Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Protecting Your Health Care Freedom

On August 3, 2010, Missourians will be the first in the nation to cast a vote on the federal health care reforms passed by President Obama and the Congress earlier this year. After a year of rallies and town hall meetings with our Washington representatives, the Missouri legislature led by Senator Jane Cunningham rose to the occasion and passed the Health Care Freedom Act (HB1764).

A YES vote on the Act, labeled Proposition C on the ballot, willl:
*  Defend your right to use your own money to pay for your and your family’s health care services; and

*  Protect you from being forced into a health care system you do not want.

After months of saying NO to Washington, the Missouri legislature has given voters something to say YES to. The language that will appear on the August 3 primary ballot, Proposition C, will be as below.
Shall the Missouri Statutes be amended to:

*  Deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services?

*  Modify laws regarding the liquidation of certain domestic insurance companies?

It is estimated this proposal will have no immediate costs or savings to state or local governmental entities. However, because of the uncertain interaction of the proposal with implementation of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, future costs to state governmental entities are unknown.

The full text of the Health Care Freedom Act (HB1764) is here.

Sheriff Mack Endorses Ron Micheli as Ideal Governor for Wyoming

Sunday, June 27, 2010

“Jihad is the highest level in Islam”

June 27, 2010

The famous Verse of the Sword 9:5 “Kill the pagans (infidels, kafir, kuffar [pl.], Christians, all non-Muslims) wherever ye find them” which abrogates at least 124 peaceful verses (Mecca) when Muhammad was weak an had to woo new converts with sugary preaching.

For Christians Islam means WAR, persecution and death

About his father & the “greatest terrorist Allah”
05:55 “His god unskinned his humanity”

Video here on the webpage

8:12 Thou shall behead non-Muslims


Sixth Commandment: “thou shalt not kill.” (Exodus 20:13)

Gradual Absorption (Ali Sina)

Page 224 “… Even today, Muslims who earn their living through honorable professions are required to pay khoms and zakat. There are constant reminders to believers to “spend of your substance in the cause of Allâh” (Q 2:195) and exhortations to “fight for the Faith, with their property and their persons.” (Q.8:72)

Muhammad offered an orgiastic paradise (551 KB) filled with all sorts of carnal delights to anyone who believed in him and made jihad for him. All one has to do is stop reasoning and believe in whatever he said and this would guarantee him access to paradise and eternal sex.
“The Qur’an’s descriptions of Paradise are many and vivid” (PDF 992 KB) [borrowings of the writings of the Zoroastrians of Persia]

Video here on the webpage

Allah, the Lord of Torture Quran 5:33 + 5:38 “… they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides…”

Quran Chapter 24 Verse 2

“الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي فَاجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا مِائَةَ جَلْدَةٍ وَلَا تَأْخُذْكُمْ بِهِمَا رَأْفَةٌ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلْيَشْهَدْ عَذَابَهُمَا طَائِفَةٌ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ …” Google Translate “Adulteress and the adulterer and lash each one of them a hundred lashes and take you by the mercy of God in the religion, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the punishment be witnessed by a number of believers …”

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Disgraced Fannie Mae deep in carbon scheme-Mortgage giant set to collect millions marketing homeowners' energy savings

June 25, 2010

With the Obama administration pushing for cap-and-trade legislation, former Clinton and Obama adviser Franklin Raines has positioned the government-sponsored mortgage giant Fannie Mae to make millions by selling carbon credits from American homes.

Two patents applied for by Raines as one of several "co-inventors" – Nos. 6904336 and 7133750 – create a "method for identifying, quantifying, and aggregating reductions in residential emissions into a tradable commodity." The patents are identically titled "System and Method for Residential Emissions Trading."

The idea appears to be for Fannie Mae to create "Collateralized Carbon Obligations," or CCOs, by utilizing a methodology similar to its system for combining individual home loans into Collateralized Loan Obligations, or CLOs.

The patents give Fannie Mae the methods for identifying and measuring energy savings in homes that can be packaged and sold to carbon polluters as credits on a carbon exchange.

Instead of selling the Collateralized Loan Obligations to institutional investors, including financial institutions and banks, the energy savings in thousands of U.S. homes would be packaged by Fannie Mae and sold as Collateralized Carbon Obligations on a carbon exchange, such as the Chicago Climate Exchange. The buyers would be carbon emitters who emit so much carbon dioxide they are required to buy carbon offset credits
Fannie Mae owns patents

WND reported Raines and Fannie Mae have both stated in e-mails that Raines has no ownership of the two carbon emission patents he filed as "inventor" while he was CEO of the government-sponsored mortgage giant.

"Mr. Raines has no continuing interest in any patent for residential carbon emissions," Corrine Russell, a spokeswoman for the Federal Housing Financing Agency, the new regulatory agency now overseeing Fannie Mae, concurred in an e-mail to WND.

By obtaining the patents, Fannie Mae has effectively blocked others, including Wall Street investment banks, from utilizing the methodology without compensating Fannie Mae, explained Joshua D. Isenberg, a patent and trademark attorney in Fremont, Calif., who is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

"In effect, Fannie Mae has cornered the market for aggregating carbon credits from U.S. homes," said Isenberg in telephone interview with WND. "A patent typically becomes a business tool that excludes others, including big players, from asserting their right to the invention."

Isenberg explained that obtaining the patents on household carbon emissions effectively puts Fannie Mae into the position of "Let's make a deal."
Rights to energy savings in your home?

How would Fannie Mae obtain the carbon credits from American homes?

The patents appear to explain that Fannie Mae will identify and measure energy savings in residential households that can be "quantified as an emissions reduction" and "aggregated into a tradable commodity."

The patents authorize Fannie Mae to create either "a system" or "a computer-implemented method" for converting household energy savings into tradable credits.

The patents discuss "replacing older appliances with more energy efficient appliances; upgrading hot water heating systems; upgrading heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems; modifying lightening; fuel switching and renovating the entire home."

The patents further explain that appliance upgrades "may include, but are not limited to: refrigerators; stoves and ovens; clothes washers and dryers; and dishwaters."

Improving hot water heating systems for showers, baths and other household uses "may result in substantial energy savings," the patent explains, noting "an oil-fired boiler might be replaced with a natural gas hot water heating systems."

The patents also recommend that homeowners participating in the program should consider "installing insulating insulation in attics and exterior walls; installing more efficient windows; and reducing infiltration."

Once Fannie Mae establishes an energy baseline on a home, the patents describe a methodology in which regulators can measure on-going energy use through the installation of new meters and by regulators visiting homes as part of Fannie Mae-specified field monitoring.

Nowhere in the patents is there any discussion of compensating homeowners for making the energy improvements or for sharing with homeowners any of the revenue Fannie Mae might derive from packaging their energy savings as carbon credits to be sold on a carbon exchange to carbon polluters.

Nor do the patents discuss financial or legal repercussions Fannie Mae might take on homeowners who "default" on energy savings that it identified in their homes, quantified and packaged into tradable carbon credit commodities.

In addition to Fannie Mae, the two patents are also assigned to Cantor CO2e, a spin-off subsidiary of Wall Street investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald that reflects the participation of Cantor Fitzgerald CEO Carlton Bartels as a "co-inventor" in the original development of the household carbon emissions patent idea.

After Carlton Bartels was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack, his wife, Jane Bartels, took legal ownership of his property interests in the patents.

Cantor CO2e is currently listed as an "offset aggregator" on the Chicago Climate Exchange, suggesting the company could cooperate with Fannie Mae utilizing the Franklin Raines-filed patents to combine household energy credits to be sold as tradable carbon-credit commodities on the CCX.

Robert Hubbell, managing director of global communications and marketing for Cantor Fitzgerald, told WND the Patent Office lists both Fannie Mae and CantorCO2 as owners.

