, "is just asking for trouble — for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt."

How right he is.

Combined with growing skepticism from other Senate Democrats, that
could leave Reid short of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster.

Reid & Co. also lost the support of Maine Republican Olympia Snowe,
who says she’s "deeply disappointed" that the majority leader included
a public option, notwithstanding its opt-out for states.

Why?
For one thing, no one can say how that opt-out would work. For another,
it fails to address a key problem with a government plan: With
Washington writing the rules and providing funding, a public plan would
enjoy an unfair edge over private ones.

Meanwhile, Democrats
have already significantly weakened various cost-containment provisions
proposed by Republicans in both the House and Senate bills.

And OMB Director Peter Orszag admitted this week: "It is . . .
difficult to quantify precisely how these steps will work together to
promote quality and reduce cost growth."

That’s because Dems
keep promising the moon, claiming they can provide universal coverage,
better care and steeply declining prices — all without blowing new
holes in the federal budget.

And anytime a skeptic crunches their numbers, they just move the goal line, saying it’s a "work in progress."

But as House Minority Leader John Boehner said Thursday, some things
about the bill are already clear: "It will raise the cost of Americans’
health-insurance premiums; it will kill jobs with tax hikes and new
mandates, and it will cut seniors’ Medicare benefits."

Seems the old adage still makes sense: If it sounds too good to be true, it is.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Gavin Newsom “Treats” California, “Tricks” San Francisco!

By John W. Lillpop

It is not often that an announcement by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom means good news for the state of California.

Indeed,
most news about Newsom involves unmitigated goofiness and stifling
arrogance such as his decision to marry same-sex couples on the steps
of City Hall based on his unilateral rendering of California law as unconstitutional when it comes to homosexual weddings

Equally
incredulous is Newsom’s role in shielding illegal alien felons from the
federal government and deportation, said malfeasance leading to the
death of San Francisco citizens.

Or his reckless spending and liberal excesses which have left San Francisco finances in shambles.

On and on it goes as Gavin Newsom is a liberal’s liberal, which means that common sense is never in play.

However, breaking with tradition, Gavin Newsom has made news that
is a genuine blessing to the state of California.

As reported at sfgate.com, in part, Mayor Newsom has withdrawn his candidacy for the governor of California: +

“Plagued
by low poll numbers and anemic fundraising, and with a newborn daughter
at home, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom dropped out of the governor’s
race on Friday

”Newsom became the first to announce his candidacy for governor earlier this year, using Twitter to break the news. His withdrawal leaves Democrats with Attorney General Jerry Brown as their likely nominee while three Republicans vie for their party’s nomination in June

”Newsom, who famously broke state law when he married same-sex couples in 2004 and promoted the nation’s first universal health care
program, was sidelined for months from appearing much before the local
press and coming up with the controversial initiatives he adores.
“Donors and some advisers told him to temper the policy
proposals that might not play well in conservative parts of California.
For example, he recently floated the idea of a tax on sugary drinks,
but hasn’t submitted legislation – though he’s likely to now.

The
obvious downside to Newsom’s withdrawal is that the pugnacious lefty
will have more time to devote to the further destruction of San
Francisco.

Still, the goons who live in The City elected this
nut ball. For that, they deserve all the tricks this delusional man can
dish out!

+
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/31/MN7S1AD82T.DTL#ixzz0VYM0WqQQ

John W. Lillpop
 

Leave a comment

Controlling climate? More like controlling humans

The proposed "solutions" to scientifically fading man-made global
warming fears are set to alter American lifestyles and sovereignty in
ways never before contemplated

  By Marc Morano  Friday, October 30, 2009

The proposed “solutions” to scientifically fading man-made global
warming fears are set to alter American lifestyles and sovereignty in
ways never before contemplated.

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen has warned: “‘He who
controls carbon controls life. It is a bureaucrat’s dream to control
carbon dioxide.” Washington, D.C., and the U.N. are in a field of
dreams right now as they envision one of the most massive expansions of
controls on human individual freedom ever contemplated by governments.

