Saturday, November 7, 2009
...Rip off the workers of America...
...as Betsy McCaughey clearly states, these grotesque laws
the politicians that are on drugs are going to impose on
the people who earn a living are nothing more than:
"these programs are a pipeline for money to buy votes and political influence."
What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says
Here are some important passages in the 2,000 page legislation.
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.
What the government will require you to do:
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.
Eviscerating Medicare:
In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.
• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."
The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."
A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.
• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.
• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.
• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.
• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."
Questionable Priorities:
While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.
• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."
These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.
• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.
• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."
• Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.
For the text of the bill with page numbers, see http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us./
Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former Lt. Governor of New York state.
the politicians that are on drugs are going to impose on
the people who earn a living are nothing more than:
"these programs are a pipeline for money to buy votes and political influence."
What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says
Here are some important passages in the 2,000 page legislation.
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.
What the government will require you to do:
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.
Eviscerating Medicare:
In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.
• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."
The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."
A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.
• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.
• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.
• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.
• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."
Questionable Priorities:
While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.
• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."
These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.
• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.
• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."
• Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.
For the text of the bill with page numbers, see http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us./
Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former Lt. Governor of New York state.
...Transparency Obama style...
By JOHN FUND
Back in September, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters she was "absolutely" committed to having the final language of any health care bill posted on the Internet for 72 hours before a vote on the House floor.
Well, the bill isn't finished, with major issues such as taxpayer funding of abortions and rules governing amendments still unresolved. Nonetheless, the Speaker is rushing towards a Saturday vote on the bill.
Back on September 24, the Weekly Standard asked Ms. Pelosi at a news conference: "Do you support the measure to put the final House bill online for 72 hours before it's voted on at the very end?" Her response was "Absolutely. Without question."
But now Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly tells the Standard: "No, [the] pledge was to have manager's amendment online for 72 hours and we will do that." The manager's amendment makes major changes to a bill (witness the 309-page monstrosity dropped on Congress just before July's vote on the "cap-and-trade" global warming bill). But it's not the final bill, so Speaker Pelosi's pledge last September was hollow.
Mrs. Pelosi viewed rushing to judgment on bills differently when she was in the minority. In 2004, she unveiled a proposed "Bill of Rights" to protect House minority interests, which included giving members enough time to read bills and a stop to the practice of holding votes open well past the normal 15 minutes. She had a point: In late 2003, Republican leaders held open a roll-call vote on the Medicare drug entitlement for three hours until they bullied enough wavering members into voting aye.
"When we [Democrats] are shut out, they are shutting out the great diversity of America. We want a higher standard," Ms. Pelosi said at the time. In 2006, just before becoming speaker, she reiterated her plans to promote "bipartisanship" and "to ensure the rights of the minority."
That was then. Now Ms. Pelosi is intent on using her political machine to run roughshod over opposition. Republican consultant Alex Castellanos notes that Democrats are replicating the worst practices of the Bush Republicans: "It is ironic that Obama and the Democrats are becoming the very thing they worked so hard to reject. Democrats criticized George W. Bush and the Republicans for not listening to Americans and being blindly ideological and inflexible. They might as well put on his swaggering Texas belt-buckle. They have caught the disease they tried to cure."
Back in September, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters she was "absolutely" committed to having the final language of any health care bill posted on the Internet for 72 hours before a vote on the House floor.
Well, the bill isn't finished, with major issues such as taxpayer funding of abortions and rules governing amendments still unresolved. Nonetheless, the Speaker is rushing towards a Saturday vote on the bill.
Back on September 24, the Weekly Standard asked Ms. Pelosi at a news conference: "Do you support the measure to put the final House bill online for 72 hours before it's voted on at the very end?" Her response was "Absolutely. Without question."
But now Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly tells the Standard: "No, [the] pledge was to have manager's amendment online for 72 hours and we will do that." The manager's amendment makes major changes to a bill (witness the 309-page monstrosity dropped on Congress just before July's vote on the "cap-and-trade" global warming bill). But it's not the final bill, so Speaker Pelosi's pledge last September was hollow.
Mrs. Pelosi viewed rushing to judgment on bills differently when she was in the minority. In 2004, she unveiled a proposed "Bill of Rights" to protect House minority interests, which included giving members enough time to read bills and a stop to the practice of holding votes open well past the normal 15 minutes. She had a point: In late 2003, Republican leaders held open a roll-call vote on the Medicare drug entitlement for three hours until they bullied enough wavering members into voting aye.
"When we [Democrats] are shut out, they are shutting out the great diversity of America. We want a higher standard," Ms. Pelosi said at the time. In 2006, just before becoming speaker, she reiterated her plans to promote "bipartisanship" and "to ensure the rights of the minority."