He said Cantor has no involvement with Raines, and his company has no working relationship with Fannie Mae to implement or use the patents.

A letter sent May 25 by Fannie Mae general counsel Alfred M. Pollard to Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Jason Chaffetz, R- Utah, of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, explains that Fannie Mae is not using the first patent nor has it earned any revenue on it.
In her e-mail to WND, Corinne Russell of the FHFA claimed Fannie Mae sent a similar letter to Issa and Chaffetz in June, denying Fannie Mae had used or was earning any revenue on the second patent.

Russell did not respond to WND's questions asking whether FHFA or Fannie Mae would deny categorically that Fannie Mae would ever implement the household carbon emissions programs specified in the patents, or whether Fannie Mae would consider assigning the household carbon emission patent rights to another government agency for implementation.

Russell also did not respond to WND inquiries about the percentage of ownership interest in the two patents that was assigned to Cantor CO2e or to a request to define the working relationship, if any, between Fannie Mae and CO2e.

Louisiana Woman Tells It Like It Is! Has Been Meeting with BP and EPA Officials

You will hear her describe what has been going on in BP, EPA and OSHA meetings.  She was able to get clearance to attend their meetings, and has traveled out to the rig itself.  She explains about the days when people in her parish are told to stay inside and put their air conditioners on "recirculate."  She also talks about the physical ailments she and her family have been experiencing.

I knew that in the beginning I had read the the Coast Guard was taking orders from BP (???).  The situation is getting very scary in the gulf, but we are still not using all the resources that are available. 

Obama calls for bank tax as next step in reform

June 25, 2010

President Barack Obama, fresh from a win on a sweeping overhaul of Wall Street regulations, on Saturday urged Congress to take up his proposal for a $90 billion, 10-year tax on banks as the next step in reform.
Obama wants to slap a 0.15 percent tax on the liabilities of the biggest U.S. financial institutions to recoup the costs to taxpayers of the financial bailout.

"We need to impose a fee on the banks that were the biggest beneficiaries of taxpayer assistance at the height of our financial crisis -- so we can recover every dime of taxpayer money," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address.

Obama, who is in Canada to attend gatherings with leaders of the world's biggest economies, also used the address to welcome a deal by congressional negotiators on a historic rewriting of U.S. financial regulations.

Obama hopes to tout the changes as a model for other countries at the Group of 20 summit on Saturday and Sunday.
"I hope we can build on the progress we made at last year's G20 summits by coordinating our global financial reform efforts to make sure a crisis like the one from which we are still recovering never happens again," he said.
The financial regulation package would set up a new financial consumer watchdog, create a protocol for dismantling troubled financial firms and mandate higher bank capital standards, with the aim of avoiding a repeat of the 2007-2009 financial meltdown.

The bill, marking the biggest changes to the financial regulatory structure since the 1930s, still needs final approval from both chambers of Congress.

Obama, who hopes to sign the legislation by July 4, urged Congress to push the bill "over the finish line."

With congressional elections looming in November, Obama hopes the financial reform and the bank tax idea will resonate with U.S. voters furious over Wall Street risk-taking that led to the financial meltdown and the worst recession in decades.

Some lawmakers have indicated they are receptive to the bank tax proposal but others have questioned whether it is fair to impose the tax on banks that have already repaid money from the Troubled Asset Relief Fund to make up for losses by American International Group Inc and General Motors.

Financial companies with more than $50 billion in assets and hedge funds with more than $10 billion in assets will be hit with the new levy upon enactment and lasting until 2020.

Amputate or Die, by Dr. Jack Wheeler

June 17, 2010

It was a sobering dinner party last night (6/16). Hosted by a London billionaire in his exquisite home - a Boccaccio hung on the wall behind me - the wine flowed liberally, but the conversation between the ten of us was stone-cold serious.
There were lighter moments, as when I proposed a toast to "a great hero of Europe - Geert Wilders." Every one raised their glass in a smile, but the biggest smile was that of a spectacularly gorgeous super-model (you've seen her in many a high-fashion ad). She was from Holland.
Then a well-known Hollywood producer raised his glass to toast his hero - Ronald Reagan. "We need him again," he commented. I guarantee you've watched one of his TV shows.
But when a self-made billionaire with an 11-figure private equity fund and a clear grasp of Austrian economics starts to talk about America's prospects, you listen. So we all listened.
Being in London, he started there. "To call (new Brit PM David) Cameron a disaster is like calling Hurricane Katrina a squall. He's as much a Conservative as I am a Moslem. I have already started preparing to relocate to Switzerland. If he succeeds in his current push to raise capital gains taxes from 18% to 50% -- and it looks like he will - the British economy and the London real estate market will crash. The best play around will be to short the pound.
"In short, Cameron and Osborne (George Osborne, David Cameron's Oxford classmate and now in Cameron's cabinet as Chancellor of the Exchequer, equivalent to our Treasury Secretary) lead secret lives. Just as they hide from the public that they are homosexual behind the pretense of a marriage, they hide their liberal agenda behind the pretense of being conservative. They will destroy Britain's economy just as sure as Obama is destroying America's."
There followed a spirited exchange about financial escape hatches -- if the euro, the pound, and the dollar fall off their respective cliffs, where does anybody go? The time-worn adage of "buy gold, buy silver, buy Swiss Francs" may work for individuals, but world equity markets are in a trap from which there is no clear exit.

One opinion was, "The best run governments around today are those of Canada and Singapore - having one's savings denominated in their currencies is not a bad idea." Then we got back to America.
"You know what my biggest fear is?" our host asked. "It's not really Obama, for what he's done is to accelerate what the liberals have been slowly doing for decades - so quickly that their socialism is obvious to everyone. Which means the solution is obvious to everyone. My biggest fear is that voters will give Republicans the power to repair America on November 2nd - and the Republicans won't have the courage to do it."
All I could respond with was "Ouch," to shake my head and sigh. I mentioned an email I just got from a friend of many years in Las Vegas. He's a very successful banker and businessman who knows everyone in Republican politics in Nevada - and I had asked his opinion of how Sharron Angle might possibly beat Harry Reid. The reply I got back shocked me. He will do nothing to help her, he said, as she is too "extreme."
Why is she considered extreme? our host asked, not on intimate terms with Nevada primary elections. Because she wants a government restricted to constitutional activities, I replied, which means, for example, eliminating such things as the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Our host leaned over the table to look at me as if his eyes were lasers. "Jack, you need to explain something to your friend. You need to explain something to America and all those Congressmen you know. Amputate or die. That's the choice America has right now. That's the choice Republicans will have after November 2nd, because they're the only surgeons around who can do the surgery."
Everyone was quiet so he continued. "Gangrene will kill you. If you don't amputate a finger or other limb that's gangrenous, it will spread bacterially [via Clostridium perfringens], and you will die. Look at these unconstitutional growths of government on the body public as gangrenous infections that have to be amputated for the body to continue living."
He looked around the table at all of us. "You know that I know all the main players in the world economy. Some are fools who don't know what they are doing like Strauss-Kahn (Dominque Strauss-Kahn, head of the IMF, International Monetary Fund), some are not like Trichet (Jean-Claude Trichet, president of the European Central Bank). America has no adult on the economy's lever - Geithner is more of a hopeless disaster than Bush's Paulson was, and Bernanke is worse than Greenspan.

"So I don't know any player whose smarts I really respect who has much hope for America, who doesn't see an alternative future than the destruction of America's wealth through hyper-inflation. They think elephants will fly before Republican elephants will do what is necessary if the voters give them the power to do it."

He looked at me - so everyone else did. "Are they wrong, Jack?" The question hung in the air as I felt my face redden.