Leading the charge is none other than former Vice President Al Gore, who declared in July 2009
that the congressional climate bill will help bring about “global
governance.” U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also trumpeted the
concept in an Oct. 25, 2009, New York Times oped. “A [climate] deal must include an equitable global governance structure,” he wrote.

Gore and the U.N.‘s call for “global governance” echoes former
French President Jacques Chirac’s call in 2000. On Nov. 20, 2000,
then-President Chirac said during a speech at The Hague that the U.N.‘s
Kyoto Protocol represented “the first component of an authentic global governance.”

Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, “Kyoto is
about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses
worldwide.” Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed U.N.‘s
Kyoto Protocol as a “socialist scheme.”

In addition, calls for a global carbon tax have been urged at recent
U.N. global warming conferences. In December 2007, the U.N. climate
conference in Bali urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”

The environmental group Friends of the Earth advocated the transfer
of money from rich to poor nations during the 2007 U.N. climate
conference.

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution
of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice
campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

The Obama administration revealed even more controls in September
2009 when it was announced that the State Department wanted to form a global “Ecological Board of Directors.”

But even more chilling than a global regime set up to “solve” global
warming is the personal freedoms that are under assault. In September,
a top German climate adviser proposed the “creation of a CO2 budget for every person on planet.”
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber told Der Spiegel that this internationally
monitored “CO2 budget” would apply to “every person on the planet,
regardless whether they live in Berlin or Beijing.”

Czech physicist Dr. Lubos Motl, formerly of Harvard University and a
global-warming skeptic, reacted to Schellnhuber’s CO2 personal “budget”
proposal by citing tyrannical movements of the past. “What Schellnhuber
has just said is just breathtaking, and it helps me to understand how
crazy political movements such as the Nazis or communists could have so
easily taken over a nation that is as sensible as Germany,” Motl wrote on Sept. 6, 2009.

The movement to control personal CO2 “budgets” and personal freedoms is growing internationally. In 2008, the U.K. proposed a “personal
carbon trading scheme” where “every adult in U.K. should be forced to
use ‘carbon ration cards.’” According to the Mail article:

“Everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying
oil, gas, electricity and flights – anyone who exceeds their
entitlement would have to buy top-up credits from individuals who
haven’t used up their allowance.” The U.K.
government would have the authority to impose fines, “monitor
employees’ emissions, home energy bills, petrol purchases and holiday
flights.”
The London Times reported in September 2009: “Rationing
being reintroduced via workplace after an absence of half a century…
Employees would be required to submit quarterly reports detailing their
consumption.”

In January 2008, the California state government stunned the nation when it sought to control home thermostats remotely.
Even the New York Times appeared to be shaken by this proposal,
comparing it to the 1960s sci-fi show “The Outer Limits.” “California,
state regulators are likely to have the emergency power to control
individual thermostats, sending temperatures up or down through a
radio-controlled device,” the New York Times reported.

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was dubbed the “eco-nanny” in May 2009 when she told audiences in China that “every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory” in order to combat global warming.

What is most surprising is that even the granddaddy of global
warming treaties, the Kyoto Protocol, would have had barely a
measurable impact on global CO2 levels even if fully enacted and
assuming the U.N. was correct on the science. The congressional global
warming cap-and-trade bill has been declared “scientifically
meaningless,” and President Obama’s own EPA is now on record admitting that U.S. cap-and-trade bill “would not impact world CO2 levels.”

Even a cursory examination of the global-warming issue reveals that
the proposed climate tax and regulatory “solutions” are more important
to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their
science or concern for human welfare. Former Colorado Sen. Tim Wirth summed up this view succinctly:
“We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of
global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms
of economic policy and environmental policy.”