That was then. Now Ms. Pelosi is intent on using her political machine to run roughshod over opposition. Republican consultant Alex Castellanos notes that Democrats are replicating the worst practices of the Bush Republicans: "It is ironic that Obama and the Democrats are becoming the very thing they worked so hard to reject. Democrats criticized George W. Bush and the Republicans for not listening to Americans and being blindly ideological and inflexible. They might as well put on his swaggering Texas belt-buckle. They have caught the disease they tried to cure."
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Voter intimidation by Obama's goons
**VIDEO** Terrified Voter says NJ Dems Using Gangbangers for GOTV
November 3, 2009 by EJ
How would you like to be a New Jersey police officer and look out your window and see several known criminals, including a man you arrested several weeks ago and another who had just been released from prison for shooting a cop? And then find out that the men were sent into the neighborhood by the Democratic Party for GOTV operations - complete with lists of voters names, addresses and phones numbers!
That is what happened Sunday on a quiet street in Morris Township. The officer, who’s name we are with holding, specifically heard the men discussing that he was a police officer and that they now know where he lives. The officer confronted the men and they took off. He contacted the local police who responded and caught up with them and about a dozen other men a few blocks away. According to the police report, the men were known criminals and when asked why they were in the neighborhood they stated they were
“campaigning for the Democratic Party.”
Below is an interview with another Morris Township resident who also witnessed the gangbangers going door to door. She contacted a local Democratic Party Official who sent her an email stating
“Thanks for writing. Yes, I heard about this and am very sorry for the incident.”
Shockingly, this isn’t the first time New Jersey Democrats have used gang bangers for GOTV. According to this story on PolitickerNJ, the Bloods Street gang stole $6000 from the NJ Democratic State Committee through a check fraud scheme. NJ Democratic Party Chairman Joseph Cryan said “that checks were copied from payments sent out for the party’s 2006 field operation.”
It’s 9:00 AM and things are just heating up in Jersey.
Share and Enjoy
November 3, 2009 by EJ
How would you like to be a New Jersey police officer and look out your window and see several known criminals, including a man you arrested several weeks ago and another who had just been released from prison for shooting a cop? And then find out that the men were sent into the neighborhood by the Democratic Party for GOTV operations - complete with lists of voters names, addresses and phones numbers!
That is what happened Sunday on a quiet street in Morris Township. The officer, who’s name we are with holding, specifically heard the men discussing that he was a police officer and that they now know where he lives. The officer confronted the men and they took off. He contacted the local police who responded and caught up with them and about a dozen other men a few blocks away. According to the police report, the men were known criminals and when asked why they were in the neighborhood they stated they were
“campaigning for the Democratic Party.”
Below is an interview with another Morris Township resident who also witnessed the gangbangers going door to door. She contacted a local Democratic Party Official who sent her an email stating
“Thanks for writing. Yes, I heard about this and am very sorry for the incident.”
Shockingly, this isn’t the first time New Jersey Democrats have used gang bangers for GOTV. According to this story on PolitickerNJ, the Bloods Street gang stole $6000 from the NJ Democratic State Committee through a check fraud scheme. NJ Democratic Party Chairman Joseph Cryan said “that checks were copied from payments sent out for the party’s 2006 field operation.”
It’s 9:00 AM and things are just heating up in Jersey.
Share and Enjoy
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Democrats admit paying for pro-Daggett call; Obama records robocall for Corzine | Politicker NJ | New Jersey Politics News, Reaction, and Analysis
Democrats admit paying for pro-Daggett call; Obama records robocall for Corzine
By Matt Friedman, PolitickerNJ.com Reporter
The Democratic State Committee now admits paying for a robocall to Somerset County voters that slams Republican Chris Christie and promotes independent gubernatorial candidate Christopher Daggett.
A Democratic spokeswoman says the party’s chairman, Joe Cryan, was not aware of the robocalls when he denied that the state committee had anything to do with them yesterday afternoon.
Cryan, who told PolitickerNJ.com yesterday afternoon that the Democratic State Committee had “absolutely” nothing to do with the call, could not immediately be reached for comment.
The call angered Republicans and further fueled conspiracy theories that Daggett is in cahoots with the Corzine camp. A disclaimer at the end says it was paid for by Victory ’09, “a project of the NJDSC” (Democratic State Committee), and gave the committee’s Trenton address. .....read the rest here:
Democrats admit paying for pro-Daggett call; Obama records robocall for Corzine | Politicker NJ | New Jersey Politics News, Reaction, and Analysis
By Matt Friedman, PolitickerNJ.com Reporter
The Democratic State Committee now admits paying for a robocall to Somerset County voters that slams Republican Chris Christie and promotes independent gubernatorial candidate Christopher Daggett.