"Thanks, pal," I responded with a smile to gain a little time. Everyone did laugh for just a moment, then I had to jump into the waiting silence. Here's what I said.

"The situation is dire, there is no doubt, the gravest since the Civil War. The only hope I see is with the anger of the TeaPartyers. That anger is directed just as much towards Republican cowards as towards Democrat fascists. We don't have to wait long to see the power of that anger. Just six days from now (6/22) in South Carolina, Nikki Haley the TeaPartyer is going to wipe out Gresham Barrett the RINO, even though the state GOP establishment is doing everything slimy to smear her.

"I think your player-friends have to see things not as Democrat vs. Republican but as the Court Party - the establishment in power be they Democrat or GOP - vs. the Country Party, the TeaPartyers who want an end to all the corruption, Dem or GOP. Your players are part of the Court Party. The TeaPartyers you might think are like those who led the French Revolution - but they are like those who led the American Revolution instead.

"Yes, the TeaPartyers own most of the 300 million guns in America, but they don't want blood unless there's no choice. Note the ‘unless.' November 2nd better be an honest election. What the TeaPartyers must grasp is Churchill's call after the battle of El Alamein [November 1942], that November is only ‘the end of the beginning.'
"So you are right - the only hope is radical surgery to cut out all the metastasizing cancer, to amputate unconstitutional gangrene, or another metaphor, to be like Alexander and cut the Gordian Knot with a swordstroke.
"But the question really is not whether Republicans have the courage to perform the surgery, to defund ObamaCare, to defund the entire Obama agenda, to defund entire agencies like the Department of Education, Energy, and the EPA. It is whether the TeaPartyers have the courage and capacity to force the Republicans to. I mean, how is eliminating the EPA extreme, and EPA unconstitutional fascism not extreme? We'll find out, because they are America's only hope now."
Everyone waited for our host's response. "And the hyper-inflation? The debt's already baked in the cake, no matter what future spending is cut."

"Hyper-inflation is only another word for total default. The only way to avoid it is a government default on its debts only. Then we can switch from a worthless fiat currency to an asset-backed currency." I smiled. "Gold brings freedom."
He smiled in return and raised his glass. "We can all drink to that. To gold, to freedom, and these TeaPartyers - may Jack be right about them. May they amputate fascism before the fascists amputate our freedom."

Friday, June 25, 2010

Elena Kagan — Obama’s Political Operative on the Supreme Court?

June 25, 2010

Confirmation hearings for Obama Supreme Court pick Elena Kagan are set to begin on Monday and the debate over her nomination is about to hit fever pitch. According to the Associated Press:

Opponents and backers of President Barack Obama’s choice to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens stepped up their efforts with Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Kagan’s less than a week away. Republicans are increasingly under pressure from conservative activists to oppose Kagan or block a vote to confirm her, while the White House is working with Democrats to dispel doubts that could mar her so-far smooth path to a lifetime spot on the nation’s highest court.

Of course, we already know Kagan is a liberal activist with a thin resume, little legal experience and no judicial experience. But what other doubts might the White House need dispel?
Well, let’s start with documents released by the Department of Defense that clearly show Kagan’s unlawful mistreatment of our nation’s military while she served as Dean of Harvard Law School. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) called attention to these outrageous documents in a statement earlier this week.

As you may recall, Kagan kicked military recruiters off the campus of Harvard Law School, allegedly in opposition to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy (a policy crafted by her former boss President Bill Clinton). The Obama White House has claimed from the beginning that Kagan followed the law and did what she could to accommodate the U.S. military. But the documents tell a different story.

According to Sessions: “The documents show that Ms. Kagan reversed Harvard’s policy, without basis or notice, in order to block the access of recruiters—not to accommodate them. They show that she defied federal law, forcing the Department of Defense use [sic] its legal authority to bring Harvard into compliance. They show that she did not ensure access to military careers, but that the Office of Career Services prevented the military from even posting a job opening. They show that she sanctioned a demeaning, second-class entry system for the military that the Department of Defense made clear was intolerable.”

And then there’s this related piece from columnist and president of the Center for Security Policy Frank Gaffney. Gaffney notes that Harvard Law School accepted $20 million from members of the Saudi Royal Family to establish a Center for Islamic Studies and Sharia Law while Kagan served as Dean.

For those who practice it, Sharia, known as the “path” in Arabic, is a set of controversial laws that guide all aspects of Muslim life. Some interpretations have been used to justify cruel punishments such as amputation, female genital mutilation and stoning. Homosexuality, by the way, is punishable by death or flogging under Sharia law, which is an interesting contradiction to note regarding Ms. Kagan. While she was busy fighting for gay rights in the military she was openly courting a brand of radical Muslim law that condones the execution of homosexuals.

There were other “doubts” regarding Ms. Kagan raised in the press this week. Say, for example, the video that surfaced this week showing Kagan in 2006 praising retired Judge Aharon Barak during a ceremony at Harvard when she was Dean of the Harvard Law School. Judge Barak, described by Judge Robert Bork as perhaps “the worst judge on the planet,” was a radical activist during his time on the court.

In fact, here’s what he wrote in his 2006 book The Judge in a Democracy: "a good judge is a judge who, within the bounds of legitimate possibilities, makes law that, more than other law he is authorized to make, best bridges the gap between law and society and best protects the constitution and its values.” He also says that judges should go "beyond actually deciding the dispute."

Translation: A good judge legislates from the bench. Kagan described Barak as her “judicial hero.”

The AP reported this week that Kagan is taking part in grueling mock hearings where she is asked the “hard questions in the nastiest conceivable way, over and over and over.” No doubt she will be well rehearsed by the time she takes her spot on center stage.

Of course, the AP also notes the irony of Kagan’s rigorous preparation: “Kagan herself has written scathingly of the confirmation hearings, calling them a charade in which nominees work hard to evade important questions. Now she is probably practicing effective ways to do precisely that.”

Let’s hope the Senate Judiciary Committee doesn’t let her get away with it. Justice Sotomayor ran from her liberal record during her confirmation hearings and pretended to be as conservative as Justice Scalia. Sure enough, her first term on the High Court shows that she is one of its most liberal, activist members.

I trust President Obama to have picked another nominee who meets his lawless standards for judicial nominations — which means nominating judges who are results-oriented, are biased in favor of liberal causes or favored groups, and substitute their personal opinions and political views for the plain words of the U.S. Constitution.

With looming constitutional battles ranging from Obamacare to illegal immigration, the United States Senate should ensure that only a nominee who will strictly interpret the U.S. Constitution is approved. There’s no reason to believe that the inexperienced, political lawyer Ms. Kagan meets this standard.

To be clear: Ms. Kagan is Obama’s political plant for the Supreme Court. I’ve called her Obama’s Supreme Court “czar.” Senators ought to demand better. Judicial Watch, as part of our Judicial Nominations Project, which monitors judicial nominations and opposes judicial activism, was pleased to present earlier this week an educational panel that was an excellent conservative overview on the Kagan confirmation battle. If you missed it, it is available here — http://www.youtube.com/user/JudicialWatch.

In the meantime, I encourage you to contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to express any views you have on Kagan’s nomination. A list of the members is here.

Widow of Houston Officer Killed by Illegal Immigrant 'Shocked' at ICE Appointment

June 25, 2010

The widow of a Houston police officer killed by an illegal immigrant was "shocked" to learn that the city's former police chief has landed a top immigration job with the Obama administration, her lawyer told FoxNews.com on Friday.

That's because Joslyn Johnson, whose husband, Rodney Johnson, was killed in 2006, is suing former Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt for failing to enforce federal immigration laws. She claims her husband would be alive today if the city had bothered to check up on the gunman's immigration status.

Now that Hurtt is taking a job to oversee partnerships between federal and local officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Johnson -- and other critics -- say they're concerned the official who resisted immigration enforcement in Houston will now be in charge of promoting it.