The “right thing” Wirth is referring to is the unprecedented
transfer of wealth, power and control to domestic and global
governance. Controlling climate change appears not to be about
controlling temperatures, but about controlling human freedom. Czech
President Vaclav Klaus, who lived through totalitarian regimes, now
warns that the biggest threat to freedom and democracy is from
“ambitious environmentalism.”

(1) Reader Feedback
| Subscribe

Mr. Morano is the former communications director
for the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee and former
advisor and speechwriter for Sen.James Inhofe. Morano’s Climate Deport is a special project of CFACT.org. Marc can be reached at: Letters@canadafreepress.com


Printed from: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16365

Leave a comment

Pretending to Speak for an Entire Culture



Frank Salvato,
Managing Editor





October 30, 2009

One of the things that brings me to
the boiling point is when I hear elected officials tell me what
“Americans want” or what “Americans think.” To believe that today’s
federally elected politicians understand – or care – what their
constituents want, never mind Americans on the whole, after they
belittled town hall attendees and ignored the citizenry’s opposition to
government-run healthcare is to exist in fantasyland. No, federally
elected politicians (and in many cases local politicians, as well) only
invoke the wants and thoughts of “Americans” when they want to bolster
their political positions and those have more to do with special
interest groups and ideology than what Americans really think and want.

How many times have you heard Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, President Obama
or any number of their surrogates – and to be fair and honest, it does
happen on both sides of the aisle – begin a sentence with, “What
Americans really want…” or “The Average American thinks that…” It is
an insult to the intelligence of the citizenry, no matter how dumbed-down
the American populace has become.

Another facet to this intellectual arrogance is when an elected official
or public figure uses a “broad brush” to address an entire group or
demographic, regardless of whether it is favorably or unfavorably.

One example of this simplistic arrogance was illustrated on MSNBC’s

Countdown with Keith Olbermann
, when the tired
sportscaster-turned-propagandist, Olbermann, provided a platform for the
marginally-talented Janeane Garofalo to say of Tea Party attendees:

“It’s not about bashing Democrats. It’s not about taxes; they have no
idea what the Boston Tea Party was about. They don’t know their history
at all. This is about hating a Black man in the White House. This is
racism, straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks
and there is no way around that.”

To Garofalo and Olbermann, anyone who attended one of the thousands
of Tea Parties around the country was a “tea-bagging redneck,” each and
every one of them. Not one of them every studied history and every
attendee was a racist. This is an example of painting an entire
demographic with a “broad brush” in an unfavorable manner.

Another event that provided examples of painting with a broad brush and
speaking for entire demographics happened in September in the
Phoenix-Mesa Arizona area when US Rep. Keith Ellison (P-MN) – I
designate the “P” for Progressive as all members of the Progressive
Caucus are Democrats – spoke at a fundraiser for the Arizona chapter of
CAIR, the Council for American Islamic Relations.

After announcing that he would indeed speak at the fundraiser for CAIR,
three federally elected officials from Arizona – US Sen. John Kyl
(R-AZ), US Rep. John Shadegg and US Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), wrote a
letter urging Congressman Ellison – the only declared Muslim in Congress
– to reconsider associating with CAIR and to cancel his appearance. The
Republican legislators cited the fact that CAIR has questionable ties to
the terror group Hamas as established by evidence submitted in the
recent Holy Land Foundation trial in which CAIR was named an unindicted
co-conspirator. Further, there have been several high-ranking CAIR
operatives who have been either indicted or convicted of having
transgressed the law:



Randall Todd Royer
, who has served as a communications specialist
and as a civil rights coordinator for CAIR, was charged with a variety
of firearms violations and attempting to mount a military attack against
a friendly nation, India, after he trained with the Lashkar-e-Taiba, a
Kashmir terrorist group that is listed on the State Departments
international terror list, linked with al-Qaeda.



Bassem Khafagi
, who served as community affairs director of the CAIR,
was accused of having ties to terrorism and was sentenced after pleading
guilty to bank and visa fraud.