A Democratic spokeswoman says the party’s chairman, Joe Cryan, was not aware of the robocalls when he denied that the state committee had anything to do with them yesterday afternoon.
Cryan, who told PolitickerNJ.com yesterday afternoon that the Democratic State Committee had “absolutely” nothing to do with the call, could not immediately be reached for comment.
The call angered Republicans and further fueled conspiracy theories that Daggett is in cahoots with the Corzine camp. A disclaimer at the end says it was paid for by Victory ’09, “a project of the NJDSC” (Democratic State Committee), and gave the committee’s Trenton address. .....read the rest here:
Democrats admit paying for pro-Daggett call; Obama records robocall for Corzine | Politicker NJ | New Jersey Politics News, Reaction, and Analysis
Sunday, October 25, 2009
...World on shoulders II...
It's not just the original birth certificate that they're refusing to release. Barack Obama's legal team has spent, according to published reports, over $1.4 million dollars so far to STOP anyone from seeing ANY of his actual identification documents, and many other documents.
WHAT is Barack Obama trying to hide? WHAT is he afraid of? WHY doesn't he just release these documents to prove whether he is a natural-born citizen and therefore qualified serve as President -- especially his actual birth certificate?
When Barack Obama officially entered the office of President, he became, in essence, apparently, a "pretender to the throne." According to the Constitution, only a "natural born citizen" can occupy the presidency.
WHAT is Barack Obama trying to hide? WHAT is he afraid of? WHY doesn't he just release these documents to prove whether he is a natural-born citizen and therefore qualified serve as President -- especially his actual birth certificate?
When Barack Obama officially entered the office of President, he became, in essence, apparently, a "pretender to the throne." According to the Constitution, only a "natural born citizen" can occupy the presidency.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
...Excuses wearing thin for Obama, media pals...
Have you heard the news? President Obama inherited an economic mess from the Bush administration....
Monday, October 19, 2009
...Illegal aliens murder 12 Americans daily...
Illegal aliens murder 12 Americans daily
Death toll in 2006 far overshadows total U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, Afghanistan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 28, 2006
1:00 am Eastern
By Joseph Farah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – While the military "quagmire" in Iraq was said to tip the scales of power in the U.S. midterm elections, most Americans have no idea more of their fellow citizens – men, women and children – were murdered this year by illegal aliens than the combined death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since those military campaigns began.
Though no federal statistics are kept on murders or any other crimes committed by illegal aliens, a number of groups have produced estimates based on data collected from prisons, news reports and independent research.
Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That's 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.
Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense.
(Story continues below)
But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.
While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers – for another annual death toll of 4,745. That's 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.
While no one – in or out of government – tracks all U.S. accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year's 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens.
A report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study found 20 percent of fatal accidents involve at least one driver who lacks a valid license. In California, another study showed that those who have never held a valid license are about five times more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than licensed drivers.
Statistically, that makes them an even greater danger on the road than drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked – and nearly as dangerous as drunk drivers.
King also reports eight American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day – a total of 2,920 annually.
Based on a one-year in-depth study, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each. She analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.
As the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. increases, so does the number of American victims.
According to Edwin Rubenstien, president of ESR Research Economic Consultants, in Indianapolis in 1980, federal and state correctional facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. But at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in all U.S. jails and prisons.
While the federal government doesn't track illegal alien murders, illegal alien rapes or illegal alien drunk driving deaths, it has studied illegal aliens incarcerated in U.S. prisons.
In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report on a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003. It found the following:
The 55,322 illegal aliens studied represented a total of 459,614 arrests – some eight arrests per illegal alien;
Their arrests represented a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses – some 13 offenses per illegal alien;
36 percent had been arrested at least five times before.
"While the vast majority of illegal aliens are decent people who work hard and are only trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, (something you or I would probably do if we were in their place), it is also a fact that a disproportionately high percentage of illegal aliens are criminals and sexual predators," states Peter Wagner, author of a new report called "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration." "That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration and when we allow the 'good' in we get the 'bad' along with them. The question is, how much 'bad' is acceptable and at what price?"
Sunday, October 18, 2009
...The Marxist Fascists have been here for 40+ years...
-By Peter Berkowitz
Professors have a professional interest in—indeed a professional duty to uphold—liberty of thought and discussion. But in recent years, precisely where they should be most engaged and outspoken they have been apathetic and inarticulate. ...read the rest of the story here.
ASSOCIATED PRESS:
LOS ANGELES — A Southern California immigrant rights group yesterday asked the Target store chain and a costume company to stop selling an "illegal alien" Halloween costume it said is offensive to immigrants....continue here
Professors have a professional interest in—indeed a professional duty to uphold—liberty of thought and discussion. But in recent years, precisely where they should be most engaged and outspoken they have been apathetic and inarticulate. ...read the rest of the story here.