"She was shocked at the irony," Johnson's attorney, Ben Dominguez, said.

As a police chief, Hurtt was a supporter of "sanctuary city" policies, by which illegal immigrants who don't commit crimes can live without fear of exposure or detainment because police don't check for immigration papers. During his tenure as Houston police chief, he criticized ICE's key program that draws on local law enforcement's support. He said in 2008 that local police "don't want to be immigration officers." He described that as a burden on the force.

Several years after the killing, Hurtt announced he would participate in the federal 287(g) program, which gives local police authority to initiate deportation proceedings against illegal immigrants linked to serious crimes. But then the city backed off the program and linked up with ICE on a separate one that has local officials run immigration checks on suspects once they are in jail.

Johnson could not speak directly to FoxNews.com because she is also a member of the Houston police force and subject to rules prohibiting her from commenting on department policy.
Dominguez, speaking on her behalf, said Johnson believes Hurtt is "competent" but hopes he does not spearhead policies that will put officers in harm's way.

"If (his federal policy is) similar to Houston's policy, then it's going to continue to endanger private citizens and officers," Dominguez said.

The gunman who killed Johnson's husband had already been deported once, returned and then arrested at least three times before he shot the officer. Johnson's original court petition -- naming Hurtt as well as the city and the police department -- claimed that the department's failure to discover the gunman's immigration status and report him to federal authorities enabled him to stay "at large" in the country.

Dominguez said officers at the time were not checking the immigration status of suspects.

Johnson's suit is not seeking monetary damages, aside from attorney fees -- it is seeking a change in policy so that federal immigration databases are widely available to local departments. Hurtt is still a party to the lawsuit but has not been served because he left the force, Dominguez said.

Kelly Nantel, a spokeswoman for ICE, told FoxNews.com that Hurtt has always been a proponent of the jail model of the 287(g) program, but as a police chief, he didn't favor more proactive local enforcement because he didn't believe it was the best utilization of his resources.

"I think the critics are only talking about half of what he said," she said. "He's always been a strong proponent of every law enforcement agency making those decisions on their own."

But the criticism has been strong.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, questioned whether Hurtt was the right choice for the job.

"Here he is, he should be standing up for the letter of federal law," King said. "I don't know how he can do that given the record that he has. I think this is another piece in the puzzle to granting some type of de facto amnesty."

Hurtt, a former police chief in Houston and Phoenix, will assume the position of director for the ICE Office of State and Local Coordination. Starting July 6, Hurtt will supervise outreach and communication between ICE, local law enforcement agencies, tribal leaders and representatives from non-governmental organizations.

Aside from the Houston case, Hurtt's policies have been blamed for enabling illegal immigrants to kill two police officers and seriously injure another in Phoenix before he left in 2005.

But Nantel dismissed such allegations.

"The responsibility of those homicides lies on the shoulder of the individuals who committed the crimes," Nantel said.

Barrasso: What Happens When Your Doctor Can’t Afford to Keep You?

After Health Care Law, Doctors Drop Medicare Patients

June 23, 2010

Yesterday, the White House held another high profile health care event where President Obama again promised that the new health care law will strengthen Medicare. But once again, President Obama failed to explain to the American people that new law cuts half a trillion dollars in order to create a new government program for someone else.

Earlier this week, U.S.A. Today reported that the number of doctors refusing new Medicare patients because of low government payment rates is setting a new high:

“Recent surveys by national and state medical societies have found more doctors limiting Medicare patients, partly because Congress has failed to stop an automatic 21% cut in payments that doctors already regard as too low.”

During the health care debate, Congress had an opportunity to fix this problem and truly strengthen Medicare. But unfortunately, it jammed the bill through without ensuring that American seniors continue to have access to their doctors. Today, Senator Barrasso spoke about this serious problem on the Senate floor. Excerpts include:
“This Congress, this Senate jammed through this a bill that isn't going to provide better coverage. It's going to jam 16 million more people on to Medicaid…Mr. President, we know that almost half the doctors in the country don't take Medicaid patients. Now we're seeing more and more people as physicians and hospitals saying how do we keep the doors open with what Medicare is paying? So as fewer and fewer physicians are willing to take care of patients on Medicare, limiting their practices on Medicare and Medicaid.
“It's going to be increasingly difficult for the American people to be able to find a doctor. And that's why, Mr. President, I come to the floor with my second opinion about this health care law, telling you it is time to repeal this legislation and replace it with legislation that delivers more patient-centered solutions, delivers more personal responsibility, more opportunities for individuals who take control of their own health.”

Barrasso Demands Answers on Misleading Medicare Mailer

Press Releases

“The over 76,000 residents of Wyoming and over 46 million Americans who depend on Medicare deserve the truth.”
May 27, 2010

Washington, D.C. – Today, Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) released the following statement about the Administration’s misleading mailer to American seniors regarding the new health care law. Barrasso also joined other Senate Republicans in sending a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to demand answers about the mailer.

“Once again, the Administration that promised to be the ‘the most transparent’ in history is hiding the facts. Instead of leveling with Medicare patients about the negative impacts of this law, the Administration sent out a pamphlet that paints a much rosier picture. The over 76,000 residents of Wyoming and over 46 million Americans who depend on Medicare deserve the truth. This law, which cuts Medicare by half a trillion dollars to create a brand new government program, will cut benefits and make it harder for patients to see their doctor. Secretary Sebelius should explain why the Administration is misleading America’s seniors.”
Highlights of the Letter:

“In the first paragraph, the brochure claims that the new health care law will result in ‘increased quality health care.’ Yet Medicare’s Chief Actuary noted that, absent legislation to intervene and correct the payment cuts in the new law, some providers would ‘end their participation in the program’ with the effect of ‘possibly jeopardizing access for beneficiaries.’ The Chief Actuary further concluded that 15 percent of Part A providers – hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, hospices and home health agencies – may be unable to sustain their operations in the next ten years as a result of the drastic Medicare cuts in the new law.

“In the second paragraph, the brochure states that the health care law will ‘keep Medicare strong and solvent.’ However, the Chief Medicare Actuary concluded in an April 22, 2010, memorandum that cuts in Medicare ‘may be unrealistic.’ In addition, cuts to Medicare are being used to pay for a trillion dollar health care bill, and therefore cannot also be used to improve the solvency of the program. The Chief Actuary's memorandum plainly states that the reduced spending resulting from the significant Medicare cuts in the new health care law, ‘cannot be simultaneously used to finance other Federal outlays (such as coverage expansions) and to extend the trust fund.’ The CBO Director asserted the same in a letter to Senator Sessions on December 23, 2009.

“The brochure states that ‘your guaranteed benefits won't change’ despite the very clear conclusion by the Chief Actuary in his memorandum that the cuts to Medicare Advantage under the new law will ‘result in less generous benefit packages.The statement in the brochure is misleading to millions of seniors, as the benefits they currently receive will change, and not only will they change, but they will be cut.”


Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Federal Gov't Halts Sand Berm Dredging

Nungesser Pleads with President to Allow Work to Continue

June 22, 2010

NEW ORLEANS -- The federal government is shutting down the dredging that was being done to create protective sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico.

The berms are meant to protect the Louisiana coastline from oil. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department has concerns about where the dredging is being done.

Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser, who was one of the most vocal advocates of the dredging plan, has sent a letter to President Barack Obama, pleading for the work to continue.

Nungesser said the government has asked crews to move the dredging site two more miles farther off the coastline.

"Once again, our government resource agencies, which are intended to protect us, are now leaving us vulnerable to the destruction of our coastline and marshes by the impending oil," Nungesser wrote to Obama. "Furthermore, with the threat of hurricanes or tropical storms, we are being put at an increased risk for devastation to our area from the intrusion of oil.