Siraj Wahhaj
, CAIR Advisory Board member, was named by federal
prosecutors as one of the “unindicted persons who may be alleged as
co-conspirators” in a plot to blow up monuments in New York City.

So, as we can see, the questions surrounding CAIR, their activities and
their high-ranking members are certainly valid and anyone – especially a
federally elected official – would be wise to think long and hard about
associating with a group that apologizes for and includes Islamic
extremists.

But Ellison, a convert to Islam, chose to attend the event, ignoring the
requests from his fellow legislators. In fact, he

addressed the issue
before taking the podium to celebrate Pres.
Obama’s “fresh start in relations with Islamic countries,” as reported
by Jim Walsh of The Arizona Republic:

"’I would never associate myself with anyone even soft on terrorism,’
he said before the speech. ‘We all want to fight terror. We all want to
live in a safe community.’

“The fears Kyl, Franks and Shadegg expressed in the letter are
‘ridiculous,’ he said.

“If there is any truth to the allegations that CAIR supports the
Palestinian terrorist organization, Ellison said, there should be
arrests and prosecutions.”

In responding to the accusations leveled against CAIR, Ellison uses
the collective “we” indicating that he was speaking for the whole of the
Muslim community. Again, this is using a “broad brush” to address the
issues of CAIR, the organization, and the actions of its operatives. The
facts, as they present, certainly indicate that CAIR is conflicted, both
in its organizational loyalties and with regard to who it chooses to
lead the group.

Mr. Ellison’s response was championed by Asim Ameer in another article
in The Arizona Republic (which has since been removed) in which
Mr. Ameer states:

“To label CAIR an ‘unindicted co-conspirator’ and as a ‘front group
for terrorism’ without any evidence is ludicrous…The US is a land of
laws. Baseless charges by enemies of American Muslims create hatred and
incite violence towards them. The people who are making these charges
should back them up with incontrovertible proof. Name-calling by biased
members of Congress is just mudslinging that is unbecoming of them.”

Evidenced by what I have pointed out earlier about CAIR’s legal and
prosecutorial woes, we can see that Mr. Ameer not only painted with a
“broad brush,” but did so disingenuously.

These irresponsible actions, declarations and writings by Mr. Ellison
and Mr. Ameer prompted a brave and necessary response from one of the
founders of the
Moderate Muslim Summit, Mr. Farid Ghadry, President of the Reform
Party of Syria. The summit was recently hosted by US Rep. Sue Myrick
(R-NC):

“I was concerned by statements made in two pieces published in The
Arizona Republic, one article by Jim Walsh under the title ‘US Rep.
Meets Group Accused of Terror Ties’ on September 19, and a piece by Asim
Ameer titled ‘Lawmakers Show Bias, Create Hatred,’ published on
September 26.

“With all due respects, Rep Keith Ellison (D-MN) doesn’t represent the
Muslim American community in the US Congress just because, as Mr. Walsh
introduced him, he is ‘the only Muslim in Congress.’

“Ellison was elected in his district in Minnesota by American citizens
from all creeds. Lawmakers’ religions don’t give them a special
privilege to hijack the representation of an entire religious community
of over 3 million individuals. He neither represents my community
nationwide in Congress nor does he even represent the entire spectrum of
opinions inside this community. His view about the so-called ‘fresh
start in relations with Islamic countries under President Barack Obama’s
administration’ doesn’t represent the views of those Muslim-Americans
who criticize cutting deals with Syrian, Saudi, Libyan and Iranian
regimes.

“Mr. Ellison meddled in intra-Muslim American politics by defending CAIR
against charges by other Muslims that some of its members were involved
in terrorism. Mr. Ellison must refrain from supporting organizations
receiving financial support from regimes abusing human rights of
millions of Muslims. It goes against everything this country stands for.