ASSOCIATED PRESS:
LOS ANGELES — A Southern California immigrant rights group yesterday asked the Target store chain and a costume company to stop selling an "illegal alien" Halloween costume it said is offensive to immigrants....continue here
Thursday, October 15, 2009
U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects - Washington Times
...those disgusting creatures in power do us one more time.
U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects - Washington Times
U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects - Washington Times
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
...Al Goreleone lying chickenshit...
Al Gore's First (and Probably Last) Q&A
A Nobel Prize winner takes a few questions.. .
By JOHN FUND
Before President Obama won his Nobel Peace Prize, the real signal that the Norwegian Nobel committee had become politicized was its 2007 prize to Al Gore, largely for his global warming film "An Inconvenient Truth."
For a public figure, Mr. Gore has been strangely reluctant to answer questions or debate the more controversial parts of his work. But over the weekend, he deigned to take a few questions during a meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists in Madison, Wisconsin.
Irish documentary filmmaker Phelim McAleer was in the line. A former Financial Times journalist, his new film, "Not Evil, Just Wrong," is a direct refutation of Mr. Gore's thesis and warns that rushing to judgment in combating climate change would threaten the world's poor. When his turn came, Mr. McAleer asked Mr. Gore about a court case in Britain in which a parent had objected to "An Inconvenient Truth" being shown to British schoolchildren because it was largely propaganda, not science.
Mr. Gore swatted away the question by claiming the judge had found in favor of his film. He also briefly addressed one of the objections to his film by scoffing at claims that polar bears weren't an endangered species. Mr. McAleer tried to follow up by pointing out that polar bear populations were increasing, but his microphone was quickly cut off. Organizers insisted that several other people were waiting with questions and they had to move on.
In fact, Mr. Gore didn't answer Mr. McAleer's question and was wrong on the facts. The British court found that An Inconvenient Truth "is a political film" riddled with scientific errors. The judge also held that requiring the film to be shown in schools would be a violation of law, unless accompanied by "guidance" pointing out its errors. The judge concluded that the claimant who objected to the film "substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act."
As for polar bears, Mr. McAleer was correct: Surveys show their numbers are increasing.
Mr. McAleer, whose film premiers this weekend, says he's more disappointed in the environmental journalists who give Mr. Gore cover than in the former vice president. Mr. Gore is simply doing what any propagandist with a weak case would do -- avoiding serious debate or exchange. To quote the late William F. Buckley, "There is a reason that baloney rejects the grinder."
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
www.djreprints.com
A Nobel Prize winner takes a few questions.. .
By JOHN FUND
Before President Obama won his Nobel Peace Prize, the real signal that the Norwegian Nobel committee had become politicized was its 2007 prize to Al Gore, largely for his global warming film "An Inconvenient Truth."
For a public figure, Mr. Gore has been strangely reluctant to answer questions or debate the more controversial parts of his work. But over the weekend, he deigned to take a few questions during a meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists in Madison, Wisconsin.
Irish documentary filmmaker Phelim McAleer was in the line. A former Financial Times journalist, his new film, "Not Evil, Just Wrong," is a direct refutation of Mr. Gore's thesis and warns that rushing to judgment in combating climate change would threaten the world's poor. When his turn came, Mr. McAleer asked Mr. Gore about a court case in Britain in which a parent had objected to "An Inconvenient Truth" being shown to British schoolchildren because it was largely propaganda, not science.
Mr. Gore swatted away the question by claiming the judge had found in favor of his film. He also briefly addressed one of the objections to his film by scoffing at claims that polar bears weren't an endangered species. Mr. McAleer tried to follow up by pointing out that polar bear populations were increasing, but his microphone was quickly cut off. Organizers insisted that several other people were waiting with questions and they had to move on.
In fact, Mr. Gore didn't answer Mr. McAleer's question and was wrong on the facts. The British court found that An Inconvenient Truth "is a political film" riddled with scientific errors. The judge also held that requiring the film to be shown in schools would be a violation of law, unless accompanied by "guidance" pointing out its errors. The judge concluded that the claimant who objected to the film "substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act."
As for polar bears, Mr. McAleer was correct: Surveys show their numbers are increasing.
Mr. McAleer, whose film premiers this weekend, says he's more disappointed in the environmental journalists who give Mr. Gore cover than in the former vice president. Mr. Gore is simply doing what any propagandist with a weak case would do -- avoiding serious debate or exchange. To quote the late William F. Buckley, "There is a reason that baloney rejects the grinder."
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
www.djreprints.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