Nungesser has asked for the dredging to continue for the next seven days, the amount of time it would take to move the dredging operations two miles and out resume work.

Work is scheduled to halt at midnight Wednesday.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Obama uses powers to expand federal rights, benefits for gays and lesbians

June 22, 2010

In the past year and a half, President Obama has quietly used his powers to expand federal rights and benefits for gays and lesbians, targeting one government restriction after another in an attempt to change public policy while avoiding a confrontation with Republicans and opponents of gay rights.

The result is that scores of federal rules blocking gay rights have been swept aside or reinterpreted by Obama officials eager to advance the agenda of a constituency that strongly backed the president's 2008 campaign.

Among the changes: Gay partners of federal workers will now receive long-term health insurance, access to day care and other benefits. Federal Housing Authority loans can no longer consider the sexual orientation of applicants. The Census Bureau plans to report the number of people who report being in a same-sex relationship. Hospitals must allow gays to visit their ill partners. And federal child-care subsidies can be used by the children of same-sex domestic partners.

On Wednesday, the Labor Department is expected to announce that federal officials have rethought the Family and Medical Leave Act, concluding that under the law, a gay federal employee may take leave to care for a child with a gay partner.

Individually, none of the changes is especially dramatic. But taken together, they significantly alter the way gays and lesbians are viewed under federal law.

The administration's effort, made largely under the radar -- and outside the reach of Congress -- has alarmed opponents of gay rights, who accuse the president of undermining traditional marriage even as he speaks about respecting it.

"He's been a supporter of married mothers and fathers in name only," said Jenny Tyree, a marriage analyst for CitizenLink, an affiliate of Focus on the Family. "He speaks very passionately and touchingly about how he grew up without a father. And yet there is this huge disconnect in how he's undermining that same opportunity for other children."

In a Father's Day statement Sunday, Obama called fathers "our first teachers and coaches, mentors and role models" and said that "nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and mother, a single father, two fathers, a stepfather, a grandfather, or caring guardian."

Tyree called the inclusion of "two fathers" in the proclamation a "very troubling" decision to promote a "motherless family."

But gay rights advocates have greeted the changes as evidence that Obama has not abandoned them -- even as he has frustrated some by failing to act quickly on campaign promises to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act and bring an end to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

"The administration is moving the executive branch to really provide interpretations that will change the lives of millions of [lesbian and gay] people for the better," said Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign.

Winnie Stachelberg, a senior vice president at the Center for American Progress, praised Obama for finding creative ways to unravel policies that she said have long been unfair to gays.

"This administration has really opened up the toolbox that it alone has access to, to address the problems faced by gays and lesbians," she said.

Obama remains under pressure from some members of the gay community to move more quickly and forcefully on the major battles with Congress. A group of activists interrupted his speech at a Democratic fundraiser in California last month, yelling that he should do more to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

He will probably hear similar complaints Tuesday night, when he hosts a Gay and Lesbian Pride Month event at the White House for the second year in a row.

Administration officials are quick to note their legislative successes. The president signed a federal hate crimes bill into law that for the first time provides protections against crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation. And the Senate is one vote away from ending the military's controversial policy on service by gays and lesbians.

But aides said the administration has purposely sought to take other actions to circumvent those battles.

"While many of the items of concern to the [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] community require Congress to act, the president has also taken many steps that don't require a change in the law," said Shin Inouye, a White House spokesman. "The president and his administration remain committed to achieving equality for all, and it's clear that we're moving forward."

Obama's orders have relied largely on authority the president has to reshape the federal government, much in the way that George W. Bush used the levers of the federal bureaucracy to relax government restrictions on oil and gas exploration on federally protected land. In April, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. reinterpreted the Violence Against Women act to cover partners in a same-sex relationship. In remarks Monday to gay employees at the Justice Department, Holder promised more of the same.

"Too many of the challenges that confronted the LGBT community 16 years ago . . . confront us still today," he said at the department's celebration of gay pride month. "Too many of the same obstacles that existed then remain for us to overcome. Too many talented men and women cannot, in the words of this year's motto, "serve openly, with pride."

Monday, June 21, 2010

Sign Petition NOW to stop Big Labor's Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill!

After spending nearly $1 BILLION to install Barack Obama in the White House, the union bosses expect PAYBACK.

So now they are demanding IMMEDIATE passage of their Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill.

If this bill passes, it will force public safety workers, such as your policemen and firefighters, under union boss control and would eventually spread to all public sector jobs.

That's why it's vital you sign the petition below DEMANDING your Senators OPPOSE Big Labor's Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill. When you sign your ZIP CODE, your petitions will be directed to the appropriate Senators.

Constituent's Petition to:

My U.S. Senators

I am writing to encourage you to oppose the draconian policies being pushed by Big Labor. These union bosses are seeking to subject workers to intimidation and strip them of their rights, all in an effort to increase their own power and influence.

It is vital that you oppose all legislation that strips workers of their rights, or expands the oppressive power of Big Labor.

Whereas: Police and firefighters are to "Serve and Protect" the citizens of their community and, therefore, should NOT be controlled by Big Labor; and

Whereas: Union boss control of police and firefighters will tend to drive out the best men and women who refuse to knuckle under to union militants' demands for illegal strikes, featherbedding, and forced dues; and

Whereas: The Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill could force our nation's police and firefighters under union boss control, and is just the first step toward forcing all state and local public employees under Big Labor's thumb; and

Whereas: Passage of this bill would override existing state and local laws and lead to skyrocketing budgets and higher taxes;

Therefore: As your constituent, I urge you in the strongest possible manner to oppose S. 3194, the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill.

There is a section below for your name, email and zip code to direct the petition to your senators.

Please sign today!

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Napolitano: Internet Monitoring Needed to Fight Homegrown Terrorism

June 18, 2010

WASHINGTON -- Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation's homeland security chief said Friday.

As terrorists increasingly recruit U.S. citizens, the government needs to constantly balance Americans' civil rights and privacy with the need to keep people safe, said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

But finding that balance has become more complex as homegrown terrorists have used the Internet to reach out to extremists abroad for inspiration and training. Those contacts have spurred a recent rash of U.S.-based terror plots and incidents.

"The First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet," Napolitano told a gathering of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

Napolitano's comments suggest an effort by the Obama administration to reach out to its more liberal, Democratic constituencies to assuage fears that terrorist worries will lead to the erosion of civil rights.

The administration has faced a number of civil liberties and privacy challenges in recent months as it has tried to increase airport security by adding full-body scanners, or track suspected terrorists traveling into the United States from other countries.

"Her speech is sign of the maturing of the administration on this issue," said Stewart Baker, former undersecretary for policy with the Department of Homeland Security. "They now appreciate the risks and the trade-offs much more clearly than when they first arrived, and to their credit, they've adjusted their preconceptions."

Underscoring her comments are a number of recent terror attacks over the past year where legal U.S. residents such as Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad and accused Fort Hood, Texas, shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan, are believed to have been inspired by the Internet postings of violent Islamic extremists.

And the fact that these are U.S. citizens or legal residents raises many legal and constitutional questions.

Napolitano said it is wrong to believe that if security is embraced, liberty is sacrificed.

She added, "We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable."

[NOTE:  This is the same Homeland Security chief who put out a 10 page report just before the April 15, 2009 tea parties, assessing that "right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their kills and knowledge derived from military training and combat."  They even quote Timothy McVeigh in this report.]

As an example, she noted the struggle to use full-body scanners at airports caused worries that they would invade people's privacy.

The scanners are useful in identifying explosives or other nonmetal weapons that ordinary metal-detectors might miss -- such as the explosives that authorities said were successfully brought on board the Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day by Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. He is accused of trying to detonate a bomb hidden in his underwear, but the explosives failed, and only burned Abdulmutallab.