“Mr. Asim Ameer attacked three esteemed legislators whose concerns
reflect the feelings of many Muslim Americans. He claimed ‘CAIR
consistently criticized terrorist attacks by individuals, organizations
and countries.’ I never read any statement by this group condemning al
Qaeda, the Taliban and Hezbollah. Worse, he claimed, CAIR ‘has a history
of assisting the Department of Homeland Security and other law
enforcement agencies,’ a matter that endangers our national security as
Americans because of the groups links to Terror organizations.

“American Muslims have had enough of being hijacked by Jihadist
ideologues.”

Pres. Obama, as he traveled down the campaign path to the White
House, was correct about one thing: Words do matter. When we are
addressing issues as deadly serious as radical Islam, terrorism and the
funding of terrorist organizations, words matter. So do deeds. The
actions of CAIR and its operatives lend credence to the notion that they
should be held suspect when it comes to their motives and goals. To hide
behind the moniker of “advocate for the American-Muslim community” when
their high-ranking officials are engaged in nefarious deeds is not only
disingenuous, it is deceptive.

Mr. Ameer and Mr. Ellison, according to the facts of the matter – as
they present – are either ill-informed, naïve or sympathetic to CAIR’s
ulterior motives. Given the facts – as they present – Mr. Ellison would
be wise to speak for himself, instead of the whole of the
American-Muslim community, especially as the introspective debate about
how Muslims and non-Muslims will co-exist in American culture is taking
place.


About
Frank Salvato


Frank Salvato

is
the Executive Director and Director of Terrorism Research for


BasicsProject.org

a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and education
initiative. His writing has been recognized by the US House
International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for
Conflict Prevention. His organization, BasicsProject.org,
partnered in producing the original national symposium series
addressing the root causes of radical Islamist terrorism. He is
a member of the


International Analyst Network
.
He also serves as the managing editor for The New Media Journal.
Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News
Channel, and is a regular guest on talk radio including on The
Captain’s America Radio Show airing on AM1220 WSRQ and on the
Internet catering to the US Armed Forces around the world and on
The Roth Show with Dr. Laurie Roth syndicated nationally on the
USA Radio Network. His
opinion-editorials have been published by The American
Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times & Human Events and
are syndicated nationally. He is occasionally quoted in The
Federalist. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking
engagements.

Leave a comment

“What If The Left Keeps Squeezing?”


By Ron Ewart, President


National Association of Rural
Landowners
and
nationally recognized author on freedom and property rights
issues


©
Copyright October 31, 2009 – All Rights
Reserved
 
 
 
 
How much of Obama’s
"fundamentally transforming America" will free
Americans take before they ……. ? 
 
How much of our unalienable,
individual rights will we lose before Americans have no other choice but to
…… ?  
 
How many outright radicals in Obama’s
administration will Americans tolerate before they call him out and demand
impeachment proceedings from the Senate?
 
At what point will Americans say
enough is enough of all the social justice and radical
environmentalism initiatives coming out of the hopelessly corrupt United
Nations
, that past Presidents, Obama and the U. S. Congress are
turning into American law and eroding our sovereignty, in direct violation
of the U. S. Constitution? 
 
What is the threshold upon which
Americans will act, in response to the never-ending propaganda, hype,
distortions and lies, spewing out of the mouths of the President and the U. S.
Congress?  
 
How long will Americans undergo the
incessant squeezing from the left, before they will be forced to exercise
the last remaining alternative, because all other alternatives have been
exhausted?
 
What is the final "trigger" that will
send America into chaos and anarchy?
 

When Representative Joe Wilson
shouted that the President lied during President Obama’s speech
to a joint session of the U. S. Congress, it turns out Joe
was right.  He shouldn’t have had to apologize for anything. 
After Obama promised that no health care benefits would go to illegal
aliens, we hear this from Lou Dobbs of CNN, about Speaker Pelosi‘s freshly rolled out Nationalized
Health Care
plan.  These aren’t Lou’s words, they come from House Minority
Leader, John Boehner.  Watch the video.  You won’t believe it.
 
 
It is inconceivable that President Obama was ignorant of
these benefits-to-illegal-aliens contained in the House’s health care Bill,
thus making him a pathological liar.
 
Then there is the Cap and Trade legislation with the
so-called need for the law based on politically-motivated, pseudo science
(more lies and propaganda), that man is causing
global warming (now deceptively labeled "climate
change
")
because of CO2 emissions.  If passed, it could send
America into third-world status, put America at greater risk of invasion by a
stronger power, lock up America’s natural energy resources, force greater
dependence on foreign energy and raise the cost of energy many fold.  Every
single product produced in America requires energy.  If the cost of energy
goes up, the cost to drive our cars and heat or cool our homes will also go
up.  The cost of food will go up.  In fact, the cost of
everything will go up ….. dramatically.
 
Should either
Nationalized Health Care or Cap and Trade be passed by the U. S. Congress and
signed by the President, it will be an overt act of
treason!
 
If they pass them, will
nationalized health care, Cap and Trade legislation, amnesty for illegals,
passing the Clean Water Restoration Act, UN biospheres or wildlife corridors,
gun control, water control, food control, energy control, or
unconstitutionally ratified treaties, or all of them together, send us over the
edge?  No one knows.  But when it happens and we say "when", it will
grow like an avalanche, picking up speed as it crashes down hill, destroying
everything in its path.  Like an avalanche, it will be unstoppable and the
outcome totally unpredictable.
 
The questions we ask here, have been looming for
years.   Several years ago we wrote an article in which we asked
the reader if he would wait until jack-booted thugs came to his door
and carted him off (Nazi Germany), before he
would lift a finger to save himself?  No one believed that the
threat was real then and even now, many say we haven’t come that far
yet.  If they believe this, they aren’t reading
the very descriptive tea leaves in our national teacup of
daily government swill.
 

Actually, the country is so divided it would appear that the
more likely scenario is an outright civil war between the "takers" and the
"producers".  Unfortunately, the government would come to the aid of the
"takers" because the "takers" represent solid votes for the status,
socialism, quo.
 

This is one of the reasons
why we completed the video entitled: "The Coming Civil
War
"  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5Ewwmikc9Q
).  We were vilified by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC and
taken to task by Alan Colmes on his radio show, for even predicting such a
thing.  We were on the Alan Colmes talk show on September
15th for a half hour, following Dr. Ron Paul.  Alan did everything he could
to discredit us and our organization, using excerpts from
our video, but he did not succeed.  When he found he
could not "shake" us from our perch, he unceremoniously dumped us off the
air. 
 
It is still possible that we may
still be able to reverse course peacefully, but below is a response from a
fellow regarding our recent article, "What is the
Threshold of Revolution?
" (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16087),
that doesn’t think so.  We hope he is wrong, but many indications
point to him being right.
 
"Naive, profoundly naive. 
Blood will run down the streets of America.  Ewart is advised to study
derivatives, credit default swaps, money and banking and the debasement of the
dollar.  Even Rep. Ron Paul is predicting violence. 
http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=4792  Ron Paul
Warns of Violence from Pending Dollar Crisis, Says Israel Strike on Iran the
Trigger’"
 
But on the positive side we
must ask:  "….. When in all of our history as a nation, have
conservatives marched on Washington DC almost 2 million strong, or held tea
parties across America, or spoke out vehemently, by the thousands, at
Town Hall meetings?
 
The 9-12 March on Washington DC was
just the beginning.  This is not a flash in the pan, this is real and it is
sustainable and it will grow.  The sleeping giant has indeed been awakened,
like the lady said to Arlen Spector at one Town Hall meeting last August. 
The question is, will the sleeping giant act objectively and with a cool head,
or will he be like the grizzly bear just awakening from a long winter’s nap,
ferociously hungry and thirsting for red meat?
 
 
It would appear that the answer on what the sleeping giant
will do will be determined by how hard the left keeps squeezing the life,
liberty and pursuit of happiness out of free Americans.
 