U.S. officials, said Napolitano, have worked to institute a number of restrictions on the scanners' use in order to minimize that. The scans cannot be saved or stored on the machines by the operator, and Transportation Security Agency workers can't have phones or cameras that could capture the scan when near the machine.


Further intrusion into our privacy by the federal government - but the Obama Administration is AGAINST securing our borders.

The False Choice Argument Obama Uses to Deceive Us-A Short Course in Logical Thinking

Don Frederick
June 19, 2010

One of Obama’s favorite persuasion techniques is the use of the “false choice.” For example, he suggests that those who oppose ObamaCare want the elderly pushed out to sea on icebergs and sick children left lying in the streets. He suggests that anyone who opposes his cap and trade energy scheme is in favor of pollution and asthmatic children.

At the state and local level, politicians use the same trick. They claim that any budget cut will result in a shortage of teachers, police officers, and firefighters—as though those are the only types of employees paid by tax dollars and there are no useless bureaucrats who could be fired.

The false choice argument is an extremely persuasive technique. The trick is to paint the opponent as an extremist, by suggesting to the listener that there are only two options or solutions with regard to the issue at hand—when in fact there may be many options and solutions. Of course, the politician does his best to define his opponent’s response for him, typically defining it in the most extreme and distorted way possible.

Obama is a master of the false choice. Whether he was well taught decades ago or is simply an expert at deception—or both—is irrelevant. But once the audience learns to recognize the technique, it suddenly becomes ineffective and exposes the foolishness of the argument:

“Discussions with dictators with no preconditions” or “cowboy diplomacy.”

“ObamaCare” or “children denied health care.”

“Moratorium on deepwater oil drilling” or “more catastrophic oil spills.”

“$787 billion stimulus bill” or “a great depression.”

“TARP funds to bail out Wall Street” or “an alternative too horrible to contemplate.”

“Higher taxes” or “closed libraries and museums.”

“Higher taxes” or “laid off teachers, police officers, and firefighters.”

“Higher taxes” or “[insert whatever the politician’s audience values the most]

You could spend days compiling a list of the many false choices argued by politicians. They always use the “either/or” scenario. They never recognize that there may be other solutions or a middle ground.

As an example, assume your local municipality has a water treatment facility that provides area residents with fresh drinking water. The facility filters the water and removes harmful chemicals. Of course, it is impossible to remove all chemicals and make the water totally pure—there is always something in it in addition to hydrogen and oxygen. The engineers and scientists work to reduce levels of unwanted chemical and minerals so that they are below acceptable “parts per million” (ppm) standards.

Now, assume chemical X is in the community’s drinking water at a level of 50 ppm, and further, that the acceptable standard is to maintain that level below 500 ppm. In other words, with the chemical at a level of 50 ppm the water is safe to drink. The facility could conceivably reduce the level from 50 ppm to 10 ppm, but to do so would be extraordinarily expensive. The cost would exceed the benefit, so it is not done.

But now it is election season, and mayoral candidate A announces, “I have learned that chemical X is in the water supply, at levels as great as 50 parts per million! If I elected, I promise to address that issue!”

Candidate B, when asked by a reporter about the “problem,” responds, “Our facility is operating normally. There is no problem. It is not an issue.”

Candidate A, of course, predictably tells audiences, “My opponent seems not to care about the safety of your drinking water! Do you know that the rate of autism in this great nation has been increasing at an alarming rate? My opponent seems to be satisfied with the status quo! That’s because he can afford expensive bottled water!”

Candidate A is relying on the ignorance of the voters in order to get elected. He knows full well that 50 ppm is an acceptable standard. But if he is smart he will not even allow the debate to address how much of chemical X is acceptable. He presents the choice as none versus some. In doing so, he presents his opponent as being in favor of poisonous chemicals in the water supply. Candidate B of course does not favor poisonous water, but he knows that the water supplies of virtually every American city have to allow limited levels of unwanted chemicals and minerals because to eliminate them all is impossible.

Candidate B needs to present the evidence in order to convince the voters that there is nothing wrong with the drinking water and no need to become hysterical. Candidate A needs only to frighten the voters. Each candidate has 30 seconds to do so in a television commercial. Which candidate has the easier task?

The false choice is an attempt to make the listener neglect to consider other options. The question, “Do you want A or B?” forces the listener to make the choice—and forget that there may also be options C, D, and E. The typical politician would never ask the question: “Is it sufficient to allow up to 50 ppm of chemical X in the water supply, or should we charge more for water in order to reduce the level to less than 50 ppm?” (Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul might, but they are exceptions—who so far have not won the presidency.) It is far easier to ask, “Are you opposed to or in favor of poison in our water supply?” In other words, “Me good, opponent bad.”

Obama and most politicians use the false choice technique, because they will virtually never encounter the proper response: “I don’t accept the premise of your question.” A good journalist will question the premise and expose the politician as manipulative and phony—but finding that good journalist is another story altogether. Obama got elected because the journalists—and I use the term loosely—readily (if not eagerly) accepted whatever he had to say.

In early 2009 Obama’s false choice was essentially, “The government must take over General Motors or the company will go bankrupt and thousands will lose their jobs!” If a Republican opposed Obama’s scheme, he was portrayed as an evil, “dog eat dog” capitalist who did not care about unemployed auto workers. (Obama of course did not say, “Please support my scheme for screwing the people who own GM stocks and bonds so that I can turn those assets over to the union.”) Obama presented a false choice: a government bail out or the end of the U.S. auto industry. The other option was to simply allow GM to file bankruptcy, reorganize, abrogate and renegotiate its absurdly destructive union contracts—and continue operating on a stronger, albeit reduced, footing. Instead, U.S. taxpayers are now on the hook for tens of billions of dollars, the union now owns what stockholders and bondholders should own, Obama has circumvented the U.S. Constitution—and people are buying Fords, Hondas, and Hyundais anyway.

The false choice argument is virtually always used with the issue of illegal immigration. When someone says, “We can’t very well deport 20 million people!” he or she is applying the false choice technique. The statement’s implicit “choice” is deport each and every illegal immigrant or grant them all amnesty and make them U.S. citizens. The trick is to convince the listener that deporting 20 million people is such an absurd idea that of course we must grant them amnesty—there is no other choice!

But of course there is another choice. Most illegal immigrants from Mexico do not want to become U.S. citizens—they just want to be free from deportation so they can take advantage of the benefits of living in the United States. U.S. businesses do not care if they become citizens either—they simply want cheap labor. Democrats, however, desperately want the illegals to be made citizens—because they represent millions of additional votes to keep them in power.

The usual argument of “deport them versus make them citizens” fails to recognize a third option: neither deport the illegal immigrants nor make them voting citizens. Instead, just make it more difficult for them to receive federal and state hand-outs. Many illegals will voluntarily choose to return home to Mexico and will not need to be deported. And for those who remain and who must find jobs because they are not being given handouts, it should make little difference that at age 80 they are still not citizens. The argument that amnesty for illegals is critical suggests that something dramatic and unacceptable would somehow occur if a Mexican grows old in the United States without becoming a citizen. The proponents of amnesty need to explain what that might be beyond “getting them out of the shadows.” Many Americans likely do not care if 20 million illegals grow old and die “in the shadows”—shadows which they sought in the first place. (Some might also argue, “If Obama can go through life illegally using the Social Security of a dead man from Connecticut, why can’t 20 million Mexicans?”).