As we celebrate this Halloween Day, think about
your government threatening the American people with, "trick or
treat
", knowing full well that the
"tricks" government has in store for us, if
we don’t "treat", are unthinkable in the land of the
free, not to mention unconstitutional on their face. 
 
Is government’s grip on you squeezing you too tight? 
What are you going to do about it?

 
 
 
 
Ron
Ewart
, President
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
RURAL LANDOWNERS
P. O. Box 1031, Issaquah, WA 
98027
425 222-4742 or 1 800
682-7848
(Fax No. 425
222-4743)
Website:
www.narlo.org

Leave a comment

Global elites, Environmentalists, Global warming crowd are nothing more than communistic agents Enemies to America….the International agenda

  By Dr. Laurie Roth  Thursday, October 29, 2009

The push to flatten us into submission to the International elites
is going just as planned.  The Copenhagen Climate Treaty is set to take
off December 8th, 09 just weeks away and President Obama has promised
to sign it.

This would cede our sovereignty to the International elites running
this Treaty.  Once the Senate had ratified this, international taxes
and new rules would be levied on the American people to lower the
mythological effect of carbon emissions.  This would lead beautifully
to its domestic relative and nightmare,  the Cap and Trade Bill,  also
a carbon emissions bloodhound Obama will gladly sign.  Neither of these
international schemes should happen.  We must fight them with all that
we have.

The UN has been exploring international controls and a one world
Government for decades while the U.S. has largely looked the other
way.  One of the UN’s offspring, boldly declaring their real agenda was
started clear back in 1945,  UNESCO
– United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. 
Their declared goal laid out for all to see is to push for a
standardized one-world culture in preparation for world government. 

One of UNESCO’S founding members Julian Huxley
(brother of Aldous Huxley and grandson of T.H. Huxley) stated if you
can believe it:  “The lowest strata are reproducing too fast. 
Therefore…they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital
treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection
should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive long
unemployment should be a ground for sterilization.”

The Internationalists of today i.e.  global elites,
environmentalists and global warming crowd are nothing more than
communistic agents hiding behind the created crisis of trees in
trouble,  animals disappearing and suffering,  mystery poor folks
needing the wealth and money from workers and rich people,  and the
endless sea of special rights for special people,  Muslim,  Gay, 
Illegal alien and of course misunderstood terrorists.  We all know that
Christians, conservatives and Vets are domestic terrorists so we can
just write them off.

As Americans we have pursued excellence, achievement and freedom. 
We have done this for several hundred years with the blessing of God
since we were indeed a nation founded and inspired by God and His
morals.  We have drifted very far from our roots and heritage but I
believe with all my heart that our skeletal structure and core is still
in place though threatened by the Internationalists who hate our spirit
and freedom.  They must size us down in the world and steal our wealth
or be challenged sooner or later by their own people demanding American
style freedom.  Will we fight for our sovereignty, freedom and
spiritual core?  God bless America.

(1) Reader Feedback
| Subscribe

Dr. Laurie Roth Most recent columns

Just Who is this Annie Oakley of the airwaves?
Laurie Roth has a Ph.D. in
counseling and a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, is happily married and
currently resides in Washington State. She is a singer/songwriter with
five CD albums to her credit.  She plays the piano, keyboard, and
violin and has a voice that can penetrate your very
soul. 
 

Laurie is also an accomplished Author, Cartoonist,
and Artist.

She can be reached at: Drljroth@aol.com
 


Printed from: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16354

Leave a comment

Obama’s Bush Blame Game By Charles Krauthammer

October 30, 2009

WASHINGTON — Old Soviet joke:

Moscow, 1953. Stalin calls in Khrushchev.

Receive news alerts

Sign Up

Charles Krauthammer RealClearPolitics
Barack Obama foreign policy
Afghanistan

[+] More

"Niki, I’m dying. Don’t have much to leave you. Just three envelopes. Open them, one at a time, when you get into big trouble."

A few years later, first crisis. Khrushchev opens envelope 1: "Blame everything on me. Uncle Joe."

A few years later, a really big crisis. Opens envelope 2: "Blame everything on me. Again. Good luck, Uncle Joe."

Third crisis. Opens envelope 3: "Prepare three envelopes."

In the Barack Obama version, there are 50 or so such blame-Bush free
passes before the gig is up. By my calculation, Obama has already
burned through a good 49. Is there anything he hasn’t blamed George W.
Bush for? The economy, global warming, the credit crisis, Middle East
stalemate, the deficit, anti-Americanism abroad — everything but swine
flu.

It’s as if Obama’s presidency hasn’t really started. He’s still
taking inventory of the Bush years. Just this Monday, he referred to
"long years of drift" in Afghanistan in order to, I suppose, explain
away his own, well, yearlong drift on Afghanistan.

This compulsion to attack his predecessor is as stale as it is
unseemly. Obama was elected a year ago. He became commander in chief
two months later. He then solemnly announced his own "comprehensive new
strategy" for Afghanistan seven months ago. And it was not an
off-the-cuff decision. "My administration has heard from our military
commanders, as well as our diplomats," the president assured us. "We’ve
consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners
and our NATO allies, and with other donors and international
organizations" and "with members of Congress. "

Obama is obviously unhappy with the path he himself chose in March.
Fine. He has every right — indeed duty — to reconsider. But what
Obama is reacting to is the failure of his own strategy.

There is nothing new here. The history of both the Afghanistan and
Iraq wars is a considered readjustment of policies that have failed. In
each war, quick initial low-casualty campaigns toppled enemy
governments. In the subsequent occupation stage, two policy choices
presented themselves: the light or heavy "footprint."

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we initially chose the light
footprint. For obvious reasons: less risk and fewer losses for our
troops, while reducing the intrusiveness of the occupation and thus the
chances of creating an anti-foreigner backlash that would fan an
insurgency.

This was the considered judgment of our commanders at the time, most
especially Centcom commander (2003-2007) Gen. John Abizaid. And Abizaid
was no stranger to the territory. He speaks Arabic and is a scholar of
the region. The overriding idea was that the light footprint would
minimize local opposition.

It was a perfectly reasonable assumption, but it proved wrong. The
strategy failed. Not just because the enemy proved highly resilient but
because the allegiance of the population turned out to hinge far less
on resentment of foreign intrusiveness (in fact the locals came to hate
the insurgents — al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan — far
more than us) than on physical insecurity, which made them side with
the insurgents out of sheer fear.

What they needed, argued Gen. David Petraeus against much Pentagon
brass opposition, was population protection, i.e., a heavy footprint.

In Iraq, the heavy footprint — also known as the surge —
dramatically reversed the fortunes of war. In Afghanistan, where it
took longer for the Taliban to regroup, the failure of the light
footprint did not become evident until more recently when an uneasy
stalemate began to deteriorate into steady Taliban advances.

That’s where we are now in Afghanistan. The logic of a true
counterinsurgency strategy there is that whatever resentment a troop
surge might occasion pales in comparison with the continued
demoralization of any potential anti-Taliban elements unless they
receive serious and immediate protection from U.S.-NATO forces.

In other words, Obama is facing the same decision on Afghanistan that Bush faced in late 2006 in deciding to surge in Iraq.

In both places, the deterioration of the military situation was not
the result of "drift," but of considered policies that seemed
reasonable, cautious and culturally sensitive at the time, but
ultimately turned out to be wrong.

Which is evidently what Obama now thinks of the policy choice he made on March 27.

He is to be commended for reconsidering. But it is time he acted
like a president and decided. Afghanistan is his. He’s used up his
envelopes.

     (c) 2009, Washington Post Writers Group

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/30/its_time_for_obama_to_stop_blaming_bush.html at October 30, 2009 – 12:34:25 PM CDT

Leave a comment