The issue for most Americans is not so much that many immigrants entered the United States illegally; it is that they are parasites living off American producers. (And some are violent criminals. Illegal immigrants who engage in violent criminal conduct should of course be arrested and deported. It is also obviously critical to build a complete border fence and hire thousands more Border Patrol agents to keep more millions of illegals from entering the country.) But eliminating the free benefits the taxpayers are forced to provide for illegal immigrants would solve the illegal immigration problem more readily than mass deportation or instant citizenship. After all, converting an illegal immigrant who collects welfare into a legal immigrant who collects welfare serves no purpose—beyond that of the Democrat who will get his vote.

False choices must be confronted. The proper response to the question, “Should we deport all illegal immigrants or grant them amnesty?” is “I do not accept your false choice.” The good news is that the politician can play his parlor tricks only so long. Eventually the audience sees the card hidden in his sleeve. And the false choices become increasingly obvious. “We must place a moratorium on deepwater drilling or destroy the environment” is a false choice that most will not accept. Even Gulf Coast residents who live in that environment do not see the situation as “oil bad, solar and wind good.” One can be in favor of drilling for oil and also be in favor of a clean environment. It is not one or the other. Instead of Obama presenting Americans with the false choice of “drilling or no drilling,” Americans should present him with the true choice of “safer drilling for oil in Alaska and in shallow offshore waters or continued riskier drilling in deep waters?”—and judge him based on how he answers that question.

Friday, June 18, 2010

Living in the Economic Past

June 17, 2010

I visited with my neighbors last night, a Christian Arabic family, whose relatives live in Nazareth, Israel.

The occasion was their son's 20th birthday, so we toasted with champagne and ate homemade birthday cake.

I laid a copy of Robert Kiyosake's new book, Rich Dad's Conspiracy of the Rich, on the table and urged their son to read it before he finished his formal education and didn't know a thing about money and how to keep it.

I briefly mentioned the problems caused by fiat money, fractional banking, etc.

My neighbor's brother was sitting at the table, and he said he did not know of fractional banking.

I explained it to him, that banks keep depositors' money as a 10% reserve and make 9-fold more money out of thin air and loan it out to home buyers, etc. I explained that banks offer 1.2% interest on saved money today and turn it into ten times more money, that a $1000 deposit would yield $12 a year in interest, but the bank would use that $1000 as a reserve to make another $9000 out of thin air, loan it at 5% interest, make $450 a year, and he would only make $12 a year on his money. This didn't seem to bother him.

The conversation drifted to gold. I said it might be wise to buy some gold to protect your wealth, if you have money in the bank.

My neighbor's brother said "We have gone through all this before. We have been told the U.S. dollar will become worthless and to buy gold. China and other countries will never let the U.S. dollar fold. They will prop it up. It will never happen."

My neighbor's brother went on to say that gold doesn't produce any dividends, that it is better to own stocks and to buy real estate.

I attempted to explain that dividends are passé. Everybody is going for the big payoff when a company is acquired by another, so they can make a big killing.

I explained that the real estate market is so overvalued (by 30%), and US incomes so stagnant, and with an over-supply of homes (20 million are empty) that the real estate market wasn't going to come back in a decade. While it would be wise to own physical assets as paper money declines in value, real estate may not be a reliable option for someone who doesn't have a good cash flow.

He conceded that his business, selling auto parts, is very weak and it is difficult to stay in business these days. His cash flow is not what it once was.

I explained that the stock market is manipulated today and that the only sector that is making a killing is government-propped, can't-fail companies.

But he said he would rather buy auto parts at low prices, wait for inflation, and then re-sell the auto parts, than to buy gold.

I said, yes, anything that would be in demand could be used to exchange for money in hard times, but that auto parts aren't easily exchanged for food or rent.

He said he knew a relative who, maybe 20 years ago, bought one gold coin every month. She did this for years. He said he didn't know how well she fared but did recall that she once paid a large auto repair bill with gold coins.

But, he recalled, a couple of decades ago gold was over $800 an ounce, then it dropped to $350 an ounce. He didn't like gold. He said people all over the world have US dollars stashed under their mattresses. That is a vote of confidence.

I attempted to explain that today is not like the past. The US is printing paper money so fast, or acquiring debt at an unprecedented pace ($1 trillion added to the US national debt in just 117 days!), that at some point the US will have to devalue its currency.

I told him the EURO was considered a strong currency against the dollar, but that we sent our henchmen (Goldman Sachs) over to Greece, pulled one leg out of the EU table, and the whole table fell. The US banksters certainly know how to deal with competition. Everybody laughed.

I explained the federal government has few cards to play now. It resists cutting spending, won't go to a gold standard, is unable to significantly grow the economy, and auctions for other nations to buy our debt now go wanting. Our only option will be to devalue the currency at some point, especially if pressured by other countries devaluing their money and the spot price of gold rising.

I explained that the real price of gold in Greece is now $1700 an ounce, that they are getting a surcharge as the demand for gold soars there. So the spot price today does not reflect the real peak selling price.

My neighbor's brother wasn't convinced. He would rather keep his money in the bank, even though virtually every bank in the US is living on borrowed reserves and overvalued real estate assets.

I had to leave the party, said my good-bye's, said I had to go home and recount my gold, and realized that some people live in the past. They cannot see that the economic landscape has dramatically changed.

The central bankers Ponzi schemes, sleight of hand, and outright fraud, are coming to their inevitable end. How long the elites can cling to the end of the rope is unknown. Paper money is a false god, and so many have faith in it.

A precious statue of god may be treasured, but a trillion copies of that icon would diminish its value to a cheap trinket. Maybe a solid-gold statue would be better.

Bill Sardi [send him mail at bsardi2aol.com] is a frequent writer on health and political topics. His health writings can be found at www.naturalhealthlibrarian.com. He is the author of You Don’t Have To Be Afraid Of Cancer Anymore. His latest book is Downsizing Your Body.

EXCLUSIVE: Alert Issued for 17 Afghan Military Members AWOL From U.S. Air Force Base

June 17, 2010

A nationwide alert has been issued for 17 members of the Afghan military who have gone AWOL from an Air Force base in Texas where foreign military officers who are training to become pilots are taught English, FoxNews.com has learned.

The Afghan officers and enlisted men have security badges that give them access to secure U.S. defense installations, according to the lookout bulletin, "Afghan Military Deserters in CONUS [Continental U.S.]," issued by Naval Criminal Investigative Service in Dallas, and obtained by FoxNews.com.

The Afghans were attending the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas. The DLI program teaches English to military pilot candidates and other air force prospects from foreign countries allied with the U.S.

"I can confirm that 17 have gone missing from the Defense Language Institute," said Gary Emery, Chief of Public Affairs, 37th Training Wing, at Lackland AFB. "They disappeared over the course of the last two years, and none in the last three months."

Each Afghan was issued a Department of Defense Common Access Card, an identification card used to gain access to secure military installations, with which they "could attempt to enter DOD installations," according to the bulletin. Base security officers were encouraged to disseminate the bulletin to their personnel.

"The visas issued to these personnel have been revoked, or are in the process of being revoked. Lookouts have been placed in TECS," it reads.

Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS), which is shared by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, is a computer-based database used to identify people suspected of violating federal law.

Included in the bulletin are photos of the 17 men, accompanied by their dates of birth and their TECS Lookout numbers.

The bulletin requests, "If any Afghan pictured herein is encountered, detain the subject and contact your local Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office, the FBI or NCIS."

A senior law enforcement official said Friday that the Afghans' disappearance was more of an immigration violation than a security threat, saying there are no "strong indications to any terrorism nexus or impending threat."

The official further said that an unspecified number of the 17 have been caught. "A number of these guys have already been located or accounted for by now," the official said. "Some are in removal proceedings to be deported already. (Authorities) still need to locate the others, and that is why the bulletin went out."

The official said the information is "kind of old" -- up to two years -- but added, "It is important in the sense that some people look to come to the U.S. and will take advantage of invitations to train or attend a conference or to study, etc. But their real intention is to get to the U.S. and start a new life. It is not completely rare for this to happen....

"Although we are vigilant and need to work toward not allowing this to happen," the official said, this alert should "not necessarily" be described as "a national security threat, more of a 'hey these guys violated our laws and we need to find them.'"

The FBI and NCIS did not respond to requests for comment. A Department of Homeland Security spokesman referred FoxNews.com to the FBI.

The following 17 Afghan military members have gone AWOL from an Air Force base in Texas and are being sought in a nationwide alert in the U.S.

Abdul Ghani Barakzai, born 8/8/1977

Mohd Ali Karimi, born 9/3/1982

Mohammad Nasim Fateh Zada, born 12/4/1966

Aminullah Sangarwal, born 8/27/1982

Mohd Ahmadi, born 5/5/1978

Ahad Abdulahad, born 5/5/1984

Sayed Qadir Shah Habiby, born 5/7/1985

Javed Aryan a.k.a. Aryan Javed, born 1/1/1987

Mirwais Qassmi, born 4/24/1974
Barsat Noorani, born 6/3/1981

Atiqullah Habibi, two dates of birth are listed on the alert: 6/2/1982 and 7/2/1982

Ahmad Sameer Samar, born 5/2/1983

Mohamed Fahim Faqier, born 6/1/1987
Obaiddullah Abrahimy, born 8/1/1979
Sayed Nasir Hashimi, born 4/5/1972
Shawali Kakar, born 12/31/1979
Khan Padshah Amiri, born 4/1/1978

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Obama Gives Back Major Strip of AZ to Mexico

June 17, 2010

The federal government is now telling American citizens to stay out of three southern Arizona counties. It is too dangerous because of armed smugglers from Mexico.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu: Quite frankly I’m telling you as a sheriff that we don’t control that part of the county. My county is larger than the state of Connecticut and we need support from the federal government. It’s their job to secure the border and they haven’t done it. In fact President Obama suspended the construction of the fence.

FOX News reporter: Would you like to see some of the president’s outrage about the oil spill and some of the butt-kicking that he’s talked about doing applied there on the border as well?

Sheriff Paul Babeu: Even with that, you say one thing and then you’re out at a fundraiser in California and you don’t go to the funeral of the people who died in the explosion. You know its one thing to say something slick on television in a ten second soundbite but we need action. And, it’s shameful that we as the most powerful nation on earth can win wars and liberate countries throughout history yet we can’t even secure our own border.

Free to Believe - Sign the Petition to say NO to the UN Resolution Suppressing Religious Freedom

Free to Believe: NO to suppression of religious freedom.
This is a crucial year in the fight to preserve religious freedom worldwide. The Defamation of Religions Resolution seeks to criminalize words or actions as attacks against a particular religion, namely Islam. As incredible as it sounds, passing this resolution could allow a Christian to be persecuted under UN approval. We need you to voice your protest of this resolution by signing the petition below.

Free To Believe!

Info Sheet

Who: The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), an inter-governmental organization of 57 states with majority or significant Muslim populations, has been working for several years through the United Nations system to justify and advance the Defamation of Religions Resolution.

What: The Defamation of Religions Resolution, introduced in the UN, seeks to criminalize words or actions that are deemed to be against a particular religion, namely Islam. Although proponents justify the “defamation of religion” concept as protecting religious practice and promoting tolerance, it really promotes intolerance and human rights violations of religious freedom and freedom of speech for religious minorities in these countries.

Why: The Defamation of Religions Resolution provides international legitimacy for national laws that punish blasphemy or otherwise ban criticism of a religion.

When: The OIC is expected to propose to the UN General Assembly another “defamation of religions” resolution this fall.

Where: The UN General Assembly in New York City, New York.


What is the Defamation of Religions Resolution?

It is a nonbinding but influential statement condemning, in the name of religious tolerance, words that denigrate any religion. In practice, the resolution provides cover for various laws in the Islamic World that restrict religious freedom and freedom of expression, such as Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy laws. The resolution has been introduced and voted on in various forms and under various titles since 1999. It is expected to be proposed again in the UN General Assembly this fall.
What is the Organization of the Islamic Conference?

The Organization of Islamic Conference is an inter-governmental organization of 57 states with majority or significant Muslim populations. The OIC’s original Defamation of Religions campaign had targeted the “defamation of Islam,” but later it was reframed as the “defamation of religions” to broaden support. To this date, Islam remains the only faith mentioned in the resolutions the UN Human Rights Council and General Assembly have passed.

What is the reality of this resolution?

Although proponents justify the “defamation of religion” concept as protecting religious practice and promoting tolerance, it really promotes intolerance and human rights violations of religious freedom and freedom of expression. These resolutions have empowered repressive government and religious extremists to suppress and punish whatever they deem to be offensive or unacceptable speech about a particular favored religion or sect. In fact, blasphemy laws in some countries have been used to justify actions that selectively curtail civil dissent, halt criticism of political structures, and restrict the religious speech of minority faith communities, dissenting members of the majority faith, and persons of religious faith. Under these laws, criminal charges have been levied against individuals for defamation, denigrating, insulting, offending, disparaging and blaspheming Islam, often resulting in gross human rights violations.

Is this persecution really taking place?


Pakistan: Two months ago Muslim extremists rampaged over several days through a Christian area in Gojra, Pakistan. The violence resulted in the death of at least seven Christians, 19 injuries and the looting and burning of more than 100 houses, according to Compass Direct News.

The rioting was touched off by an unsubstantiated rumor of “blasphemy” of the Quran, reported Compass. Blasphemy laws in Pakistan have often been abused by Muslims who use them as tools of revenge on Christians and other minorities in land and other disputes. No evidence is needed to accuse someone of blasphemy and have them arrested.

This is only the tip of the iceberg of what is taking place in many countries around the world. Passage of the Defamation of Religions Resolution would certainly increase the marginalization of Christians.

What is the bottom line for Christians?

Many of our brothers and sisters in Christ serving and worshipping in these countries and are severely impacted by these laws. From the right to worship freely to the ability to share the Gospel, the Defamation of Religions Resolution threatens to affirm local persecution. As Americans, we have enjoyed a long tradition of religious liberty as foundational to our society. The Defamation of Religions Resolution prevents religious freedom and ultimately harms the formation of a civil society.

What is Open Doors USA doing?

Open Doors USA will be helping to lead the advocacy effort at the United Nations to prevent this resolution from passing. This includes lobbying important countries, organizing a petition drive, and speaking out on this issue in the media. The campaign is called Free to Believe.

What can I do to help?

Your voice is vitally important to protesting the Defamation of Religions Resolution. Please join the Open Doors advocacy team by signing up at www.OpenDoorsUSA.org. Your voice will be heard by signing the Free to Believe petition to “Say NO to the Defamation of Religions Resolution.” The Open Doors advocacy team will be conveying the level of support by our members against the resolution as we interact with the countries which have abstained from voting on this issue in the past.

Why is this urgent?

While Defamation of Religions Resolutions have been introduced and passed by some countries in the past, it is up again this year for re-authorization. Policy experts at the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom believe there is a real opportunity to defeat it this year. Members of Congress and many non-profit organizations are organizing to urge countries to vote against the Defamation of Religions Resolution.
I affirm the universal human right to freely choose and express an individual’s religious beliefs.
Accordingly, I urge fellow Member States of the United Nations to focus on protecting the fundamental freedom of individuals to express their religion or beliefs and to oppose the so called “defamation of religions resolutions.”

These resolutions seek to criminalize dissenting ideas and peaceful expression of non-favored religious beliefs. The “defamation of religions” resolutions are in direct infringement of the guarantees to free speech and belief found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

For these reasons, I ask all Member States to vote NO on “defamation of religions resolutions.”